gloriari nisi in cruce God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse onely Why did he not rather say Absit mihi gloriari nisi in caena Domini God forbid that I should reioice but in the Lords supper wherat as you say the promise of life was fulfilled This is godly doctrine for such men to make as being ignorant in Gods word wander in fantasies of their own deuises and putantes se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt But the true faithfull beleeuing man professeth that Christ by his death ouercame him that was the Author of death and hath reconcyled vs to hys Father making vs his children and heires of his kingdome that as many as beleue in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting Thus saith the true christian man putting his hope of life and eternall saluation neither in Christes supper although the same be to him a great confirmation of his faith nor in any thing els but with S. Paul faith Mihi absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri Iesus Christi God saue me that I reioyce in nothing but in the crosse of our Lord Iesu Christ. And when this true beleeuing man commeth to the Lordes Supper according to Christes commaundement receaueth the bread broaken in remembrance that Christes body was broaken for him vpon the crosse and drinketh the wine in remembrance of the effusion of Christes bloud for his sinnes and vnfaynedly beleeueth the same to him the words of our Sauyour Christ be effectuous and operatory Take eate this is my body which is geuen for thee And drinke of this for this is my bloud which is shed for thee to the remission of thy sinnes And as S. Paul saith the bread vnto him is the communion of Christes body and the wine the communiō of his bloud For the effect of his godly eating as you truely herein gather of S. Paules wordes is the communication of Christes body and bloud but to the faithfull receauer and not to the dumme creatures of bread and wine vnder whose formes the catholick faith teacheth not the body and bloud of Christ inuisibly to be hidden And as to the godly eater who duely esteemeth Christes body and hath it in such price and estimation as he ought to haue the effect is the communication of Christes body so to the wicked eater the effect is damnation and euerlasting woe And now I am glad that here your selfe haue found out a warrante for the apparrell of bread and wine that they shall not goe altogether naked be nude and bare tokens but haue promyses of effectuall significatiō which now you haue spyed out both in the wordes of Christ and S. Paule Now for the ambiguity of Christes speeches it is not alwayes true that such speaches of Christ as might haue ambiguity the Euangelistes either plainly or by circumstāces open them For Christ speaking so many things in parables similies allegories metaphores and other tropes and figures although sometime Christ himselfe and sometime the Euangelistes open the meaning yet for the most parte the meaning is left to the iudgement of the hearers without any declaration As when Christ sayd gird your loines and take light candles in your handes And when he sayde No man that setteth his hand to the plough and looketh behind him is meet for the kingdome of God And when he sayd Except the grayne of wheate falling vpon the ground dye it remayneth sole And as S. Mathew sayeth Christ spake not to the people without parables that the Scriptures might be fulfilled which prophecyed of Christ that he should open his mouth in parables And although some of his parables Christ opened to the people some to his Apostles onely yet some he opened to neither of both as can appeare but lefte them to be considered by the discretion of the hearers And when Christ called Herod a Foxe Iudas a Deuill himself a Dore a way a Uine a well Neither he nor the Euangelistes expounded these wordes nor gaue warning to the hearers that he spake in figures For euery man that had any manner of sence or reason might wel perceaue that these sentences could not be true in playn forme of wordes as they were spoaken For who is so ignorant but he knoweth that a mā is not a Foxe a Deuil A Dore a Way a Uine a Well And so likewise when Christ brake the bread and commaunded his disciples to eate it and sayd This is my body and of the wine he said Deuide it among you drinke it this is my bloud No man that was there present was so fond but he knew well that the bread was not Christes body nor the wine his bloud And therfore they might well know that Christ called the bread his body and the wine his bloud for some figure similitude and property of the bread and wine vnto his flesh and bloud For as bread and wine be foodes to nourish our bodies so is the flesh and bloud of our Sauyour Christ being annexed vnto his Deity the euerlasting food of our soules And although the Euangelistes in that place doe not fully expresse the words in this sence yet adioyning the sixt chapter of Iohn speaking of the spirituall manduratiō of Christ to the circumstances of the text in the three Euangelistes reciting Christs last Supper the wholl matter is fully gathered as olde authors of the Church haue declared For doe not the circūstances of the texte both before and after the eating and drinking declare that there is very bread and wine Is not that which is broken and eaten bread And that which is deuided dronken And the fruit of the vine is it not very wine And doth not the nature of Sacramentes require that the sensible elements should remain in their proper nature to signifie an higher mistery and secret working of God inwardly as the sensible elementes be ministred outwardly And is not the visible and corporall feeding vpō bread and wine a conuenient and apte figure and similitude to put vs in remembraunce and to admonish vs how we be fedde inuisibly and spiritually by the flesh and bloud of Christ God and man And is not the Sacrament taken away when the element is taken away Or can the accidents of the element be the Sacrament of substanciall feeding Or did euer any olde author say that the accidentes were the Sacramentall signes without the substances But for the conclusion of your matter here I would wish that you would once truely vnderstand me For I doe not say that Christes body bloud be geuen to vs in signification and not in deed But I doe as plainly speake as I can that Christes body and bloud be geuen to vs in deede yet not corporally and carnally but spiritually and effectually as you confesse your selfe within twelue lines after Winchester The Author vttereth a great many wordes from the eyght to the seuententh chapiter
say Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine and for an aduersatiue therto I say that we which follow the Scriptures and aūcient writers say that he is receaued in the harte and entreth in by faith euery indifferent Reader vnderstandeth this aduersatiue vpon our side that we say Christ is not receaued in the mouth but in the hart specially seeing that in my fourth booke the second and third chapters I make purposely a processe therof to proue that Christ is not eaten with mouthes and teeth And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute vnto me in this comparison to make the comparison more full and plain let this be the comparison They say that Christ is receiued with the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine we say that he is not receaued with the mouth but with harte and entreth in by faith And now I trust there is no sleight in this comparison nor both the partes may not be vnderstand on both sides as you say they might before And as for S. Augustine serueth nothing for your purpose to proue that Christes body is eaten with the mouth For he speaketh not one word in the place by you alleadged neither of our mouthes nor of Christes body But it seemeth you haue so feruent desire to be doing in this matter that you be like to certain men which haue such a fond delight in shooting that so they be doyng they passe not how farre they shoote from the marke For in this place of S. Augustine against the Donatists he shooteth not at this butte whether Christes very naturall body be receaued with our mouthes but whether the Sacramentes in generall be receaued both of good and euill And there he declareth that it is all one water whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned in it All one Table of the Lord and one cup whether Peter suppe thereat or Iudas All one oyle whether Dauid or Saule were annointed therewith Wherfore he concludeth thus Memento ergo Sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum quo illa vel omnino non sint vel minus sancta sint sed ipsis malis hominibus vt haec habeant ad testimonium damnationis non ad adiutorium sanitatis Remēber therfore saith S. Augustine that the manners of euill men hinder not the Sacramentes of God that either they vtterly be not or be lesse holy but they hinder the euill men them selues so that they haue the Sacramentes to witnesse of their damnatiō not to helpe of their saluation And all the processe spoaken there by S. Augustine is spoaken chiefly of Baptisme against the Donatistes which sayd that the Baptisme was naught if either the minister or the receauer were naught Against whom S. Augustine concludeth that the Sacramentes of themselues be holy and be all one whether the minister or receauer be good or bad But this place of S. Augustine prooueth as wel your purpose that Christes body is receaued by the mouth as it prooueth that Poules steeple is higher then the crosse in Cheape For he speaketh not one worde of any of them al. And therefore in this place where you pretēd to shoote at the butte you shoote quite at rouers and cleane from the marke And yet if Iudas receaued Christ with the bread as you say and the deuil entred with the bread as S. Iohn saith then was the deuil and Christ in Iudas both at once And thē how they agreed I meruaile For S. Paul saith that Christ and Beliall cannot agree O what a wit had he neede to haue that will wittingly maintayn an open error directly against God his word and all holy auncient writers Now followeth the fourth comparison in my booke They say that Christ is really in the Sacramentall bread being reserued a wholl yeare or so long as the forme of bread remayneth But after the receauing thereof he flyeth vp say they from the Receauer vnto heauen as soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. Winchester This comparison is like the other before whereof the first parte is garnished and embossed with vntruth and the second parte is that the Church hath euer taught most truely and that all must beleeue and therefore that peece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the manner onely bring spoaken as though it differed from the continuall open teaching of the Church which is not so Wherefore in the manner of it in vtterance signifieth an vntruth which in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoubtedly Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the Sacrament so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. In this first parte there is a fault in the matter of the spéech for explication whereof I will examine it particularly This Author saith they say that Christ is really in the Sacramental bread being reserued an wholl yeare c. The Church geuing faith to Christes word when he said This is my body c. teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread vnto which wordes when doe put the word really it serueth onely to expresse that truth in open wordes which was before to be vnderstanded in sence For in Christ who was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and who did exhibite and gaue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promysed in his Sacramentes of the olde law We must vnderstand his wordes in the institution of his Sacramentes without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing of them and therefore when be ordered his most precious body and bloud to be eaten and druken of vs vnder the formes of bread and wine we professe and beléeue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the Sacrament for a celestiall foode to comforte and strengthen vs in this miserable life And for certainty of the truth of his worke therein we professe he geueth vs his body really that is to say in déed his body the thing it selfe which is the heauenly parte of the Sacrament called Eucharistia hauing the visible forme of bread and wine and contayning inuisibly the very body and bloud of our Sauyour Christ which was not wonte to be reserued otherwise but to be ready for such as in daunger of death call for it and the same so long as it may be vsed is still the same Sacrament which onely tyme altereth not Whereof Cirill wrote to this sence many hundred yeares past and Hesychius also and what ought to be done when by negligence of the mynister it were reserued ouerlong Mary where it liketh the Author of these differences to say the church teacheth Christ to flée vp from the
is a truth And therefore if I make a lye herein as Smyth saith I doe yet I lie not alone but haue you to beare me company And yet once again more may the reader here note how the Papists vary among them selues And it is vntrue that you say that good men beleeue vpon the credit of Christ that there is truely in the Sacrament the very true body of Christ. For Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud which as the old authors say must needs be vnderstanded figuratiuely but he neuer sayd that his true body is truely in the Sacrament as you here report of him And the manner of his presence you call so high a mistery that the carnall man can not reach it And in deed as you fayne the matter it is so high a mistery that neuer man could reach it but your selfe alone For you make the manner of Christes being in the Sacrament so spirituall that you say his flesh bloud and bones be there really and carnally and yet you confesse in your booke that you neuer red any old author that so said And this manner of handling of so pure a mistery is neither godly foolishnes nor worldly but rather a meere fransy and madnesse And although the scripture speak of Christes body to be eaten of vs yet that is vnderstanded of spiritual and not of corporall eating and of spirituall not of corporall presence The scripture sayth that Christ hath forspoken the world and is ascended into heauen Upon which words S. Augustine Uigilius and other auncient authors do proue that as concerning the nature of his manhode Christ is gone hence and is not here as I declared in my 3. booke the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters And where you thinke that this manner of speech was neuer red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity I am sure that it was neuer red in any approued author that Christ hath his proper forme and quantitie in the sacrament And Duns saith that his quantitie is in heauen and not in the Sacrament And when I say that Christ is in the Sacrament Sacramentally and without forme and quantitie who would thinke any man so captious so ignorant or so full of sophistry to draw my wordes to the forme of Christs diuinitie which I speake most plainly of the forme and quantity of his body and humanitie as I haue before declared And although some other might be so farre ouerseen yet specially you ought not so to take my words Forasmuch as you sayd not past 16. lynes before that my wordes seeme to implye that I ment of Christes humayne body And because it may appeare how truely and faithfully you reporte my words you adde this word all which is more then I speake and marteth all the wholl matter And you gather therof such absurdities as I neuer spake but as you sophistically doe gather to make a great matter◠of nothing And where of this word there you would conclude repugnaunce in my doctrine that where in other places I haue written that Christ is spiritually present in them that receaue the sacrament and not in the sacramentes of bread and wine and now it should seeme that I teach contrary that Christ is spiritually present in the very bread and wine if you pleased to vnderstād my wordes rightly there is no repugnaunce in my words at al. For by this word there I meane not in the Sacraments of bread and wine but in the ministration of the Sacrament as the olde authors for the most part when they speake of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament they meane in the ministration of the Sacrament Which my saying varyeth from no doctrine that I haue taught in any part of my booke Now followeth the tenth comparyson They say that the fathers and Prophets of the old Testament did not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ. We say that they did eat his body and drink his bloud although he was not yet borne nor incarnated Winchester This comparison of difference is clerkly conueyed as it were of a riddle wherin nay and yea when they be opened agrée and consent The fathers did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in the truth of promise which was effectuall to them of redemption to be wrought not in trueth of presence as we do for confirmation of redemption already wrought They had a certayn promyse and we a certayne present payment they did eat Christ spiritually beleeuing in him that was to come but they did not eat Christes body present in the Sacrament sacramentally and spiritually as we do Their Sacramentes were figures of the thinges but ours conteyn the very things And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned mē it may be verefied that the fathers did eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud yet there is no such forme of words in scripture and it is more agreeable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the fathers before Christes natiuitie did not eat the body and bloud of Christ which body and bloud Christ himselfe truely tooke of the body of the virgin Mary For although S. Paule in the tenth to the Corrinthians be so vnderstanded of some as the fathers should eat the same spirituall meat and drink the same spirituall drink that we do to which vnderstanding all doe not agrée yet following that vnderstanding we may not so presse the words as there should be no difference at al and this one difference S. Augustine noteth how their sacraments conteined the promise of that which in our sacrament is geuen Thus he sayth And this is euident of it selfe how to vs in the holy supper Christ saith This is my body that shal be betraied for you take eat which was neuer said to the fathers although their faith in substaunce agréed with ours hauing al one Christ and mediator which they looked for to come and we acknowledge to be already come come and to come as S. August saith differeth But Christ is one by whom all was created and mans fall repayred from whom is all féeding corporal spiritual in whom all is restored in heauē in earth In this faith of Christ the fathers were fed with heauenly spirituall food which was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ and redemption by them hoped which is atchieued by the mistery of the body and bloud of Christ by reason wherof I deny not but it may be said in a good sense how they did eat the body and bloud of Christ before he was incarnat but as I sayd before Scripture speaketh not so and it is no holsome fashion of spéech at this time which furthereth in sound to the eares of the rude the pestilent heresie wherin Ione of Kent obstinately dyed that is to say that Christ tooke nothing of the Uirgine but brought his body with him from aboue beyng a thing worthy to be noted how
declaration of his will wherby we might be the more assured of the effect of his death which he suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption of the world with a most perfect oblatiō and satisfaction for the sinnes of the world exhibited and offered by him to God the father for the reconciliation of mannes nature to Gods fauor and grace And this I write because this author speaketh so precisely how Christ offred himselfe neuer but once Wherby if he mean by once offering the hole action of our redemption which was consummate and perfected vpon the crosse All must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption by the oblation of Christ on the crosse to haue béene absolutely finished and so once offered for all But there is no Scripture whereupon we might conclude that Christ did in this mortall life but in one particular moment of time offer himselfe to his Father For S. Paul describeth it to the Philippians vnder the word of humiliation to haue continued the wholl time of Christes conuersation here euen to the death the death of the crosse And that this obedience to God in humilitie is called offering appeareth by S. Paule when he exhorted vs to offer our bodies which meaneth a continuall obedience in the obseruation of Gods will and he calleth oblationem gentium to bringe them to the faith And Abrahams willing obedience ready at Gods commaundement to offer Isaac is called the offering of Isaac and is in very deede a true offering And euery man offereth himself to God when he yealdeth to Gods calling and presenteth himselfe ready to doe Gods will and commaundement who then may be said to offer his seruice that is to say to place his seruice in sight and before him before whom it should be done And because our Sauiour Christ by the decrée of the wholl Trinity tooke mannes nature vpon him to suffer death for our redemption which death in his last Supper he declared plainly he would suffer We reade in S. Ciprian how Christ offered himselfe in his supper fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech who by the offring of bread wine signified that high mistery of Christs Supper in which Christ vnder the forme of bread and wine gaue his very body bloud to be eaten and dronken and in the geuing therof declared the determination of his glorious passion and the fruit and effect therof Which doing was a swéete and pleasant oblation to God the Father conteyning a most perfect obedience to Gods will and pleasure And in the mistery of this Supper was written made and sealed a most perfect testimony for an effectuall memory of Christes offering of him selfe to his Father of his death and passion with the fruite therof And therfore Christ ordayned this Supper to be obserued and continued for a memory of his comming So as we that saw not with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion may in the celebration of the Supper be most surely ascertayned of the truth out of Christes own mouth who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church This is my body that is betrayed for you This is my bloud that is shead for you in remission of sinne and therewith maketh his very body and his precious bloud truely present to be taken of vs eaten and dronken Whereby we be assured that Christ is the same to vs that he was to them and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them offereth himselfe to his Father for vs as well as for them declareth his will in the fruite of his death to pertayne as well to vs as to them Of which death we be assured by his own mouth that he suffred the same to the effect he spake of and the continuall feding in this high mistery of the same very body that suffred and féeding of it without consumption being continually exhibited vnto vs a liuing body and a liuely bloud not onely our soule is specially and spiritually cōforted our body therby reduced to more cōformable obedience to the soule but also we by the participation of this most precious body bloud be ascertained of the resurrection and regeneration of our bodies and flesh to be by Gods power made incorruptible and immortall to liue and haue fruition in God with our soules for euer Wherefore hauing this mistery of Christes Supper so many truthes in it the Church hath celebrate thē all and knowledged them all of one certainty in truth not as figures but really and in déede that is to say as our bodies shal be in the generall resurrection regenerate in déede so we beléeue we feede here of Christes body in deede And as it is true that Christes body in déede is betrayed for vs so it is true that he geueth vs to eate his very body in déede And as it is true that Christ was in earth did celebrate this Supper so it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrated by vs till he come And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotent and very man so it is true that he could doe that he affirmed by his word him selfe to doe And as he is most sincéere truth so may we be truly assured that he would and did as he said And as it is true that he is most iust so it is true that he assisteth the doing of his commaundement in the celebration of the holy Supper And therfore as he is author of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and bloud so is he the maker of it and is the inuisible priest who as Emissene saith by his secret power with his word changeth the visible creatures into the substance of his body bloud Wherin man the visible priest and minister by order of the church is onely a dispencer of the mistery doing and saying as the holy ghost hath taught the church to doe and say Finally as we be taught by faith all these to be true so when wanton reason faith being aslepe goeth about by curiositie to empaire any one of these truthes the chain is broaken the linkes sparckle abroad and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at Truthes haue béene abused but yet they be true as they were before for no man can make that is true false and abuse is mannes fault not the thinges Scripture in spéeche geueth to man as Gods minister the name of that action which God specially worketh in that mistery So it pleaseth God to honor the ministery of man in his Church by whom it also pleaseth him to worke effectually And Christ said they that beleue in me shall doe the workes that I doe and greater When all this honor is geuen to man as spiritually to regenerate when the minister saith I baptise thée and to remitte sinne to such as fall after to be also a minister in consecration of Christes most precious body with the ministration of other Sacramentes benediction
reader the sayinges of these authors and see whether they say that one nature in Christ may be both in heauen and in earth both here with vs and absent from vs at one tyme and whether they resolue this matter of Christs being in heauen and in earth as Smith doth to be vnderstand of his māhoode in diuersitie of these respectes visible and inuisible And when thou hast well considered the authors sayinges then geue credite to Smith as thou shalt see cause But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hote that the Bishop of Winchester durste not once touch it and Smith as soone as he had touched it felt it so scawlding hote that he durst not abyde it but shranke away by and by for feare of burning his fingers Now here what followeth further in my booke But now seeing that it is so euident a matter both by the expresse words of Scripture and also by all the old authors of the same that our Sauiour Christ as concerning his bodely presence is ascended into heauen and is not here in earth And seeing that this hath been the true confession of the Catholicke faith euer since Christes ascention it is now to be considered what mooued the Papistes to make a new and contrary faith and what Scriptures haue they for their purpose What moued them I know not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condition of the sea of Rome which is of al other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for Scripture they alleadge none but onely one and that not truely vnderstanded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to iarre and sound contrary to all other Scriptures pertaining to the matter Christ toke bread say they blessed brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body These words they euer still repeate and beate vpon that Christ sayd this is my body And this saying they make their shooteanker to proue therby as well the reall and naturall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these words of Christ say they be most plain and most true Then for as much as he said This is my body it must needes be true that that thing which the Priest holdeth is his hands is Christs body And if it be Christes body then can it not be bread Whereof they gather by their reasoning that there is Christes body really present and noe bread Now forasmuch as all their proofe hangeth onely vpon these wordes this is my body the true sence and meaning of these wordes must be examined But say they what neede they any examination what wordes can be more plain then to say This is my body Truth it is in deed that the wordes be as plain as may be spoaken but that the sence is not so plain it is manifest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For when Christ gaue bread to his disciples and said This is my body there is no man of any discretiō that vnderstandeth the english tongue but he may well know by the order of the speache that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the old authors also do affirme although some of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the wordes seeme and purport but there must needes be some figure or mistery in this speech more then appeareth in the playne wordes For by this manner of speeche plainly vnderstand without any figure as the wordes lye can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread which all Christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherefore in these wordes must needes be sought out another sence meaning then the words of themselues do beare And although the true sense and vnderstanding of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the matter so playne that no scrouple or doubt shall remayne here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whiche processe shal be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speches And although it be manifest inough by the playn wordes of the gospel and proued before in the processe of Transubstantiation that Christ spake of bread when he sayd This is my body likewise that it was very wyne which he called his bloud yet least the Papistes should say that we sucke this out of our own fyngers the same shall be proued by testimony of the old authors to be the true and old fayth of the catholicke Church Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any auncient author to the contrary First Ireneus writing against the Valentinians in his fourth booke sayeth that Christ confessed bread which is a creature to be his body and the cuppe to be his bloud And in the same booke he writeth thus also The bread wherin the thanks be geuen is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same booke he saith that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice was his bloud And in the fift booke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his body a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plain that Christ taking very materiall bread a creature of God and of such sort as other bread is which we doe vse called that his body when he said this is my body and the wine also which doth feede and nourish vs he called his bloud Tertullian likewise in his booke written against the Iewes saith that Christ called bread his body And in his booke against Martian he oftentimes repeateth the selfe same wordes And S. Cipryan in the first booke of his epistles saith the same thing that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he called his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes and made into mine And in his second booke he saith these wordes Water is not the bloud of Christ but wine And againe in the same epistle he saith that it was wine which Christ called hys bloud and that if wine be not in the chalice then we drinke not of the fruit of the vine And in the same Epistle he saith that meale alone or water clone is not the body of Christ except they be both ioyned together to make therof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speaking of a lofe which is round in fashion and cannot see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierome wryting ad Hedibiam saith
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 giue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely their owne bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now it shall not be much amisse to examine here the wise deuise of M. Smith what he can say to this matter that the opinion of diuers Doctours may be knowen as well of Doctour Smith as of Doctour Gardyner It is very false sayth Smith to me that you do say that as these wordes This is my body do lye there cā be gathered of them none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread For there can no such thing be gathered of those wordes but onely that Christ gaue his disciples his very body to eat into which he had turned the bread when he spake those wordes First Smith vseth here a great and manifest falsehead in reciting of my sentence leauing out those wordes which should declare the truth of my saying For I say that by this maner of speache playnly vnderstand without any figure there can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body In which my sentence he leaueth out these wordes by this maner of spech playnly vnderstand without any figure which wordes be so materiall that in them resteth the pith and triall of the whole sentence When Christ tooke the v. loaues and ij fishes and looking vp into heauen blessed them and brake them and gaue them vnto his disciples that they should distribute them vnto the people if he had then said Eate this is meate which shall satisfie your hunger by this maner of speach playnly vnderstand without any figure could any other sence haue been gathered but that the bread and fishes which he gaue them was meate And if at the same tyme he had blessed wine and commaunding them to drinke therof had sayd This is drinke which shall quench your thirst what could haue been gathered of those wordes playnly vnderstand without any figure but that he called wine drinke So lykewise when he blessed bread and wine and gaue them to his disciples saying Eate thys is my body Drinke this is my bloud what can be gathered of this maner of speach playnly vnderstād without any figure but that he called the bread his body wine his bloud For Christ spake not one word there of any changyng or turning of the substaūce of the bread no more then he did when he gaue the loaues fishes And therfore the maner of speach is all one and the changing of the substaūces can no more be proued by the phrase and fashion of speach to be in the one then in the other whatsoeuer you Papistes dreame of your owne heades without Scripture that the substaunce of the bread is turned into the substaunce of Christes body But Smith bringeth here newes vsing such strange and noueltie of speache as other Papistes vse not which he doth either of ignoraunce of his Grammar or els that he dissenteth farre from other Papistes in iudgement For he sayth that Christ had turned the bread when he spake these wordes This is my body And if Smith remember his Accidence the preterpluperfect tence signifieth the tyme that is more than perfectly past so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spake those wordes then was the turning done before and already past when he spake those wordes which the other Papistes say was done after or in the pronunciation of the wordes And therfore they vse to speake after this sort that when he had spoken the wordes the bread was turned and not that he had turned the bread when he spake the wordes An other noueltie of speach Smith vseth in the same place saying that Christ called his body bread bycause he turned bread into it it semeth and appeareth still to be it it hath the qualitie and quantitie of bread and bycause it is the foode of the soule as corporall meate is of the body These be Smithes wordes which if he vnderstād of the outward forme of bread it is a noueltie to say that it is the foode of the soule and if he meane of the very body of Christ it is a more strange noueltie to say that it hath the quantitie and qualitie of bread For there was neuer man I trow that vsed that maner of speach to say that the body of Christ hath the quātitie and qualitie of bread although the Papistes vse this spech that the body of Christ is conteined vnder the forme that is to say vnder the quātities and qualities of bread Now when Smith should come to make a direct answere vnto the authorities of the old writers which I haue brought forth to proue that Christ called bread his body when he sayd This is my body Smith answereth no more but this the Doctors which you my Lord alledge here for you proue not your purpose Forsoth a substantiall answer and well proued that the Doctours by me alledged proue not my purpose for Smith sayth so I looked here that Smith should haue brought forth a great number of authors to approue his saying and to reproue mine specially seing that I offered fayre play to him and to all the Papists ioyned with him in one trowpe For after that I had alledged for the proofe of my purpose a great many places of old authors both Greekes and Latines I prouoked the Papistes to say what they could to the contrary Let all the Papistes together sayd I shew any one authoritie for them either of Scripture or auncient Author eyther Greeke or Latin and for my part I shall giue them place And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie then is it reason that they giue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of Scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now I referre to thy iudgement indifferent reader whether I offered the Papistes reason or no and whether they ought not if they had any thing to shew to haue brought it forth here And for as much as they haue brought nothing being thus prouoked with all their counsayle whether thou oughtest not to iudge that they haue nothing in deede to shew which if they had without doubt we should haue hard of it in this place But we heare nothing at all but these their bare wordes not one of all these Doctors sayth as ye do my Lord Which I put in thy discretion indifferent Reader to vew the Doctours wordes by me alleaged and so to iudge But they say not
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
it as appered by the Capharnaites who murmured at it And therfore because onely faythful men can by fayth vnderstand this mistery of the eatyng of Christes flesh in the Sacrament in which we eat not the carnall flesh of a common man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God mā as fayth teacheth It is in that respect well noted for a figuratiue spéech for that it hath such a sence in the letter as is hidden from the vnfaythfull So as the same letter being to faythfull men spirite and life who in humility of fayth vnderstandeth the same is to the faythfull a figure as contayning such a mistery as by the outward barke of the letter they vnderstand not vpon which consideration it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mistery of the Sacrament wherein is a worke of God ineffable such as the Ethnike eares could not abide they termed it a figure not therby to deminish the truth of the mistery as the proper and special name of a figure doth but by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecy apt only to be vnderstanded of men beleuing and therefore the sayd fathers in some part of theyr works in playn words expresse and declare the truth of the mistery the plain doctrine therof according to the Catholick fayth and in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure which consideration in S. Augustines writings may be euidently gathered for in some place no man more playnly openeth the substance of the Sacrament then he doth speaking expressely of the very body and bloud of Christ contayned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not thereby to contrary his other playne sayings and doctrine but meaning by the word figure to signify a secret déep mistery hidden from carnall vnderstanding For auoyding and expelling of which carnallity he geueth this doctrine here of this text Except ye eat c. which as I sayd before in the bare litterall sence implyeth to carnal iudgement other carnall circumstāces to attayne the same flesh to be eaten which in that carnall sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeying of Christes commaundement in the institution of his supper when he himself deliuereth his body and bloud in these misteryes biddeth Eat and drink there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth and therefore S. Augustins rule pertaineth not to Christs supper wherin when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded without carnall thought or murmuring in our sensuall deuise how it can be so And S. Augustin in the fame place speaking De communicando passionibus Christi declareth playnely he meaneth of the Sacrament Caunterbury IF thou takest not very good heed reader thou shalt not perceiue where the cuttill becometh He wrappeth himself so about in darcknesse and he commeth not neere the net by a myle for feare he should be taken But I will draw my net nearer to him that he shall not escape I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud were spoken by a figure and he would auoyd the matter by saying that those words haue a spirituall mistery in them which is most true and nothing contrary to my saying but confirmeth the same For the words of eating and drinking be figuratiue speches because they haue a secret and hid spirituall mistery in them and cannot be taken otherwise then in that spiritual mistery which is a figure And moreouer you plainly here confesse that to eat Christes flesh and to drinke his bloud be figuratiue speches But you trauesse the cause wherfore they be figuratiue speches which is not materiall in this place where my processe is onely to proue that they be figuratiue speches Aud forasmuch as you graūt here all that I take vpon me to proue which is that they be figuratiue speches what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words when we agree in the matter which is here in question And as for the cause of the figure you declare it far otherwise then S. Augustine dooth as the words of S. Augustine do playnely shew to euery indifferent reader For the cause say you is this that in the Sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a commō man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God and man and in that respect it is well noted for a figuratiue spech In which one sentence be three notable errors or vntruthes The first is that you say the letter soundeth than we eat the carnall flesh of a common man which your saying the playne words of the gospell do maniestly reproue For Christ seperating himself in that spech from all other men spake onely of himself saying My flesh is very meat and my blood is very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him The second is that you call the flesh of Christ a spirituall flesh as before you sayd that he is spiritually eaten And so by your doctrine his flesh is spirituall and is spiritually eaten and all is spirituall which hath need of a fauorable interpretation if it should be counted a sound and Catholick teaching And if all be spirituall done spiritually what meaneth it then that in other places you make so often mention that he is present and eaten carnally corporally and naturally The third is that you say the spech of Christ is noted figuratiue in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man which is vtterly vntrue For the authors note not the figuratiue spech in that respect but as christ spake of his owne flesh ioyned vnto his diuinity wherby it geueth lyfe euen so do the authors note a figuratiue spech in respect of Christes owne flesh and say therof that the letter can not be true without a figure For although Christ be both God and man yet his flesh is a very mans flesh and his bloud is truely mans blond as is the flesh bloud of his blessed mother and therfore can not be eaten and drunken properly but by a figure For he is not meat and drink of the body to be eatē corporally with mouth and teeth and to be dygested in the stomack but he is the meat of the soule to be receaued spiritually in our harts minds and to be chawed and digested by fayth And it is vntrue that you here say that the proper and speciall name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mistery For then Christ in vayne did ordayne the figures if they diminish the misteries And the Authors terme it here a figure not therby to couer the mistery but to open the mistery which was in deed in Christs words by fyguratiue speches vnderstand
And with the figuratiue spech were the Ethnik and carnall eares offended not with the mistery which they vnderstood not And not to the Ethnik and carnall but to the faythfull and spirituall eares the wordes of Christ be figuratiue and to them the truth of the figures be playnely opened and declared by the Fathers wherin the Fathers be worthy much commendation because they trauayled to open playnly vnto vs the obscure and figuratiue speches of Christ. And yet in their sayd declarations they taught vs that these words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud are not to be vnderstanded plainly as the words properly signify but by a figuratiue speech Nor S. Augustine neuer wrote in all his long works as you do that Christ is in the sacrament corporally carnally or naturally or that he is so eaten nor I dare boldly say he neuer thought it For if he had he would not haue written so playnly as he doth in the places by me alleadged that we must beware that we take not litterally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely And specially he would not haue expressed by name the wordes of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud and haue sayd that they be figuratiue speches But S. Augustine dooth not onely tell how we may not take those words but also he declareth how we ought to take and vnderstand the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud which as he sayth is this To keep in our mindes to our great comfort profite that Christ was crucified and shed his bloud for vs and so to be partakers of his passion This sayth S. Augustine is to eat his flesh and to drinke his bloud And S. Augustine sayth not as you do that Christes words be figuratiue to the vnfaythfull for they be figuratiue rather to the faythfull then to the vnfaythfull For the vnfaythfull take them for no figure or mistery at all but rather carnally as the Caparnaites did And there is in deede no mistery nor figure in eatyng with the mouth as you say Christes flesh is eaten but in eating with the soule spirite is the figure mistery For the eating and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faythful and vnfaythfull to the carnall and spirituall both vnderstand in like what is eating and drinking with the mouth And therfore in no place do the doctors declare that there is a figure or mistery in eating drinkyng of Christes body with our mouthes or that there is any truth in that mistery but they say cleane contrary that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouthes And if in any place any old author write that there is a figure or mistery in eating and drinking of Christ with our mouthes shew the place if you will haue any credite S. Augustine specially whom you do here alleadge for your purpose sayth directly agaynst you Nolite par are fauces sed cor Prepare not your mouth or iawes but your hart And in an other place he sayth Quid paras ventrem dentem Crede manducasti Why doost thou prepare thy belly and teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten But to auoyde the saying of Saynt Augustine by me alleadged you say that Saynt Augustines rule perteyneth not to Christes supper which your sayeng is so strange that you be the first that euer excluded the words of Christ from his Supper And Saynt Augustine ment as well at the supper as at all other tymes that the eating of Christes flesh is not to be vnderstanded carnally with our teeth as the letter signifieth but spiritually with our mindes as he in the same place declareth And how can it be that Saynt Augustins rule perteineth not to Christs supper when by the rule he expoundeth Christes wordes in the sixt of Ihon which you say Christ spake of his supper Dyd Christ speak of his supper and Saynt Augustines wordes expounding the same perteyn not to the supper You make Saynt Augustine an expositor lyke your selfe that commonly vse to expounde both doctours and scripturs cleane from the purpose eyther for that by lacke of exercise in the Scriptures and Doctours you vnderstand them not or els that for very frowardnes you will not vnderstand any thing that misliketh you And where you say that we must do as Christ commaunded vs without carnall thought or sensuall deuise Is not this a carnall thought and sensuall deuise which you teach that we eat Christ corporally without teeth And contrary to that which you sayd before that Christs body in the sacrament is a spirituall body and eaten onely spiritually Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually I pray you tell me Now thou seest good reader what auayle all those gloses of carnall flesh and spirituall flesh of the flesh of Christ and the flesh of a common man of a figure to the vnfaythfull and not to the faythfull that the fathers tearmed it a figure bycause els the Ethnike eares could not abyd it and because they would reuerently couer the mistery And when none of these shiftes will serue he runneth to his shotte anker that Saynt Agustins rule perteineth nothing to Christes supper Thus mayst thou se with what sinceritie he handleth the ould writers And yet he myght right well haue spared all his long talke in this matter seing that he agreeth fully with me in the state of the whole cause that to eat Christes flesh and to drincke his bloud be figuratiue speaches For he that declareth the cause why they be figuratiue speaches agreeth in the matter that they be figuratiue speaches And so haue I my full purpose in this article Now heare what foloweth in my booke The same authors dyd say also that when Christ called the bread his body and the wine his bloud it was no proper speach that he than vsed but as all Sacraments be figures of other thinges and ye haue the very names of the thinges which they do signifie so Christ instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and bloud did vse figuratiue speaches calling the bread by the name of his body and the wine he called his bloud bicause it represented his bloud Tertullian herein writing agaynst Martion sayth these words Christ did not reproue bread wherby he did represent his very body And in the same booke he sayth that Iesus taking bread and distributing it amongs his disciples made it his body saying This is my body That is to say sayth Tertullian a figure of my body And therfore sayth Tertullian That Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud bicause that in the old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and bloud Winchester Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christes very body in which place he termeth the same body speaketh catholiquely in such phrase as S. Hierom speaketh and then Tertullian sayth afterward as this author therin truely bringeth hym forth that Christ made the bread
so no certayntie of any true body to be in Christ This reason had been more fitte to be made by a man that had lost both his witte and reason For in this place Tertullian must needes be so vnderstand that by the body of Christ is vnderstand the figure of his body because Tertullian so expoundeth it him selfe And must it be always so bicause it is here so Must euer Christes body be taken for a figure bicause it is here taken for a figure as Tertullian sayth Haue you so forgotten your Logike that you will make a good argument à particulari ad vniuersale By your owne manner of argumentation bicause you make a naughty argumēt here in this place shall I conclude that you neuer make none good Surely this place of Tertullian as you haue handled it is neither secret nor manifest poynt eyther of learning witte or reason but a meere sophistication if it be no worse What other papistes haue aunswered to this place of Tertullian I am not ignoraunt nor I am sure you be not so ignoraunt but you know that neuer none aunswered as you do But your answer varieth as much from all other papists as yours theyrs also do varie from the truth Here the reader may note by the way how many fowle shiftes you make to auoyd the saying of Tertullian First you say that bread was a figure in the prophets mouth but not in Christes wordes Second that the thing which the prophet spake of was not that which Christ spake of Third that other haue aunswered this place of Tertullian before Forth that you call this matter but a wrangling argument Fift that if Tertulian call bread a figure yet he termeth it not onely figure These be your shiftes Now let the reader looke vpon Tertullians playn wordes whyche I haue rehearsed in my booke and then let him iudge whether you meane to declare Tertullians mynd truely or no. And it is not requiset for my purpose to proue that bread is onely a figure for I take vpon me there to proue no more but that the bread is a figure representing Christes body and the wine his bloud And if breade be a figure and not onely a figure than must you make bread both the figure and the truth of the figure Now heare what other authors I do here alleadge And saynt Ciprian the holy marter sayth of this matter that Christs bloud is shewed in the wine and the people in the water that is mixt with the wine so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spirituall commixtion and ioyning of vs vnto Christ. By which similitude Ciprian ment not that the bloud of Christ is wine or the people water but as the water doeth signifie and represent the people so doeth the wine signify and represent Christs bloud and the vniting of the water and wine together signifieth the vniting of Christian people vnto Christ himselfe And the same saynt Ciprian in an other place writing here of sayth that Christ in his last supper gaue to his apostles with his owne handes bread and wine which he called his flesh and bloud but in the crosse he gaue his very body to be wounded with the handes of the souldiours that the apostles might declare to the world how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and bloud of Christ. And the manner he straight wayes declareth thus that those things which do signifye and those thinges which be signified by them may be both called by one name Here it is certain by saynt Ciprians mind wherfore and in what wise bread is called Christes flesh and wine his bloud that is to say because that euery thing that representeth and signifieth an other thing may be called by the name of thing which it signifieth And therfore Saynt Iohn Chrisostom sayth that Christ ordayned the table of his holy supper for this purpose that in that sacramēt he should dayly shew vnto vs bread and wine for a similitude of his body and bloud Saynt Hierom likewise sayth vpon the gospell of Mathew that Christ took bread which comforteth mans hart that he mght represent thereby his very body and bloud Also Saynt Ambrose if the booke be his that is intituled De his qui misterijs initianter sayth that before the consecration an other kind is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified Christ sayd his bloud beefore the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration is signified the bloud of Christ. And in his booke De sacramentis if that be also his he writeth thus Thou doost receiue the sacrament for a similitud of the flesh and bloud of Christ but thou doost obtayne the grace and vertue of his true nature And receiuing the bread in that foode thou art partaker of his godly substaunce And in the same booke he sayth As thou hast in baptisme reciued the similitude of death so likewise dost thou in the sacramēt drink the similitude of Christes precious bloud And agayne he sayeth in the sayd booke The priest sayth Make vnto vs this oblation to be acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ. And vpon the epistle of Saynt Paule to the Corinthians he sayth that in eating and drinking the bread and wine we doe signifie the flesh and bloud which were offered for vs. And the olde tastament he sayeth was instituted in bloud because that bloud was a witnes of gods benefite in signification and figure wherof we take the mistical cup of his bloud to the tuitiō of our body soule Of these places of saynt Chrisostom saynt Hierom and saynt Ambrose it is cleare that in the sacramentall bread and wine is not rially and corporally the very naturall substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ but that the bread and wine be similitudes misteries and representations significations sacramentes figures and signes of his body and bloud and therfore be called and haue the name of his very body flesh and bloud Winchester Ciprian shal be touched after when we speake of him agayn Chrisostom shall open himselfe hereafter playnly Saynt Hierom speaketh here very pithely vsing the word represent which signifieth a true reall exhibision for saynt Hierom speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an onely figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure the inuisible part is a truth which saynt Hierom sayth is here represented that is to say made present which onely signification doth not Saynt Ambrose shall after declare himselfe and it is not denied but the authors in speaking of the sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude token but those speaches exclude not the veritie and truth of the body and bloud of Christ for no approued author hath this exclution to say an onely signe an only token an
only similitude or an only signification which is the issue with this author Canterbury HEre you shift of S. Ciprian and Chrisostom with fayre promise to make answer to them hearafter who aproue playnly my saying that the bread representeth Christes body and the wine his bloud and so you aunswer here only to S. Hierom. In aunswering to whom you wer loth I se well to leaue behind any thing that might haue any colour to make for you that expound this word represent in S. Hierom to signifie reall exhibition Here appeareth that you can when you list change the signification of wordes that can make vocare to signifie facere and facere to signifie sacrificare as you do in your last booke And why should you not than in other wordes when it wil serue for like purposes haue the like libertie to change the signification of words when you list And if this word represent in saynt Hieroms wordes signifie reall exhibition then did Melchisedech really exhibit Christes flesh bloud who as the same saynt Hierom sayth did represent his flesh and bloud by offering bread and wine And yet in the lordes supper ryghtly vsed is Christes body exhibited in dede spiritually and so really if you take really to signifie only a spirituall and not a corporall and carnall exhibition But this reall and spirituall exhibition is to the receiuers of the sacrament and not to the bread and wine And mine issue in this place is no more but to proue that these sayings of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speaches signifying that the bread representeth Christes body and the wine his bloud which for as much as you confesse ther neded no great contention in this poynt but that you would seme in wordes to vary where we agre in the substance of the matter and so take occasion to make a longe booke where a short would haue serued And as for the exelucion onely many of the authors as I proued before haue the same exclusiue or other wordes equiualent therto And as for the sacramentall signes they be onely figures And of the presence of Christes body your selfe hath this exclusiue that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present and I say he is but spiritually present Now followeth Saynt Augustine And yet S. Augustine sheweth this matter more clearly and fully then any of the rest specially in an epistle which he wrot ad Bonifacium where he sayth that a day or two before good Friday we vse in common speach to say thus To morow or this day .ij. dayes Christ suffered his passiō Where in very dede he neuer suffered his passion but once and that was many yeares passed Likewise vpon Easter day we say This day Christ rose from death Where in very dede it is many hundreth yeares sithens he rose from death Why then do not men reproue vs as lyars when we speake in this sort But bicause we call these dayes so by a similitude of those dayes wherin these thinges were done in dede And so it is called that day which is not that day in dede but by the course of the yeare it is a like day And such thinges be sayd to be done that day for the solemne celebration of the sacramēt which thinges indede were not done that day but long before Was Christ offered any more but once And he offered him selfe and yet in a sacrament or representation not onely euery solemne feast of Easter but euery day he is offered to the people so that he doth not lye that sayth He is euery day offered For if sacramentes had no some similitude or likenes of those thinges whereof they be Sacramentes they could in no wise be sacramentes And for their similitude and likenes commonly they haue the name of the thinges wherof they be sacramentes Therfore as after a certayne maner of speach the sacramēt of Christes body is Christs body the sacrament of Christes bloud is Christes bloud so likewise the sacrament of fayth is fayth And to beleue is nothing els but to haue fayth And therfore when we answer for yong children in their baptisme that they beleue which haue not yet the minde to beleue we answer that they haue fayth bicause they haue the sacrament of fayth And we say also that they tourne vnto God because of the sacrament of conuersion vnto God for that answer pertayneth to the celebration of the sacramēt And likewise speaketh the Apostle of baptisme saying that by Baptisme we be buryed with him into death he sayth not that we signifie buriall but he sayth playnly that we be buried So that the sacramēt of so great a thing is not called but by the name of the thing it selfe Hitherto I haue rehersed the answer of S. Augustine vnto Boniface a learned bishop who asked of him how the parentes and frendes could answer for a yong babe in baptisme and say in his person that he beleueth conuerteth vnto God when the child can neither do nor think any such thinges Wherunto the answer of S. Augustine is this that for as much as baptisme is the sacrament of the profession of our fayth and of our conuersion vnto God it becometh vs so to answer for yong children comming therunto as to the sacramēt apertayneth although the children indeed haue no knowledge of such thinges And yet in our sayd answers we ought not to be reprehended as vayn men or lyers forasmuch as in common speach we vse dayly to call sacramētes and figures by the names of the thinges that be signified by them although they be not the same thing indede As euery Goodfriday as often as it returneth from yeare to yeare we call it the day of Christes passion and euery Easter day we call the day of his resurrection and euery day in the yeare we say that Christ is offered and the sacrament of his body we call it his body and the sacrament of his bloud we call it his bloud and our baptisme S. Paul calleth our buriall with Christ. And yet in very dede Christ neuer suffered but once neuer arose but once neuer was offered but once nor in very dede in baptisme we be not buried nor the sacrament of Christes body is not his body nor the sacrament of his bloud is not his bloud But so they be called bicause they be figures sacramentes and representations of the thinges them selfe which they signifie and whereof they beare the names Thus doth saynt Augustine most playnly open this matter in his epistle to Bonifacius Of this maner of speach wherin a signe is called by the name of the thing which it signifieth speaketh S. Augustine also right largely in his questions super Leuiticum contra Adamantium declaring how bloud in scripture is called the soule A thing which signifieth sayth he is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth as it is writen in the scripture The vij
eares be vij yeares The scripture sayth not signifieth vij yeares And vij kine be seuen yeares and many other like And so sayd saynt Paule that the stone was Christ and not that it signified Christ but euen as it had ben hee indede which neuerthelesse was not Christ by substaunce but by signification Euen so sayth saynt Augustine bicause the bloud signifieth and representeth the soule therfore in a sacrament or signification it is called the soule And contra Adamantium he writeth much like saying In such wise is bloud the soule as the stone was Christ and yet the Apostle sayth not that the stone signified Christ but sayth it was Christ. And this sentence Bloud is the soule may be vnderstand to be spoken in a signe or figure for Christ did not stick to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here S Augustine rehearsing diuers sentences which were spoken figuratiuely that is to say when one thing was called by the name of an other and yet was not the other in substance but in signification As the bloud is the soule vij kyne be vij yeares vij eares be vij yeares the stone was Christ. Among such maner of speaches he reherseth those wordes which Christ spake at his last supper this is my body Which declareth playnly Saynt Augustines mind that Christ spake those wordes figuratiuely not meaning that the bread was his body by substance but by signification And therfore S. Augustine sayth contra Maximinum that in the sacramentes we must not consider what they be but what they signifie for they be signes of thinges being one thing and signifiyng another Which he doeth shew specially of this sacrament saying the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh by some maner of speach is called Christes body when in very deede it is the sacrament of his body And that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes is called Christes passion death and crucifiyng not in very dede but in a misticall signification Winchester As for saynt Agustine ad Bonifacium the author shall perceiue his fault at Martyne Bucers hand who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarations of the gospels reherseth his mind of Saynt Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi Corpus Christi sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secundum quem modum Vt significet tantum corpus sanguinem Domini absenta Absit Honorari enim percipi in simbolis visibilibus corpus sanguinem Domini idem passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saynt Augustine writeth the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certayn maner the body of christ the sacramēt of the bloud of christ the bloud of christ but after what maner that it should signifie onely the body and bloud absent Absit In no wise for the same Saynt Augustine writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored and to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not saynt Augustine to say the sacrament of Christes body to be Christes body after a certayn maner of speach as this author doth nor S. Augustine hath no such wordes but onely secundum quendam modum after a certayne maner wherunto to put of speach is an addition more then truth required of necessitie In these wordes of Bucer may apeare his whole indgement concerning S. Augustine who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament which truth established in the matter the calling it a signe or a token a figure a similitude or a shewing maketh no matter when we vnderstand the thing really present that is signified Which and it were not in dede in the Sacrament why should it after Bucers true vnderstanding of S. Augustine be honored there Arguing vpon mens speaches may be without end the authors vpon diuers repsectes speake of one thing diuersly Therfore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter and see what they say in expounding the speciall place without contention and not what they vtter in the heat of their disputation ne to search their dark and ambiguous places wherwith to confound that they speake openly and playnly Canterbury WHat nede you to bring Martine Bucer to make me answer if you could answer your selfe but bicause you be ashamed of the matter you would thrust Martine Bucer in your place to receaue rebuke for you But in this place he easeth you nothing at all for he sayth no more but that the body and bloud of Christ be exhibited vnto the worthy receiuers of the sacrament which is true but yet spiritually not corporally And I neuer sayd that Christ is vtterly absent but I euer affirmed that he is truly and spiritually present and truly and spiritually exhibited vnto the godly receiuours but corporally is he neither in the receiuors nor in or vnder the fourmes of bread or wine as you do teach clearly with out the consent of master Bucer who writeth no such thing And where I alleadge of Saynt Augustine that the sacrament of Christes body is called Christes body after a certayn maner of speach and you deny that saynt Augustine ment of a certayne maner of speach but sayth onely after a certayne maner Read the place of saynt Augustin who will and he shall find that he speaketh of the maner of speach and that of such a maner of speach as calleth one thing by the name of an other where it is not the very thing in dede For of the maner of speach is all the processe there as apeareth by these his wordes a day or two before good Friday we vse in common speach to say to morowe or this day two dayes Christ suffered c. Likewise vppon Easter day we say this day Christ rose And why do no men reproue vs as lyars whan we speake in this sort And we call those dayes so by a similitude c. And so it is called that day which is not that day in dede And sacramentes commonly haue the name of the thinges wherof they be sacramentes Therfore as after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is Christes body so likewise the sacramēt of fayth is fayth And likewise sayth Saynt Paule that in baptisme we be buried he sayth not that we signifie buriall but he sayth playnly that we be buried So that the sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the thing All these be S. Augustines wordes shewing how in the common vse of speach one thing may haue the name of another Wherfore when Doctor Gardiner sayth that S. Augustine spake not of that maner of speach thou mayst beleue him hereafter as thou shalt see cause but if thou trust his wordes to much thou shalt soone be deceiued As for the reall presence of Christ
in the sacrament I graunt that he is really present after such sort as you expound really in this place that is to say indede and yet but spiritually For you say your selfe that he is but after a spirituall maner there and so is he spiritually honored as S Augustine sayth But as concerning heat of disputation marke well the wordes of S. Augustine good reader cited in my booke and thou shalt see clerely that all this multiplication of wordes is rather a iugling then a direct answer For saynt Augustine writeth not in heate of disputation but temperatly and grauely to a learned Bishop his deare frend who demanded a question of him And if Saynt Augustine had aunswered in heate of disputation or for any other respect otherwise then the truth he had not done the part of a friend nor of a learned and godly Bishop And who so euer iudgeth so of Saynt Augustine hath small estimation of him and sheweth him selfe to haue litle knowledge of Saynt Augustine But in this your answer to saynt Augustine you vtter where you learned a good part of your diuinitie that is of Albertus Pighius who is the father of this shift and with this fleight eludeth Saynt Augustin when he could no otherwise answer As you do now shake of the same Saynt Augustine resembling as it were in that poynt the liuely countenauÌ„ce of your father Pighius Next in my booke foloweth Theodoret And to this purpose it is both pleasaunt comfortable and profitable to read Theodoretus in his Dialogs where he disputeth and sheweth at length how the names of things be chaunged in scripture and yet thinges remayne still And for example he proueth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vayle or coueryng sometime a cloth sometyme a vestment and sometyme a stole the bloud of the grape is called Christes bloud and the names of bread and wine and of his flesh and bloud Christ doth so chaunge that sometyme he calleth his body corne or bread and sometime contrary he calleth bread his body And likewise his bloud sometime he calleth wine and sometime contrary he calleth wine his bloud For the more playne vnderstanding wherof it shall not be amisse to recite his owne sayings in his foresayd dialogs touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud The speakers in these dialogs be Orthodoxus the right beleuer and Eranistes his companyon but not vnderstanding the right fayth Orthodoxus saith to his companion Doost thou not know that god caleth bread his flesh Eran. I know that Orth. And in an other place he calleth his body corne Eran. I know that also for I haue heard him say The houre is come that the sonne of man shal be glorified c. Except the grayne of come that falleth in the ground dye it remayneth sole but if it dye then it bringeth forth much fruite Orth. When he gaue the mysteries of sacraments he called bread his body and that which was mixt in the cup he called bloud Eran. So he called them Orth. But that also which was his naturall body may well be called his body and his very bloud also may be called his bloud Eran. It is playne Orth. But our sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to the body the name of the signe or token and to the token he gaue the name of the body And so wheÌ„ he called himself a vyne he called bloud that which was the token of bloud Eran. Surely thou hast spokeÌ„ the truth But I would know the cause wherfore the names were changed Orth. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments should not set their mindes vpon the nature of the things which they see but by the changing of the names should beleue the things which be wrought in them by grace For he that called that which is his naturall body corne and bred and also called himselfe a vyne he did honor the visible tokeÌ„s and signes with the names of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not Ortho. Seyng then that it is certayne that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell and that now we be entred to speak of godly sacraments tell me truely of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a tokeÌ„ and figure of Christes diuinity or of his body and bloud Eran. It is cleare that it is the figure of those thinges whereof it beareth the name Orth. Meanest thou of his body and bloud Eran. Euen so I meane Orth. Thou hast spoken as one that loueth the truth for the Lord when he tooke the token or signe he sayd not This is my diuinity but This is my body this is my bloud And in an other place The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whiche I will geue for the life of the world Eran. These things be true for they be Gods words All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue ' And in the second he writeth the same in effect yet in some thing more playnly agaynst such heretiques as affirmed that after Christes resurrection ascention his humanity was changed from the very nature of man turned into his diuinity Agaynst whom thus he writeth Orth. Corruption healeth sicknes and death be accedents for they goe come Era. It is meet they be so called Orth. Mens bodies after their resurrection be delyuered from corruption death mortalitie and yet they lose not theyr proper nature Eran. Truth it is ' Orth. The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption death and is impassible immortall glorified with the glory of God is honored of the powers of heauen and it is a body hath the same bignes that it had before Era. Thy saying seeme true according to reason but after he was ascended vp into heauen I thinke thou wilt not say that his body was not tourned into the nature of his godhead Orth. I would not so say for the persuation of mans reason nor I am not so arrogant and presumptious to affirme any thing which scripture passeth ouer in silence But I haue heard S. Paule cry that God hath ordayned a day when he will iudge all the world in iustice by that man which he appoynted before performing his promise to all men and raysing him from death I haue learned also of the holy angels that he will come aâ—ter that fashion as his disciples saw him goe to heauen But they saw a nature of a certayn bignesse not a nature which had no bignes I heard furthermore the lord say You shall see the sonne of man come in the cloudes of heauen And
from place to place he spake of him selfe that thing which was to be vnderstand of the arke And Christ him selfe often tymes spake in similitudes parables and figures as whan he sayd The field is the world the enemy is the diuell the seed is the word of God Iohn is Helias I am a vyne and you be the branches I am bread of lyfe My father is an husband man and he hath his fan in his hand and will make cleane his flower and gather the wheate into his barne but the chaffe he will cast into euerlasting fyre I haue a meat to eat which you know not Woorke not meat that perisheth but that indureth vnto euerlasting life I am a good shepherd The sonne of man will set the shepe at his right hād and the goates at his left hād I am a dore one of you is the deuyll Whosoeuer doeth my fathers will he is my brother sister and mother And when he sayd to his mother and to Iohn This is thy sonne this is thy mother These with an infinite number of lyke sentences Christ spake in Parables Metaphores tropes and figures But chiefly when he spake of the sacramētes he vsed figuratiue speaches As whan in Baptisme he sayd that we must be baptised with the holy ghost meaning of spirituall baptisme And like speach vsed S. Iohn the Baptiste saying of Christ that he should baptise with the holy ghost and fier And Christ sayd that we must be borne agayn or else we can not see the kingdom of God And sayd also Whosoeuer shall drincke of that water which I shall geue him he shall neuer be drye agayn But the water which I shall geue him shall be made with in him a well which shall spring into euerlasting life And S. Paule sayth that in baptisme we cloth vs with Christ and be buried with him This baptisme and washing by the fyre and the holy ghost this new birth this water that springeth in a man and floweth into euerlasting life and this clothing and buriall can not be vnderstand of any materiall baptisme materiall washing materiall birth clothing and buriall but by translation of thinges visible into thinges inuisible they must be vnderstand spiritually and figuratiuely After the same sort the mistery of our redemption and the passion of our sauiour Christ vpon the crosse as well in the new as in the ould testament is expressed and declared by many figures and figuratiue speaches As the pure Paschall lambe without spot signified Christ. The effusion of the lambes bloud signified the effusion of Christes bloud And the saluation of the Children of Israell from temporall death by the lambes bloud signified our saluation from eternall death by Christes bloud And as almightie God passing through Egypt killed all the Egiptians heires in euery house and left not one aliue and neuerthelesse he passed by the children of Israels houses where he sawe the Lambes bloud vpon the dores and hurted none of them but saued them all by the meanes of the Lambes bloud so likewise at the last iudgement of the whole world none shall be passed ouer and saued but that shall be found marked with the bloud of the most pure and immaculat lambe Iesus Christ. And for as much as the shedding of that lambes bloud was a token and figure of the shedding of Christes bloud than to come and for as much also as all the sacramentes and figures of the olde testament ceased and had an end in Christ least by our great vnkindnes we should peraduenture be forgetfull of the great benefite of Christ therfore at his last supper when he toke his leaue of his Apostles to depart out of the world he did make a new will and testament wherin he bequethed vnto vs cleane remission of all our sinnes and the euerlasting inheritaunce of heauen And the same he confirmed the next day with his owne bloud and death And least we should forget the same he ordayned not a yearly memory as the Pascall lambe was eaten but once euery year but a dayly remembrance he ordeined therof in bread and wine sanctified and dedicated to that purpose saying This is my body This cuppe is my bloud which is shed for the remission of sinnes Do this in remembrance of me Admonishing vs by these wordes spoken at the making of his last will and testament and at his departing out of the world bicause they should be the better remembred that whensoeuer we do eat the bread in his holy supper and drinke of that cuppe we should remember how much Christ hath done for vs and how he dyed for our sakes Therfore sayth S. Paule As often as ye shall eat this bread and drinke the cuppe you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill he come And forasmuch as this holy bread broken and the wine deuided do represent vnto vs the death of Christ now passed as the killing of the Pascall Lambe did represent the same yet to come therfore our sauiour Christ vsed the same manner of speach of bread and wine as God before vsed the Paschall Lambe For as in the old testament God sayd this is the Lordes passeby or passouer euen so sayth Christ in the new Testament This is my body This is my bloud But in the old mistery and sacrament the Lambe was not the Lordes very Passeouer or passing by but it was a figure which represented his passing by So likewise in the new Testament the bread and wine be not Christes very body and bloud but they be figures which by Christes institution be vnto the godly receauers therof Sacramentes tokens significations and representations of his very flesh and bloud instructing their fayth that as the bread and wine fede them corporally and continue this temporall lyfe so the very flesh and bloud of Christ feedeth them spiritually and giueth euerlasting lyfe And why should any man think it strange to admit a figure in these speches This is my body This is my bloud seing that the communication the same night by the Papistes owne confessions was so full of figuratiue speaches For the Apostles spake figuratiuely when they asked Christ where he would eat his passeouer or passeby And Christ him selfe vsed the same figure when he sayd I haue much desired to eate this passeouer with you Also to eat Christes body and to drink his bloud I am sure they will not say that it is taken properly to eate and drink as we doe eate other meates and drinkes And when Christ sayd This cup is a new testament in my bloud here in one sentence be two figures one in this word cup which is not taken for the cup it selfe but for the thing conteined in the cup an other is in this word testament for neither the cup nor the wine contayned in the cup is Christes testament but is a token signe and figure wherby is
although it was the selfe same Christ in nature But we say that he did eat drinke sleepe labour and sweat talke and speake naturally not bicause onely of his nature but bicause the maner and fashion of doing was such as we vse to do Likewise when Iesus passed through the people and they saw him not he was not then sensibly and visibly among them their eyes being letted in such sort that they could not see and perceaue him And so in all the rest of your aduerbes the speach admitteth not to say that Christ is there substancially corporally carnally and sensibly where he is not after a substanciall corporall carnall and sensuall forme and maner This the husband man at his plough and his wife at her rock is able to iudge and to condemne you in this poynt and so can the boyes in the gramer schole that you speake neither according to the english tonge grammer nor reason when you say that these wordes and aduerbes sensibly corporally and naturally do not signifie a corporall sensible and naturall maner I haue bene here somewhat long and tedious but the reader must pardon me for this subtill and euill deuise of your owne brayne without ground or authoritie contayneth such absurdities and may cast such mistes before mens eies to blind them that they should not see that I am constrayned to speake thus much in this matter and yet more shall do if this suffice not But this one thing I wonder much at that you being so much vsed and accustomed to lye do not yet know what lye meaneth But at length in this mater when you see none other shift you be faine to flye to the church for your shotte anker And yet it is but the Romish church For the olde first Church of Christ is cleerely agaynst you And Origen sayth not as you do that to vnderstand the sayd wordes of Christ spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church but to vnderstand them spiritually is to vnderstand them otherwise then the wordes sound for he that vnderstādeth them after the letter sayth Origen vnderstandeth them carnally and that vnderstanding hurteth and destroyeth For in playne vnderstanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure Christes flesh cannot be eaten nor his bloud dronken Next followeth in order S. Cyprian of whom I write thus And likewise ment Ciprian in those places which the aduersaries of the truth allege of him concerning the true eating of Christes very flesh and drinking of his bloud For Ciprian spake of no grose and carnall eating with the mouth but of an inward spirituall and pure eating with hart and mind which is to beleue in our hartes that his flesh was rent and torne for vs vpon the crosse and his bloud shed for our redemption and that the same flesh and bloud now sitteth at the right hand of the father making continuall intercession for vs and to imprint and digest this in our mindes putting our whole affiance and trust in him as touching our saluation and offering our selues clearly vnto him to loue and serue him all the dayes of our life This is truely sincerely and spiritually to eat his flesh and to drincke his bloud And this sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was that oblatiō which Cipriā sayth was figured and signified before it was done by the wine which Noe dranke and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gaue to Abraham and by many other figures which S. Cyprian there reherseth And now when Christ is come and hath accomplished that sacrifice the same is figured signified and represēted vnto vs by that bread and wine which faythfull people receaue dayly in the holy communion Wherin like as with their mouthes carnally they eate the breade and drincke the wine so by their fayth spiritually they eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud And hereby it apeareth that S. Ciprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine and is wholy vpon our side And agaynst the papistes he teacheth most playnly that the Communion ought to be receaued of all men vnder both kindes and that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that there is not transubstantiation but that bread remayneth there as a figure to represent Christes body and wine to represent his bloud and that those which be not the liuely members of Christ do eat the bread and drincke the wine and be not nourished by them but the very flesh and bloud of Christ they neither eate nor drincke Thus haue you declared the mynd of S. Cyprian Winchester As touching Ciprian this author maketh an exposition of his owne deuise which he would haue taken for an answer vnto him Where as Ciprian of all other like as he is auncient within 250. yeares of Christ so did he write very openly in the matter and therfore Melancthon in his epistle to Decolampadius did chuse him for one whose words in the affirmation of Christes true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguitie And like iudgement doth Hippinus in his book before alleaged geue of Cyprianus faith in the sacrament which two I allege to counteruayle the iudgement of this author who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him playing with the words grosse and carnall and vsing the word represent as though it expressed a figure only Hippinus in the sayd booke alleadgeth Cyprian to say Lib 3. ad Quirinum that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh meaning as Hipinus sayth Eucharistiam wherin S Augustin as Hippinus saith further in the praier for his mother speaking of the bread and wine of Eucharistia sayth that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice whereby was cancelled the byl obligatory that was agaynst vs. And further Hippinus sayth that the olde men called the bread and wine of our Lordes supper a sacrifice an host and oblation for that specially because they beleued taught the true body of Christ and his true bloud to be destribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia and as S. Augustin sayth ad Ianuarium to enter in be receiued with the mouth of them that eat These be Hippinus very words who because he is I thinke in this authors opinion taken for no Papist I rather speake in his words then in myne owne whom in an other part of this worke this author doth as it were for charity by name sclaunder to be a Papist Wherfore the sayd Hippinus wordes shal be as I thinke more weighty to oppresse this authors talke then mine be and therfore howsoeuer this author handleth before the wordes of S. Cyprian De vnctione chrismatis and the word shewing out of his epistles yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certayne otherwise as those places shall need no further aunswere of me here hauing brought forth the iudgement of Hippinus Melancton how they vnderstand S. Cyprians fayth which thou reader oughtest to regard
any reall and corporall conuersion of bread and wine vnto Christs body and bloud nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same but he speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wine and of a spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptisme as the same Eusebius playnly there declareth as he is in the Lordes table Which is not carnally and corporally but by fayth and spiritually But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstatiation Winchester This author sayth that Emissen is shortly aunswered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he sayth as Hylary was aunswered and Cyrill But els there can no short or long aunswere confound the true playne testimony of Emissen for the common true faith of the church in the Sacrament Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saying thus This is my bodye And aâ—ayne repeating the same sanctificatioÌ„ This is my bloud Wherfore as at the beck of him commauÌ„ding the heightes of heauens the depenes of the floudes and largenes of landes were founded of nothing by like power in spirituall Sacraments where vertue commaundeth the effect of the trueth serueth These bee Emissenes wordes declaring his fayth playnely of the Sacrament in such termes as can not be wrested or writhed who speaketh of a turning conuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body bloud he sayth not into the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud whereby he should meane a only sacramental conuersion as this author would haue it but he sayth into the substance of Christs body bloud to be in the sacrameÌ„t For the words substance and truth be of one strength shew a difference froÌ„ a figure wherein the truth is not in dede preseÌ„t but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle this Emissen represseth mans carnall reason and socoureth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of this world which were brought forth out of tyme by Emissene if Christes bodye were not in substaunce present as Emissenes wordes bee but in figure onely as this author teacheth And where this authour coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in eyther he putteth himselfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these misteries be both great and mans regeneration in baptisme is also a mistery and the secret worke of God and hath a great meruayle in that effect yet it differeth from the mistery of the sacrament touching the maner of Christes presence and the working of the effect also For in baptisme our vnion with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole Trinitie there working as author in whose name the sacrament is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body indede but in hope onely that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in baptisme bene buried with christ so we be assured to be partakers of his resurection And so in this sacrament we be vnite to Christes manhod by this deuinite But in the sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie which mistical vnion representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorification wherin body and soule shall in the generall resurection by a maruailous regeneration of the body be made both spirituall the speciall pledge wherof we receaue in this sacrament and therfore it is the sacrament as Hilary sayth of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious then the body and the nature of the godhead in Christ more excellent then the nature of man in him glorified and in baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passion and bloud Christes godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respectes the excelency of baptisme is great yet bicause the mistery of the sacrameÌ„t of the alter where Christ is present both man and God in the effectuall vnitie that is wrought betwene our bodies our soules and Christes in the vse of this sacrament signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurection which shall be the end and consumatioÌ„ of all our felicitie This sacrament of perfect vnitie is the mistery of our perfect estate when body and soule shal be all spirituall and hath so a degre of excelencie for the dignitie that is estemed in euery end and perfection wherfore the word spirituall is a necessary word in this sacrament to call it a spirituall foode as it is indede for it is to worke in our bodyes a spirituall effect not onely in our soules and Christes body and flesh is a spirituall body and flesh and yet a true body and very flesh And it is present in this sacrament after a spirituall maner graunted and taught of all true teachers which we should receaue also spiritually which is by hauing Christ before spiritually in vs to receaue it so worthely Wherfore like as in the inuisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnall but all spirituall taking the word carnall as it signifieth grossely in mans carnall iudgement So where the receiuers of that foode bring carnall lustes or desires carnall fansies or imaginations with them they receaue the same preciens foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condemnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christian fayth of the very presence of Christes body And this sufficeth to wipe out that this Author hath spoken of Emissen agaynst the truth Caunterbury I Haue so playnly aunswered vnto Emissene in my former booke partly in this place and partely in the second parte of my booke that he that readeth ouer those two places shall see most clearly that you haue speÌ„t a greate many of wordes here in vayne and nede no further answer at all And I had then such a care what I sayd that I sayd nothing but according to Emissenus owne mind and which I proued by his owne wordes But if you finde but one word that in speach soundeth to your purpose you sticke to that word tooth and nayle caring nothing what the authors meaning is And here is one great token of sleight and vntruth to be noted in you that you write diligently euery word so long as they seme to make with you And when you come to the very place
they alleage it is bread but after the wordes of the consectation it is the body of Christ. For answere herevnto it must be first knowen what consecation is Consecration is the seperation of any thing from a prophane and worldly vse vnto a spirituall and godly vse And therfore when vsuall and common water is taken from other vses and put to the vse of baptisme in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy ghost then it may rightly be called Consecrated water that is to say water put to an holy vse Euen so when common bread and wine be taken and seuered from other bread and wine to the vse of the holy communion that portion of bread and wine although it be of the same substaunce that the other is from the which it is seuered yet it is now called consecrated or holy bread and holy wine Not that the bread and wine haue or can haue any holines in thē but that they be vsed to an holy work and represent holye and godlye thinges And therfore S. Dionise calleth the bread holy bread and the cup an holy cup as soone as they bebe set vpon the aultare to the vse of the holy communion But specially they may be called holy and consecrated when they be seperated to that holy vse by Christes owne wordes which he spake for that purpose saying of the breade This is my bodye And of the wine This is my bloud So that cōmōly the authors before those wordes be spokē do take the bread and wine but as other cōmon bread and wine but after those wordes be pronounced ouer thē then they take thē for consecrated holy bread wine Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holines or godlinesse or can be the body and bloud of Christ but that they represent the very body and bloud of Christ and the holy foode and nourishment which we haue by him And so they be called by the names of the body and bloud of Christ as the signe token and figure is called by the name of the very thing which it sheweth and signifieth And therfore as S. Ambrose in the wordes before cited by the aduersaries saith that before the consecration it is bread and after the consecration it is Christes body so in other places he doth more playnly set forth his meaning saying these wordes Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing but after the consecratiō is signisied the body of christ Likewise before the consecartion it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ. And agayne he sayth When I treated of the sacraments I tolde you that that thing which is offered before the words of Christ is called breade but when the wordes of Christ bee pronounced then it is not called breade but it is called by the name of Christes body By which wordes of S. Ambrose it appereth playnely that the bread is called by the name of Christes body after the consecratiō although it be still bread yet after consecration it is dignified by the name of the thing which it representeth as at length is declared before in the proces of Transubstantiation and specially in the words of Theodoretus And as the bread is a corporall meat and corporally eaten so sayth S. Ambrose is the body of Christ a spirituall meat and spiritually eaten and that requireth no corporall presence Winchester As touching S. Ambrose this author taketh a great enterprise to wrastle with him whose playne and euident words must nedes be a rule to try his other words by if any might be writhed What can be more playnly spoken thē S. Ambrose speaketh whē he sayth these wordes It is bread consecration but after it is Christes body By the word consecration is siguified as it is here placed Gods omnipotent work Wherfore in this place it cōprehendeth asmuch as Emissen said in these wordes he conuerteth by the secret power of his word God is the worker and so consecratiō signifieth the whole action of his omnipotency in working the substance of this high mistery therefore the diffinition of the wordconsecration as it is generally taken can not be a rule to the vnderstanding of it in this high mistery where it is vsed to expres a singular work as the circumstāce of S. Ambrose writing doth declare For as Philip Melancthon writeth to Decolampadius S. Ambrose would neuer haue trauailed to accumulate so many miracles as he doth speaking of this matter to declare Gods omnipotency and he had not thought the nature of bread to be chaunged in this mistery These be Melancthons very wordes Now to aunswere the question as it were at the word change this author shall come with a sacramentall change which is a deuise in termes to blind the rude reader S. Ambrose doth expresse playnly what the change is whē he writeth the wordes before rehersed It is bread before the consecration but after it is the body of Christ. Can a chaunge be more playnely declared The nere way for this author had bene to haue ioyned Ambrose with Clement and called him fayned by the Papistes rather then after the effect of consecration so opened by S. Ambrose himselfe to trauail to proue what it may signify if it were in an other matter And then to admonish the reader how the bread wine haue no holines which forme of speach not vnderstanded of the people engēdreth some scruple that nedeth not being no sound forme of doctrine for S. Paul speaketh teacheth thus that the creatures be sanctified by the word of God prayer and S. Augustine writeth of sanctified bread to be geuen to them that be catechised before they be baptised And this author himselfe expoundeth S. Cyprian in the. 35. leafe of this booke how the diuinity is poured into the bread Sacramentally which is a straunge phrase not expressing there Cyprians minde and far discrepant from the doctrine here And in an other place this author saith that as hote and burning yron is yron still yet hath the force of fyre so the bread wine be turned into the vertue of Christs flesh and bloud By which similitude bread may conceyue vertue as yron conceyueth fyre then as we cal yron burning and fyry so we may call bread vertuous and holy vnles the author would agayn resemble bread to a whetstone that may make sharp and haue no sharpenee in it at all Which matter I declare thus to shew that as this author dissenteth from truth in other so be dissenteth from that he vttereth for truth himselfe and walketh in a maze impugning the very truth in this sacrament and would haue that taken for a Catholick doctrine that is not one and the same doctrine through this whole booke so farre of is it from the whol of Christiā teaching But now
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
of his worke entreating transubstantiation he would the same wordes of Chrisostome by this forme of spech in the negatiue should not deny precisely And when Chrisostome sayth Do not think that you by man receiue the body of God but that we should not consider man in the receiuing of it Here this author doth alleage these wordes and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of mere deniall But I would aske of this author this question If Chrysostomes fayth had bene that we receaue not the body of God in the Sacrament verily why should he vse wordes idlely to entreate of whom we receiued the body of God which after this authors doctrine we receaue not at all but in figure and no body at all which is of Christes humanity being Christ as this author teacheth spiritually that is by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receaueth and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in this booke onely fyguratiuely Turne back reader to the 36. leafe in the authors booke and read it with this and so consyder vpon what principle here is made an Ergo. I will aunswere that place when I speake of Transubstantiation which shall be after answered to the third and fourth booke as the naturall order of the matter requireth The second place of Chrisostome that this author bringeth forth he graunteth it soundeth much agaynst him fauoreth his aduersaryes but with conferring and considering he trusteth to alter it from the true vnderstanding And not to expound but confound the matter be ioyneth in spech the sacrament of baptisme with this sacramēt which shift this author vsed vntruely in Hylary and would now beare in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament then in baptisme which is not so for in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present and in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence therof for dispensatiō of that mistery as I haue before touched discussing the aunswere to Emissen where as Chrisostome speaking of this sacrament whereof I haue before spoken and Melancthon alleadging it to Decolampadius saith thus The great miracle and great beneuolence of Christ is that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre in our handes here to be embrased of vs. And therfore where this author would note the wonder of Gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonerfull for the worke and effect in man this is one peece of trueth but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the old Fathers wonder at the worke in the Sacrament how bread is chaunged into the body of Christ how Christ sitting in heauen God man is also man and God in the Sacramēt and being worthely receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hylary sayth and corporally as Cyrill sayth How this can be no man can tell no faythfull man should aske and yet it is the true catholick fayth to be truely so wrought For as Cinistene sayth he that is the author of it he is the witnes of it And therfore I will make it an issue with this author that the olde fathers speaking of the wonderfull operation of God in this Sacrament referre it not onely to the vertue and effect of this Sacrament nor to the vertue specially but chiefly to the operation of God in the substaunce of this Sacrament and the Sacrament selfe for such a difference S. Augustine maketh saying Aliud est Sacramentum aliud virtus sacramenti The Sacrament is one the vertue of the Sacramēt is an other Finally in aunswering to Chrisostome this author doth nothing but spend wordes in vayne to the more playne declaration of his owne ignoraunce or worse Caunterbury AS concerning Chrisostome you haue spent so many taunting and scornefull wordes in waste without cause that I need to wast no wordes here at all to make you aunswere but referre the reader to my booke the 25. leafe and 36. leafe and to the 32.33 and 34. leafe where the reader shall finde all that is here spoken fully aunswered vnto But alwayes you be like your selfe proceding in amplification of an argument agaynst me which you haue forged yourselfe and charge me therewith vntruely For I vse not this spech that we receaue not the body of God at all that we receaue it but in a figure For it is my constant fayth and beleefe that we receaue Christ in the sacrament verily and truely and this is plainely taught and set forth my book But that verily as I with Chrisostome and all the olde authors take it is not of such a sort as you would haue it For your vnderstanding of Uerily is so Capernaicall so grosse and so dul in the perceauing of this mistery that you thinke a man can not receaue the body of Christ verily vnles he take him corporally in his corporall mouth flesh bloud and bones as he was borne of the virgine Mary But it is certaine that Chrisostome ment not that we receaue Christes body verily after such a sort when he sayth Doe not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God And yet because I deny onely this grosse vnderstāding you misreport my doctrine that I should say we receaue not Christ at all but in a figure and no body at all wherin you vntruly and sclaundrously report me as my whole book and doctrine can witnesse agaynst you For my doctrine is that the very body of Christ which was borne of the virgine Mary and suffered for our sinnes geuing vs lyfe by his death the same Iesus as concerning his corporal presence is taken from vs and sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet is he by fayth spiritually present with vs and is our spirirituall foode and nourishment and sitteth in the middes of all them that-be gathered togither in his name And this feding is a spirituall feedyng and an heauenly feeding farre passing all corporall and carnall feeding and therfore there is a true presence and a true feding indeed and not in a figure onely or not at all as you most vntruely report my saying to be This is the true vnderstanding of the true presence receiuing feding vpon the body and bloud of our Sauior Christ and not as you depraue the meaning and true sence therof that the receiuing of Christ truly and verily is the receiuing corporally with the mouth corporall or that the spirituall receauing is to receaue Christ onely by his diuine nature which thing I neuer sayd nor mēt Turn I pray thee gētle reader to the 36 leaf of my booke and note these wordes there which I alledge out of Chrisostome Doe not thinke sayth he that you receaue by a man the body of God Then turne ouer the leafe and in the xx line note again my saying that in the holy communion Christ himselfe is spiritually eaten and drunken and
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
writer among the Grekes hath more playnly spokeÌ„ for you then Theophilacte hath and yet when that shal be well examined it is nothing at all as I haue playnly declared shewing your vntruth aswell in allegation of the authors wordes as in falsefying his name And as for the Catechisme of Germany by me translated into English to this I haue aunswered before and truth it is that eyther you vnderstand not the phrase of the old authors of the church or els of purpose you will not vnderstand me But hereunto you shall haue a more full aunswer when I come to the proper place therof in the iiij part of my booke And as coÌ„cerning the wordes of Theophilact vpon the gospel of Iohn he speaketh to one effect and vseth much like termes vpon the gospels of Mathew Marke and Iohn wherunto I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And because the aunswer may be the more present I shall rehearse some of my wordes here agayne Although sayd I 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 the 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 yerne our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh and to drink his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite and 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 those wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eate corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drincke his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable This I wrot in my former booke which is sufficient to aunswer vnto all that you haue here spoken And as concerning the bread that Christ did eate and feede vpon it was naturally eaten as other men eate naturally changed and caused a naturall nourishment and yet the very matter of the bread remayned although in an other forme but in them that duely receaue and â—at the Lordes holy supper all is spirituall aswell the eating as the change and nourishment which is none impediment to the nature of bread but that it may still remayne And where you come to the translation of this word species to signifie apparence this is a wonderfull kinde of translation to translat specie in apparence because apparet is truly translated appeareth with like reason aurum myght be translated meate because edâ—re signifieth to eate And your other translation is no lesse wonderfull where you turne the vertue of Christes body into the veritie And yet to cloke your folly therin and to cast a mist before the readers eyes that he should not see your vntruth therin you say that by vertue in that place must be vuderstanded verite First what soeuer be vnderstande by the worde vertue your fayth in translation is broken For the sense being ambiguous yoâ— ought in translation to haue kept the word as it is leauing the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader and not by altering the word to make such a sense as please you which is so foule a fault in a translatour that if Decolampadius had so done he should haue ben called a man faulty and gilthy a corruptour a deceauour an abuser of other men a peruerter a deprauer and a man without fayth As he might be called that would translate Verbum caro factum est The second person became man Which although it be true in meaning yet it is not true in translation nor declareth the fayth of the translatour But now as your translation is vntrue so is the meaning also vntrue and vnexcusable For what man is so far destitute of all his senses that he knoweth not a difference betwene the veritie of Christes body and the vertue therof Who can pretend ignoraunce in so manifest a thing Doth not all men know that of euery thing the vertue is one and the substance an other Except in God onely who is of that simplicitie without multiplication of any thing in him or diuersitie that his vertue his power his wisdome his iustice and all that is sayd to be in him be neyther qualites nor accidentes but all one thinge with his verie substauÌ„ce And neyther the right hand of God nor the vertue of God which you bring for an example and serueth to no purpose but to blind the ignorauÌ„t reader be any thing els but the very substaunce of God although indiuersitie of respectes and considerations they haue diuersitie of names except you will deuide the most single substaunce of God into corporall partes and members following the errour of the Aâ—cropomorphites But the like is not in the body of Christ which hath distinctioÌ„ of integrall partes and the vertue also and qualities distinct from the substance And yet if the example were like he should be an euill translator or rather a corrupter that for a dextris virtutis Dei would traÌ„slate a dextris Dei or coÌ„trary wise And therfore all traÌ„slators in those places folow the wordes as they be be not so arrogaÌ„t to alter one title in theÌ„ therby to make theÌ„ one in wordes although the thing in substaunce be one For wordes had not theyr signification of the substances or of thinges onely but of the qualities maners respectes and considerations And so may one word signifie diuers thinges one thing be signified by diuers wordes And therfore he that should for on word take an other because they be both referred to one substaunce as you haue done in this place should make a goodly yere of worke of it not much vnlike to him that should burne his house and say he made it because the making burning was both in one matter and substaunce It is much pitie that you haue not bestowed your tyme in translation of good authors that can skill so well of translation to make specieÌ„ to signifie apparence and that take vertue sometyme for veritie and somtime for nothing a dextris virtutis Dei to signifie no more but a dextris Dei and virtutem carnis to signifie no more but carnem and virtutem sanguinis sanguinem And why not seing that such wordes signifie ad placitum that is to say as please you to translate them And it seameth to be a strange thing that you haue so quicke an eye to espye other mens faultes and cannot see in Theophilact his playne aunswer but to take vpon you to teach him to aunswer For when he asketh the question why doth
in direct course to speake of the matter of transubstantiacion In this fourth Book the author intreateth eating and drinking of Christes body and bloud And in the first part therof trauayleth to confirme his purpose and in the second part aunswereth as he can so his aduersaries and so taketh accasion to speake of Adoration His chiefe purpose is to proue that euill men receiue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which after this authors doctrine is a very superfluous matter For if the sacrament be onely a figure and the body and bloud of Christ be there onely fyguratiuely whereto should this author dispute of euill mens eating when good menne can not eate Christ in the sacrament bycause he is not there For by the effect of this authors doctrine the Sacrament is but a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine that in beleeuing and remembring Christes benefites with reuoluing them in our mynde we should in fayth feed vpō Christ spiritually beleuing that as the bread wine feedeth nourisheth our bodies so Christ feedeth nourisheth our soules which be good wordes but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not learneds yet may be well gathered not to limitte the mistery of the supper but to be spoken taught touching the beleuing remēbring Christes benefites with the reuoluing of thē in our minde therby to learne vs how to feed vpō Christ cōtinually without the vse of the visible Sacramēt beyng called of S. Augustine the inuisible sacramēt wher in by fayth we be nourished with the word of God the vertus of Christes body bloud which the true teaching of the church calleth spirituall manducation only without which no man is to be accompted a true membre of the mysticall body of Christ. And therfore who so feedeth vpon Christ thus spiritually must needes be a good man for onely good men be true members of Christes misticall body which spirituall eating is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessaryly to be good and therfore it must be and is certayne conclusion that onely good men do eat and drincke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to life So as this author shall haue of me no aduersary therin And if this author had proued that to be the true doctrine that Christes very body and bloud is not present in the visible Sacrament then might he haue left this fourth booke vnwritten For after his doctrine as I sayd before good men do not eate Christes body in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes for bycause it is not there and then much lesse should euyll men reach it In the Catholike teaching all the doctrine of eating of Christ is concluded in two maner of eatings one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall an other spirituall without the sacrament And because in the eating of the visible Sacrament S. Paule speaketh of vnworthy the same true teaching to open the matter more clerely according to Scripture noteth vnto vs three maner of eatinges one spirituall onely which onely good men do feeding in fayth without the visible Sacrament An other is both spirituall and Sacramentall which also good men only do receiuing the visible Sacrament with a true sincere charitable fayth The third maner of eating is Sacramētall only which after S. Paule euell men do vnworthely and therfore haue iudgement and condemnation and be gilty of our Lords body not esteming our Lordes body there And here ariseth the knot of contention with this author who sayth euell men eate but the Sacramentall bread wher vnto I reply no more do good men neyther if this authors doctrine of the Sacrament be true seing he will haue it but a figure If this author will say the effect is other in good men then in euill men I will not striue therin But to discusse this matter euidētly we must rightly open the truth and then must consider the visible Sacraments as they be of Gods ordinaunce who directeth vs where to seeke for his giftes and how whose working all be it it be not restrayned by his Sacramentes and therfore God may and doth inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleaseth hym yet he teacheth vs of his ordinary working in the visible Sacramentes ordereth vs to seeke his giftes of helth and lyfe there wherupon S. Augustine noteth how Baptisme among the Christian men of Aphrike was very well called health and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in which God geueth helth and lyfe if we worthely vse them The ordinaunce of these Sacramentes is Goddes worke the very author of thē who as he is in him selfe vniforme as S. Iames sayth without alteration so as Dauid sayth his workes be true which is asmuch as uniforme for truth and uniforme aunswereth together As God is all Goodnes so all his workes be good So as considering the substaunce of Gods workes ordinaunces as they be in themselfe they be alwayes vniforme certayne and true in theyr substance as God ordered them Among men for whom they be worught and ordered there is varietie good men euill men worthy vnworthy but as S. Paule sayth there is but one Lord one fayth one Baptisme And the parable of the sower which Christ declared himselfe sheweth a diuersity of the groundes where the seed did fall but the seed was all one that did fall in the good ground and that did fall in the naughty ground but it fructified onely in the good ground which seed Christ calleth his word And in the sixt of S. Iohn sayth his word is spirit and life so as by the teaching of Christ spirite and lyfe may fall vpon naughty men although for theyr malice it tarieth not nor fructifieth not in them And S. Augustine according hereunto noteth how Christes wordes be spirit and lyfe although thou doest carnally vnderstād them and hast no frute of them yet so they be spirite and lyfe but not to thee wherby appeareth the substaunce of Gods ordinaunce to be one though we in the vsing of it vary The promises of God can not be disapoynted by mans infidelitie as S. Paule sayth which place Luther alleageth to shew the vnitie in the substaunce of Baptisme whither it be ministred to good or euill But S. Paule to the Corinthians declareth it notably in these wordes We be the good sauour of Christ in them that be salued and them that perish Here S. Paule noteth the sauour good and one to diuers men but after the diuersitie in men of diuers effectes in them that is to say the sauour of life and the sauour of death which saying of S. Paule the Greeke scooles gathered by Oecumenius open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptly The doue they say and the bèetell shall feed both vpon one oyntment and the beetell dye of it and the doue strengthned by it The diuersitie in the effect
following of the diuersitie of them that eate and not of that is eaten which is alway one According hereunto S. Augustine agaynst the donatists geueth for a rule the sacramentes to be one in all although they be not one that receaue vse them And therfore to knitte vp this matter for the purpose I intend and write it for we must consider the substance of the visible sacrament of Christes body and bloud to be alwayes as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce in the vnderstanding wherof this author maketh variaunce and would haue it by Christes ordinaunce but a figure which he hath not proued but and he had proued it then is it in substaunce but a figure and but a figure to good men For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad and so neyther to good nor bad this sacrament is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preaching Wherefore if it be more then a figure as it is in deed and if by Christes ordinance it hath present vnder the forme of those visible signes of bread and wine the very body and bloud of Christ as both bene truly taught hitherto then is the substance of the Sacrament one alwayes as the oyntment was whether doues eate of it or beteles And this Issue I ioyne with this author that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diuersitie in the substance of this sacrament what soeuer diuersite follow in the effect For the diuersitie of the effect is occasioned in them that receaue as before is proued And then to answere this author I say that onely good men eate and drinck the body and bloud of Christ spiritually as I haue declared but all good and euill receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce God hath ordeyned it which in it hath no variance but is all one to good and euill Caunterbury IN this booke because you agre with me almost in the whole I shall not need much to trauaile in the aunswer but leauing all your prety taūtes agaynst me and glorious bosting of your selfe which neyther beseemeth our persones nor hindreth the truth nor furthereth your part but by pompouse wordes to winne a vayne glory and fame of them that be vnlearned and haue more regarde to words then iudgement of the matter I shall onely touch here and there such thinges as we vary in or that be necessary for the defence of the truth First after the sūme of my fourth booke collected as pleaseth you at the first dash you beginne with an vntrue report ioyned to a subtell deceyte or falax saying that my chief purpose is to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament And hereupon you conclude that my fourth booke is superfluouse But of a false antecedent all that be learned do know that nothing can be rightly concluded Now mine intent and purpose in my fourth boooke is not to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the sacrament although that be true but my chief purpose is to proue that euell men eate not Christes flesh nor drincke not his bloud neither in the sacrament nor out of the sacrament as on the other side good men eat and drincke them both in the sacrament and out of the Sacrament And in the word Sacrament which is of your addition is a subtill falax called double vnderstanding For when the Sacrament is called onely a figure as you reherse wherin the body and bloud of Christ be onely figuratiuely there the word Sacrament is taken for the outwarde signes of bread and wine And after when you reherse that the Sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine in beleuing and remembring Christes benefites there the word Sacrament is taken for the whole ceremony and ministration of the Sacrament And so when you goe about by equiuocation of the word to deceaue other men you fall into your owne snare and be deceaued your selfe in that you think you conuey the matter so craftely that no man can espy you But to vtter the matter playnly without fallax or cauilation I teach that no man can eat Christes flesh and drincke his bloud but spiritually which forasmuch as euill men do not although they eat the sacramentall bread vntill theyr bellyes be full and drincke the wine vntill they be dronken yet eat they neither Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament because they cannot be eaten and dronken but by spirite and fayth wherof vngodly men be destitute being nothing but world and flesh This therfore is the summe of my teaching in this fourth booke that in the true ministration of the Sacrament Christ is present spiritually and so spiritually eaten of them that be godly and spirituall And as for the vngodly and carnall they may eate the bread and drincke the wine but with Christ him selfe they haue no communion or company and therfore they neyther eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which who soeuer eateth hath as Christ sayth him selfe life by him as Christ hath life by his father And to eate Christes body or drincke his bloud sayth S. Augustine is to haue life For whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally as you say or spiritually in them that rightly beleue in him and duely receaue the Sacrament as I say yet certayne it is that there he is not eaten corporally but spiritually For corporal eating with the mouth is to chaw teare in peces with the teeth after which maner Christes body is of no man eaten although Nicholas the second made such an article of the fayth and compelled Berengatius so to professe And therfore although Christ were corporally in the Sacrament yet seeing that he cannot be corporally eaten this booke commeth in good place and is very necessary to know that Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually by beleuing and remembring Christes benefites and reuoluing them in our mynd beleeuing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bodyes so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our soules And ought this to come out of a christian mannes mouth That these be good wordes but such as the wordes of christes supper do not learne vs Do not the wordes of Christes supper learne vs to eate the breade and drinke the wine in the remembraunce of his death Is not the breakyng and eating of the bread after such sort as Christ ordayned a communication of Christes body vnto vs Is not the cuppe likewise a communication of his bloud vnto vs Should not then christian people according hereunto in fayth feed vpon Christ spiritually beleuing that as the bread wine feed and nourish theyr bodyes so both Christ their soules with his owne flesh and bloud And shall any Christian man now say that these be good wordes but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not
yet for the tyme of the receauing it hath the licour in it And how can Christ departe from an vnpenitent sinner as you say he doeth if he haue him not at all And because of myne ignoraunce I would fayne leran of you that take vpon you to be a man of knowledge how an euill man receauing Christes very body and whole Christ God and man as you say an euell man doth and Christes body being such as it cannot be deuided from his spirite as you say also how this euell man receauing Christes spirite should be an euell man for the tyme that he hath Christes spirit within him Or how can he receaue Christes body and spirite according to your saying and haue them not in him for the tyme he receaueth them Or how can Christ enter into an euell man as you confesse and be not in him into whome he entreth at that present tyme These be matters of your knowledge as you pretend which if you can teach me I must confesse myne ignoraunce And if you cannot for so much as you haue spoken them you must confesse the ignoraunce to be vpon your owne part And S. Paule sayth not as you vntruely recite him that in him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation but that he eateth and drincketh condemnation And where you say that S. Paules wordes playnly import that those did eate the very body of Christ which did eate vnworthely euer still you take for a supposition the thing which you should proue For S. Paule speaketh playnly of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not one word of eating of the body and drincking of the bloud of Christ. And let any indifferent reader looke vpon my questions and he shall see that there is not one word answered here directly vnto them except mocking and scorning be taken for aunswere And where you deny that of your doctrine it should follow that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell you can not deny but that your owne teaching is that Christ entreth into euell men when they receaue the sacrament And if they be his temple into whome he entreth then must euell men be his temple for the tyme they receaue the sacrament although he tary not long with them And for the same tyme they be euell men as you say and so must nedes be the temple of the deuell And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching that at one tyme a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the deuell And in your figure of Christ vpon earth although he taryed not long with euery man that receaued him yet for a tyme he taried with them And the word of God tarieth for the tyme with many which after forget it and kepe it not And then so must it be by these examples in euell men receauing the sacrament that for a tyme Christ must tary in them although that tyme be very short And yet for that tyme by your doctrine those euell men must be both the temples of God and of Beliall And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authoritie of S. Paule it is no small contumely and iniury to S. Paule to asscribe your fayned and vntrue glose vnto him that taught nothing but the truth as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mentiō of the eating and drincking of the bread and cuppe but not one word of the eating and drincking of Christes body and bloud Now followeth in my booke my answer to the Papistes in this wise But least they should seme to haue nothing to say for them selues they alleadge S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth where he sayth He that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh and bloud as it is manifest to euery man that will reade the text For these be the wordes of S. Paule Let a man examin him selfe and so eat of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body In these wordes S. Paules mynd is that for asmuch as the bread and wine in the Lordes supper do represent vnto vs the very body and bloud of our sauiour Christ by his owne institution and ordinance therfore although he sit in heauen at his fathers right hand yet should we come to this misticall bread and wine with fayth reuerence purite and feare as we would do if we should come to see and receaue Christ him selfe sensibly present For vnto the faythfull Christ is at his own holy table presēt with his mighty spirite grace and is of them more fruitfully receaued then if corporally they should receaue him bodely present and therfore they that shall worthely com to this Gods boord must after due triall of them selues consider first who ordeined this table also what meat and drincke they shall haue that come therto and how they ought to behaue them selues therat He that prepared the table is Christ him selfe The meat and drincke wherwith he fedeth them that come therto as they ought to do is his own body flesh and bloud They that com therto must occupy theyr myndes in considering how his body was broken for them and his bloud shed for theyr redemption and so ought they to approch to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart and godlynes of mynd as to the table wherin Christ hym selfe is giuen And they that come otherwise to this holy table they come vnworthely and do not eat drincke Christes flesh and bloud but eat and drincke theyr own damnation bicause they do not duely consider Christes very flesh and bloud which be offred there spiritually to be eaten and drinken but dispising Christes most holy supper do come therto as it were to other common meates drinckes without regarde of the Lordes body which is the spirituall meat of that table Winchester In the .97 leafe and the second columne the Author beginneth to trauerse the wordes of S. Paule to the Corinthians and would distinct vnworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament receyued which can not be For our vnworthines can not alter the substance of Gods sacrament that is euermore all one howsoeuer we swarue from worthynes to vnworthynes And this I would aske of this Author why should it be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when he is taught yf this authors doctrine be true that it is not there at all If the bread after this authors teaching be but a figure of Christes body it is then but as Manna was the eating wherof vnworthily and vnfaythfully was no gift of Christes body Erasmus noteth these wordes of S. Paule to be gylty of
at the last S. Augustine sheweth the same to be true in the Sacramētes both of Baptisme and the Lordes body which he sayth do profite onely them that receaue the same worthely And the wordes of S. Paule which S. Augustine citeth do speake of the Sacramentall bread and cup and not of the body and bloud And yet S. Augustine called the bread and the cup the flesh and bloud not that they be so in deed but that they signifie as he sayth in an other place cōtra Maximinum In Sacramentes sayth he is to be considered not what they be but what they shew For they be signes of other thinges being one thing and signifiing another Therfore as in baptisme those that come faynedly and those that come vnfaynedly both be washed with the sacramētal water but both be not washed with the holy ghost and clothed with Christ so in the Lordes supper both eate and drincke the sacramentall bread and wine but both eate not Christ him selfe and be fed with his flesh and bloud but those onely which worthely receaue the Sacrament And this aunswere wil serue to another place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes where he sayth that Iudas receyued the body and bloud of the Lord. For as S. Augustine in that place speaketh of the Sacrament of Baptisme so doth he speake of the Sacramēt of the body and bloud which neuerthelesse he calleth the body and bloud bycause they signifie and represent vnto vs the very body flesh and bloud Winchester And yet he goeth about bycause he will make all thing clere to answer such authors as the papistes he sayth bring for theyr purpose And first he beginneth with S. Augustine who writeth as playnly agaynst this authors mynd as I would haue deuised it If I had no conscience of truth more then I see some haue and myght with a secret wish haue altered S. Augustine as I had lift And therfore here I make a playne Issue with this author that in the searching of S. Augustine he hath trusted his man or his frende ouer negligently in so great a matter or he hath willingly gone about to deceaue the reader For in the place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes alleadged here by this author which he would with the rest assoyle S. Augustine hath these format wordes in Latin Corpus dominum sanguis domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus Qui manducat indigne indicium sibi manducat bibit Which wordes be thusmuch in English It was neuerthelesse the body of our Lord and the bloud of our Lord also vnto them to whome the Apostles sayd He that eateth vnworthely eateth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe These be S. Augustines wordes who writeth notably and euidently that is was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receaued vnworthely declaring that theyr vnworthines doth not alter the substance of that sacrament and doth vs to vnderstand therwith the substaunce of the Sacrament to be the body and bloud of Christ and neuerthelesse so though the receauers be vnworthy wherin this author is so ouerseene as I thinke there was neuer learned man before the durst in a commōwealth where learned men be publish such an vntruth as this is to be answered in a tongue that all men knew Yet Peter Martyr wrot in Latin and reioyseth not I think to haue his lyes in English I will bring in here an other place of S. Augustin to this purpose Illud etiam quod ait Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo quo modo intellecturisumus Nunquid etiamillos sic poterimus accipere de quibus dixit Apostolus quod indicium sibi manducent bibant quum ipsant carnem manducent ipsum sanguinem bibant Nūquid Iudas Magistri venditor traditor impius quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis sanguinis eius cum ceteres discipulis sicut apertius Lucas Euangelista declarat manducaret biberat mansit in Christo aut Christus in eo Multi denique qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant sanguinem bibunt vel quum manducauerint biberint apostate fiunt nunquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eis Sed profecto est quidem modus manducandi illam carnem bibendi illum sanguinem quomodo qui manducauerit biberit in Christo manet Christus in eo Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo quem modum vtique ipse videbat quando ista dicebat The English of these wordes is this That same that he also sayth Who eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him how shall we vnderstand it May we vnderstand also them of whom the Apostle speake that they did eat to themselues and drincke iudgement when they did eate the same flesh and drincke the same bloud the flesh it selfe the bloud it selfe Dyd not Iudas the wicked seller and betrayer of his master when he dyd eate and drincke as Lucas the Euangilest declareth the firste Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes dwell in Christ and Christ in him Fynally many that with a fayned hart eate that flesh and drincke the bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken become aposratates do not they dwell in Christ or Christ in them But vndoubtedly there is a certayne manner of eating that flesh drincking that bloud after which manner whosoeuer eateth and drincketh dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him Therfore not in whatsoeuer maner any man eateth the flesh of Christ and drincketh the bloud of Christ he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him but after a certayn maner which maner he saw when he sayd these wordes This is the sense of S. Augustines saying in Latine wherby appeareth the fayth of S. Augustin to be in the sacrament to be eaten and drōken the very body and bloud of Christ which for the substaunce of the sacrament euill men receaue as good men do that is to say as S. Augustine doth poynt it out by his wordes the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ with such an expression of speach as he would exclude all difference that deuise of figure might imagine and therfore sayth Ipsam carnem ipsum sanguinem which signifie the selfe same in dede not by name onely as the author of the booke would haue S. Augustine vnderstanded and when that appeareth as it is most manifest that Iudas receaued the same being wicked that good men do how the same is before the recept by godes omnipotencie present in the visible sacrament and so not receaued by the onely instrument of fayth which in euill men is not liuely but by the instrument of the mouth
such perplexity as alteration hath engendred and so do as good seruice in the truth as was ment therby to hinder and empayre it And this shall suffice for an answere to this fourth booke Caunterbury HEre apeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter For you leaue out those wordes of S. Ambrose which maketh his meaning playne that the prophet spake of the mistery of Christes incarnation Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda misteria sunt c. If they deny sayth he that the misteries of the incarnatiō in Christ be to be honored c. And a little after Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominicae sacramentum spectare videatur quod ait Propheta Adorate scabellum pedum eius consideremus Let vs consider by what meanes this saying of the prophet worship his foote stoole may be seene to pertayne to the sacrament of Christes incarnation And after the wordes by you rehearsed foloweth by and by Cum igitur incarnationis adorandum sit Sacramentum c. Seing then that the Sacrament of the incarnation is to be honored In these wordes sheweth S. Ambrose playnly that the worshipping of Christes flesh is vnderstand of the mistery of his incarnation So that S. Ambrose ment not onely that men should worship Christ when they receaue the Sacrament but that all creatures at all tymes should worship him And therfore he expresseth there by name how the Angels did worship him and also Mary Magdalene and the Apostles after his resurrection when they receaued not the Sacrament And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him yet being in his infancy and the prophet after the mynd of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose commaunded to honor him before his incarnation we likewise honor him sitting now in heauen after his ascentiō For so farre is fayth able to reach without eyther tentering or stretching Thus haue I aunswered to all that you haue brought agaynst my fourth booke not obscurely as you like a cuttell haue done hiding your selfe in your darke colours but playnly to the capacity of all men asmuch as I can And this haue I done with some payne of writing but little or no study for the matter being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answere by gods word and auncient authors to an ignorant lawyer being well exercised in neyther of both but making such diuinity a she can dreame in his sleape or deuise of his owne brayne or hath sucked out of the Papistical lawes and decrees and for lacke of arguments furnishing vp his booke with prety toyes with glorious bosting and scornfull taunting And with picking out of my booke such sentences as he perswadeth him selfe that he can make some colour of apparaunt answere to deceaue the reader And such places as he seeth his rhetorike will not serue he passeth them away slightly bicause he is afrayd to file his hands therwith Wherfore I may now right well and iustly conclude here myne answere to his confutation with the wordes of my fourth booke which be these But our sauiour Christ himselfe hath geuen vs warning before hand that such false Christians and false teachers should come and hath bydde vs to beware of them saying If any man tell you that Christ is here or Christ is there beleue him not For there shall rise false Christes and false prophets and shall shew many signes and wonders so that if it were possible the very elect should be brought into erroure Take heede I haue told you before hand Thus our Sauiour Christ like a most louing pastor and sauiour of our soules hath giuen vs warning before hand of the perilles and dangers that were to come and to be wise and ware that we should not geue credite vnto such teachers as would perswade vs to worship a peece of bread to kneele to it to knocke to it to creepe to it to follow it in procession to lift vp our hādes to it to offer to it to light candels to it to shut it vp in a chest or boxe to do all other honor vnto it more then we do vnto God hauing alway this pretence or scuse for our idolatry Behold here is Christ. But our Sauiour Christ calleth them false Prophets and sayth Take heed I tell you before Beleue them not If they say to you behold Christ is a broad or in the wildernes goe not out And if they say that he is kept in close places beleue them not And if you will aske me the question who be these false prophets and seducers of the people the aunswere is soone made The Romish Antichristes and their adherents the authors of all erroure ignorance blindnes superstition hipocrisie and idolatry For Innocentius the thyrd one of the most wicked men that euer was in the sea of Rome dyd ordayne and decree that the host should be diligently kept vnder locke and key And Honorius the third not onely confirmed the same but commaunded also that the priestes would diligently teach the people from tyme to tyme that when they lifted vp the bread called the host the people should then reuerently bowe downe and that likewise they should do when the priest carieth the host vnto sicke folkes These be the statutes and ordinaunces of Rome vnder pretence of holines to leade the people vnto all errour and idolatry not bringing them by bread vnto Christ but from Christ vnto bread But all that loue and beleue Christ himselfe let them not thinke that Christ is corporally in the bread but let them lift vp theyr hartes vnto heauen and worshipping him sitting there at the right hand of his father Let them worship him in them selues whose temples they be in whome he dwelleth and liueth spiritually but in no wise let them worship him as being corporally in the bread For he is not in it neither spiritually as he is in man nor corporally as he is in heauen but onely Sacramentally as a thing may be sayd to be in the figure wherby it is signified Thus is sufficiently reproued the third principall errour of the Papistes concerning the Lordes supper which is That wicked members of the deuil doe eate Christes very body and drincke his bloud ¶ Thus endeth the fourth booke ¶ The Confutation of the second booke HAuing declared how much agaynst all truth this author would beare in hand that the reall presence the corporall presence and substanciall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the sacrament is not the true catholique doctrine but a deuise of the Papistes which is a terme wherwith this author both vncharitably charge the kinges true subiectes among whome he knoweth a great many to be of that fayth he calleth now Papish But setting wordes a part and to come to the matter as I haue shewed this author to erre partly by wilfulnes partly by ignorance in the vnderstanding of the olde authors concerning the true reall
contempt were meeter in an Ethnikes mouth to iest out all then to passe the lippes of such an author to play with the sillables after this sort For although he may read in some blind glose that in the instant of the last sillable gods worke is to be accompted wrought being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttered not to put the vertue in the last sillable nor to scorne the catholique fayth after which manner taking example of this author if an Ethnicke should iest of Fiat Lux at fi was nothing and then at at was yet nothing at lu was nothing but a litle little pearing put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then the light What christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entry of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this author noteth with an exclamation Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread Here I would question with this author whether Christ sayd so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall bread Christ sayd This is my body Ergo he sayd this is no bread And the first part of this reason this author affirmeth in the 59. leafe And the second part is Christes wordes and therfore to auoyd this conclusion the onely way is to say that Christes speach was but a figure which the catholique doctrine sayth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christ saying this is my body sayth in effect this is no bread wherat this author sayth They would bragge if Christ had sayd so In speach is to be considered that euery yea containeth a nay in it naturally so as who so euer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine Who soeuer sayth this is wine sayth it is no beere If a Lapidary sayth This is a Diamōd he sayth it is no glas he sayth it is no christall he sayth it is no white Saphir So Christ saying this is my body sayth it is no bread Which plainesse of speach caused Zuinglius to say playnly if there be presēt the substaūce of the body of Christ there is trāsubstātiatiō that is to say not the substaūce of bread therfore who wil playnly deny transubstantion must deny the true presence of the substaunce of Christes body as this author doth wherein I haue first conuinced him and therfore vse that victory for his ouerthrow in transubstantiation I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body and yet I will touch here such testimonie as this author bringeth out of one Hylary for the purpose of trāsubstātiation in the xxv leafe of this booke in these wordes There is a figure sayth Hylary for bread and wine be outwardly sene and there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued These be Hylaries words as this author alledgeth them who was he sayth within 350. yeares of Christ. Now I call to thy iudgement good reader could any man deuise more pithy wordes for the proofe of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud and the condemnation of this author that would haue an onely figure Here in Hilarius wordes is a figure compared to truth and sight outwardly to beleue inwardly Now our belief is grounded vpon gods word which is this This is my body in which wordes Hylary testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a truth and the figure is in that is sene outwardly I take Hylary here as this author alledgeth him whereby I aske the Reader is not this author ouerthrowē that Christs speach is not figuratiue but true and proper beyng inwardly true that we beleue Ye will say vnto me What is this to transubstantiation to the reprofe wherof it was brought in bicause he sayth bread and wine is seene First I say that it ouerthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christes body and euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this author in Transubstantiation not by authority of the church of Rome but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius sayth who shall serue me to auoyd papistry If one aske me what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seene I say they be in déede séene for they appeare so and therfore be called so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voyce and yet by his sence of féelyng denyed him Esau which was not Esau but was Iacob as the voyce frō within did declare him If ye will aske me how can there accordyng to Hylaries wordes be in the outward visible creatures any figure vnlesse the same be in déede as they appeare bread and wine I will aunswere Euen as well as this outward obiect of the sensible hearynes of Iacob resemblyng Esau was a figure of Christes humanitie and of the very humanitie in déede Thus may Hylary be aunswered to auoyde his authoritie from contrarying transubstantiation But this author shall neuer auoyde that him selfe hath brought out of Hylary which ouerthroweth him in his figuratiue speach consequently in his deniall of transubstantiation also as shall appeare in the further handlyng of this matter Where this author in the 18. leaf compareth these S. Paules wordes The bread that we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ to the expoundyng of Christes wordes This is my body I deny that for Christes wordes declared the substaunce of the Sacrament when he sayd This is my body and S. Paul declareth the worthy vse of it accordyng to Christes institution and by the wordes The bread that we breake doth signifie the whole vse of the Supper wherein is breakyng blessing thankesgeuyng dispensing receiuyng and eatyng So as onely breakyng is not the communion and yet by that part in a figure of speach S. Paul meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the Scripture a terme in speach to goe breake bread although it be not alwayes so taken whereby to signifie to go celebrate our Lordes Supper and therfore bread in that place may signifie the commō bread as it is adhibite to be consecrat which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ and so distributed and receaued is the communiō of the body of Christ as the cup is likewise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction which benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for callyng of Christes bread his body is to make it his body who as S. Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so maketh it to be The argumentes this author vseth in the 19. and 20. leafe of the order of Christes speaches as the Euangelistes rehearse them be captious deuises of this author in case he knoweth what S. Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hath not read S. Augustine De
yea conteineth a nay in it naturally Therfore Christ saying it is his body sayth it is no bread If this forme of Argument were infallible then I may turne the same to you agayne and ouerthrow you with your own weapon thus S. Paule sayd it is bread Ergo it is not Christes body if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the other And by such Sophistication you may turne vp all the truth quite and cleane and say that Christ was neither God nor man bycause he sayd he was a vine bread And euery yea say you conteineth a nay in it naturally And where you boast that you haue conuinced me in the matter of the reall presence of Christes body I trust the indifferent Reader wil say that you triumph before the victorie saying that you haue wonne the field when in deede you haue lost it and when Golyathes head is smitten of with his owne sword But the old English Prouerbe is here true that it is good beating of a proude man for whē he is all to beaten backe bone yet will he boast of his victorie and bragge what a valiant man he is And it is an other vayne bragge also that you make whē you say that you haue shewed before that Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body For you haue neither proued that you say nor haue aunswered to my proofes to the contrary as I referre to the iudgement of all indifferent Readers but you haue confessed that Christ called bread his body made demōstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body How can then this speach be true but by a figure that bread is Christes body seyng that in proper speach as you say euery yea conteineth a nay and the affirmation of one thyng is the deniall of an other And where you alledge as it were against me the wordes of Hylarie that there is both a figure and a truth of that figure for answere hereunto the truth is that your matter here is gathered of an vntruth that I would haue onely a figure where as I say playnly as Hylarie sayth that in the true ministration of the Sacrament is both a figure and a truth the figure outwardly and the truth inwardly For bread and wyne be sensible signes and Sacraments to teach vs outwardly what feedeth vs inwardly Outwardly we see and feele bread and wyne with our outward senses but inwardly by faith we see and feede vpon Christes true body and bloud But this is a spirituall feedyng by faith which requireth no corporall presence And here I aske you two questions One is this whither Hylarie say that the body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wyne and that corporally If he say not so as the Reader shall soone iudge looking vpon his wordes then stand I vpright without any fall or foyle for Hylarie sayth not as you do The other question is whither Hylarie doe not say that there is a figure let the Reader iudge also and see whither you be not quite ouerthrowen with your owne crooke in saying that Christes speach is not figuratiue And yet the third question I may adde also why S. Hylarie should say that bread and wine be figures if there be no bread nor wine there at all but be taken cleane away by transubstantiation And where as for aunswere hereto you take the example of Iacob who for his hearynes resembled Esau and was as you say a a figure of Christes very humanitie you doe like an vnskilfull Mariner that to auoyde a litle tempest runneth himselfe vpon a rocke For where you make Iacob who resēbled Esau and was not he in deede to be a figure of Christes humanitie you make by this example that as Iacob by his hearynesse resembled Esau and was not he in deede so Christ by outward apparence resembled a man and yet he was no man in deede And where you denye that these wordes of S. Paule is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ declare the meaning of Christes wordes this is my body because Christes wordes say you declare the substaunce and S. Paules wordes declare the vse I deny that Christes body is the substaunce of the visible Sacrament For the substaūce of the Sacramēt is bread and wine and the thing thereby signified is Christes body and bloud And this is notable which you say that these words the bread which we breake do signifie the whole vse of the Supper not onely breakyng but also blessing thankesgeuing dispensing receauyng and eatyng that bread in this place signifieth common bread taken to be consecrated In which saying it is a world to see the phantasies of mens deuises how vncertain they be in matters perteining to God How agreeth this your saying with your doctrine of transubstantiation For if S. Paule when he sayd the bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christes body ment by bread common bread and by breaking ment also the blessing thankesgeuing receauing and eating then is common bread broken blessed receaued eaten And then where becōmeth your transubstantiation yf cōmon bread be eaten in the Sacramēt And whē is the bread turned into the body of Christ if it remaine cōmō bread vntill it be eatē Yet now you seeme to begin some thing to sauour of the truth that the bread remaineth still in his proper nature enduring the whole vse of the Supper And as touching this place of S. Paule that God calleth things that be not as they were if it perteine vnto Sacrament where Christ called bread his body what could you haue alledged more against yourself For if in this place Christ call that which is not as it were then Christ called bread as it were his body and yet it is not his body in deede But in this your aunswere to the arguments brought in by me out of the very wordes of the Euangelistes is such a shamelesse arrogancie and boldnesse shewed as abhorreth all Christian eares for to heare which is that three Euāgelistes telling the maner of Christs holy Supper not one of them all doe tell the tale in right order but subuert the order of Christes doinges and sayinges and that in such a necessary matter of our Religiō that the diffinition of the whole truth standeth in the order The Euangelistes say you rehearse what Christ sayd and did simply and truely But is this a simple and true rehearsall of Christes wordes and deedes to tell them out of order otherwise then Christ did sayd them And S. Paule also if it be as you say speaking of the same matter cōmitteth the like errour And yet neuer no auncient authour expounding the Euangelistes or S. Paule could spye out this fault and in their Commentaries giue vs warning therof And I am not so ignoraunt but I haue many tymes read S. Augustine De doctrina Christiana where he sayth that
say the change in mans soule by Baptisme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in deede or els graunt the true catholique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures into the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise not in figure and signification but truly really and indeede And for the thing changed as the soule of man mans inward nature is chaunged so the inward nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken away which this author vseth in an other place of Sacramentall change which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth the age of Emissene and I note with all how playnly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teaching who indeede bicause of his auncient and playne writing for declaration of the matter in forme of teaching without contention is one whose authority the church hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in the truth of the presence of Christes very body or Transubstantiation for the speaking of the inward change doth poynt as it were the change of the substance of bread with resembling therunto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one author not being of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in the allegation after this manner corrupt might suffice for to conclude all brabling agaynst the Sacrament Caunterbury WHere I haue corrupted Emissene let the reader be iudge But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration change and turning of a man from the congregation of the wicked vnto the congregation of Christ which he calleth the body of the church and from the childe of death vnto the child of God this must be made a matter of scoffing to turne light fellowes out of the chancell into the body of the church Such trifling now a dayes becometh gayly well godly Bishoppes what if in the steede of turning I had sayd skipt ouer as the word transilisti signifieth which although peraduenture the bookes be false and should be transisti I haue translated turning should I haue so escaped a mocke trow you You would then haue sayd he that so doth goeth not out at the chancell dore into the body of the church but skippeth ouer the stalles But that Emissene ment of turning is cleare aswell by the wordes that go before as those which go after which I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader But forasmuch as you would perswade men that this author maketh so much for your purpose I shall set forth his minde playnly that it may appeare how much you be deceaued Emissenes mynd is this that although our sauiour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodely sight Yet we see him by fayth and by grace he is here present with vs so that by him we be made new creatures regenerated by him and fedde and nourished by him which generation and nutrition in vs is spirituall without any mutation appearing outwardly but wrought within vs inuisibly by the omnipotent power of God And this alteration in vs is so wonderfull that we be made new creatures in Christ grafted into his body and of the same receaue our nourishment and encreasing And yet visibly with our bodely eyes we see not these thinges but they be manifest vnto our fayth by gods worde and sacraments And Emissene declareth none other reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and bloud then in the Sacrament of baptisme but spiritually by fayth to be present in both And where Emissene speaketh of the conuersion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ he speaketh that aswell of baptisme as of the lordes supper as his owne wordes playnly declare 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 vppon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme And yet he ment not that the water of baptisme in it selfe is really turned into the substance of Christ nor likewise bread and wine in the Lordes supper but that in the action water wine and bread as sacraments be sacramentally conuerted vnto him that duely receaueth them into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramentall conuersion is in the Sacraments and the reall conuertion is in him that receaueth the sacraments which reall conuertion is inward inuisible and spirituall For the outward corporall substances aswell of the name as of the water remayne the same that they were before And therfore sayth Emissene 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 encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly In these wordes hath Emissene playnly declared that the conuersion in the sacraments wherof he spake when he sayd that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ is to be vnderstand in the receauours by their fayth and that in the sayd conuersion the outward substance remayneth the selfe same that was before And that Emissene ment this as well in the sacrament of the lordes supper as in the sacrament of baptisme his own wordes playnly declare So that the substance of Christ as well in baptisme as the Lordes supper is seene not with our eyes but with our fayth and touched not with our bodies but with our mindes and receaued not with our hands but with our hartes eaten and drunken not with our outward mouthes but with our inward man And where Emissene sayth that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heauen and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through fayth he doth vs to vnderstand that he is not present in the formes of bread and wine out of the ministration except you will say that fayth and grace be in the bread when it is kept and hanged vp but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christes institution then to them that so eate and drincke the bread and wine is the body and bloud of Christ according to Christes wordes Edite hoc est corpus meum Bibite hic est calix senguinis mei And therfore in the booke of the holy communion we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and bloud of Christ but that they may be to vs the body and bloud of Christ that is to say that we may so eate them and drincke them that we may be partakers of his body crucified and of his bloud shed for our redemption Thus haue I declared the truth of Emissenes mynd which is agreable to Gods word and the olde
catholike Church But now what illusions and dreames you fantasy of Emissenes wordes it is a wonder to heare First that the substance of bread and wine is an inward nature and that in baptisme the whole man is not regenerated but the soule onely and that the soule of man is the substance of man and made the sonne of God And now when it serueth for your purpose the body of Christ is a corporall substance which in all your booke before was but a spirituall body and the substance of bread and wine be visible creatures which were wont with you to be inward and inuisible natures and now is the inward nature of the bread the substance of the bread where as in other places the outward fourmes be the substance so litle substance is in your doctrine that from tyme to tyme you thus alter your sayings This is no tripping but so shamefull a fall and in so foule and stincking a place that you shall neuer be able to spunge the filthines out of your clothes and to make your selfe sweete agayne And you appoynt at your pleasure both terminum a quo terminum ad quem and the changes and the thinges that be changed altogither otherwise then Emissene doth For in Emissene the changes be regeneration and nourishing or augmentation the thing that is changed is the man both in regeneration and in nutrition or augmentation and in regeneration terminus a quo is the sonne of perdition and terminus ad quem is the sonne of God And in nutrition terminus a quo is the hunger and thirst of the man and terminus ad quem is the feeding and satisfying of his hunger and thirst But you appoynt the changes to be Transubstātiatiō and regeneration and the thinges that be changed in Transubstantiation you say is the substance of bread and wine and the same to be terminum a quo and the flesh and bloud of Christ say you is terminus ad quem And in regeneration you assigne terminum a quo to be the soule of man onely and terminum ad quem to be regenerated the sonne of God And so being viii thinges in these ii mutations in each of them the change the thing that is changed the thing from whence it is changed and the thing wherunto it is changed you haue mist the butte clearly in all sauing ii that is to say regeneration and the thing wherunto regeneration is made and in all other vi you missed the quishion quite And yet if the change were in the substance of bread and wine proportionably to the change of the soule being the substance of man as you say if you should make the proportions agree then as the soule being the mans substance remayneth without Transubstantiation so must the bread and wine remayne without transubstantiation And if the substance of the bread and wine be not the visible signe in the lordes supper because substance as you say is a thing inuisible then is not the substance of water the visible signe in baptisme bring no more visible the substance of the one then the substance of the other Now of Hilary I write thus Hilarius also in few wordes sayth the same There is a figure sayth he for bread and wine be outwardly seene And there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued And this Hilarius was within lesse then 350. yeares after Christ. Winchester But I will examine moe particularieties I haue before answered to Hilary so whome neuerthelesse I would aptly haue sayd somewhat now to note how he distincteth outwardly and inwardly by beleefe and corporall sight For outwardly as Emissene sayth we see no change and therfore we see after Consecration as before which we may therfore call bread but we beleue that inwardly is which as Emissene sayth is the substance of the body of Christ wherunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread as by the comparison of Emissene doth appeare Caunterbury YOur distinction made here of outwardly and inwardly is a playne confusion of Hilarius mynd and contrary to that which you wrote before in Emissene For there you sayd that the visible creatures be changed meaning by the visible creatures the substances of bread and wine and now when Hilary sayth that bread and wine be seene you say that their substances be not seene but the outward formes onely which you say be called bread and wine But here appeareth into how narrow a straight you be driuen that be fayne for a shift to say that the accidents of bread without the substance be called bread Epiphanius is next in my booke And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme sayth that the bread is meat but the vertue that is in it is it that giueth life But if there were no bread at all how could it be meate Winchester These wordes of Epiphanius do playnly ouerturne this authors doctrine of a figuratiue speach for a figure can not geue life onely God giueth life and the speach of this Epiphanius of the sacrament doth necessarily imply the very true presence of Christes body author of life And then as often as the author is ouerthrowen in the truth of the presence so often is he by Zuinglius rule ouerthrowen in Transubstantiation As for the name of bread is granted bicause it was so and Transubstantiation doth not take away but it is meate bicause of the visible matter remayning These sayings be sought out by this author onely to wrangle not taken out where the mistery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine therof but onely signified by the way and spoken of vpon occasion the sence wherof faythfull men know otherwise then appeareth at the first readings to the carnall man but by such like speaches the Arrians impugned the diuinity of Christ. Caunterbury Epiphanius speaking of the bread in the Lordes supper and the water in baptisme sayth that they haue no power nor strength of thē selues but by Christ. So that the bread feedeth and the water washeth the body but neither the bread nor water giue life nor purge to saluation but onely the might and power of Christ that is in them And yet not in them reserued but in the action and ministration as it is manifest of his wordes And therfore as in baptisme is neyther the reall and corporall presence of Christes body nor transubstantiation of the water no more is in the Lordes supper eyther Christes flesh and bloud really and corporally present or the bread and wine transubstantiated And therfore Epiphanius calleth not bread by that name bicause it was so but bicause it is so in deede and nourished the body As Hilary sayd there is a figure for bread and wine be openly seene he sayth not there was a figure for bread and wine were openly seene And the figure giueth not life nor washeth not inwardly but Christ that is in the figure tanquam
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
is called the passion the death the crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mistery so is the Sacramēt of fayth which is Baptisme fayth These wordes be so playne and manifest that the expositour being a very Papist yet could not auoyd the matter but wrote thus vpon the sayd wordes Immolatio quae fit a praesbitero improprie appellatur Christi passio velmors vel crucifixio non quod sit illa sed quia illam significat And after he sayth Coeleste Sacramētū quod vere repraesētat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significanti misterio vt sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus id est significat The offering which the priest maketh is called improperly the passion death or crucifying of Christ not that it is that but that it signifieth it And the heauenly Sacrament which truly represēteth Christes flesh is called Christes body but improperly And therfore is sayd after a manner but not in the truth of the thing but in the signifying mistery So that the sence is this it is called the body of Christ that is to say signifieth Now the wordes of S. Augustine being so playne that none can be more and following the other wordes within tenne lines so that you can alleadge no ignorance but you must needes see them it can be none other but a wilfull blindnes that you will not see and also a wilfull concealing and hiding of the truth from other men that they should not see neyther And this one place is sufficient at full to answere what so euer you can bring of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of bread and wine For after consecration the body bloud of Christ be in them but as in figures although in the godly receauors he is really present by his omnipotent power which is as great a miracle in our dayly nurrishing as is wrought before in our regeneration And therfore is Christ no lesse to be honored of them that feede of him in his holy supper then of them that be grafted in him by regeneration And where as I sayd vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures in that place I collected more of S. Augustines wordes in your fauour then indeed S. Augustine sayth bicause you should not say that I nipt him For S. Augustine sayth not that the sacrament consisteth of two natures and therfore both these natures must needes remayne in the Sacrament but he sayth that the Sacrifice consisteth of two thinges which he calleth also natures and therof it followeth that those two thinges must be in the sacrifice which is to be vnderstande in the ministration not in the bread and wine reserued And very true it is as S Augustine sayth that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two thinges of the Sacrament and of the thing therby signified which is Christes body as the person of Christ consisteth of god and man But yet this resemblance is not altogither like as you say truely for so much for the person of Christ consisteth so of his godhead and manhod that they be both in him in reall presence and vnity of person But in the sacrifice it is otherwise where neither is any such vnion betwene the sacrament and the truth of the Sacrament nor any such presence of the body of Christ. For in the bread and wine Christ is but figuratiuely as I sayd before and in the godly receauours spiritually in whome also he tarieth remayneth so long as they remayne the mēbers of his body But if Christes similitudes should be so narrowly pressed as you presse here the similitude of the two natures of Christ in the sacrament collecting that bicause the body and bloud of Christ be truely present in the due administration of the Sacrament therfore they must be there naturally present as the two natures of the humanity and diuinity be in Christ many wicked errours should be established by them As if the similitude of the wicked steward were strayned as you strayne and force this similitude men might gather that it is lawfull for Christen men to begile theire lordes and masters whiles they be in office to helpe them selues when they be out of office bicause the Lord praysed the wicked steward Yet you know the similitude was not taught of our Sauiour Christ for that purpose for God is no fauourer of falsehod and vntruth So you do wrong both to the holy Doctoures and to me to gather of oure similitude any other doctrine than we meane by the sayd similitude Nor any reasonable man can say that I am forced by confessing two natures in Christes person really naturally and substantially to confesse also the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament except he could proue that the holy Doctoures and I following their doctrine do teach and affirme that the natures of bread and wine are ioyned in the Sacrament with the naturall body and bloud of Christ in vnity of person as the natures of God and man be ioyned in our Sauiour Christ which we do not teach bicause we finde no such doctrine taught by Christ by his Apostles nor Euangilistes Therfore take your owne collection to your selfe and make your selfe aunswere to such absurdities and inconuenience as you do inferre by abusing and forcing of the Doctours similitude to an other ende than they did vse it And it is not necessary for our eternall saluation nor yet profitable for our comfort in this life to beleeue that the naturall body and bloud of Christ is really substancially and naturally present in the Sacrament For if it were necessary or comfortable for vs it is without doubt that our sauiour Christ his Apostles and Euangelistes would not haue omitted to teach this doctrine distinctly and playnly Yea our Sauiour would not haue sayd Spiritus est qui viuificat caro non prodest quitquam The spirite giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing But this doctrine which the holy doctors do teach is agreable to holy scripture necessary for all christen persons to beleue for their euerlasting saluation and profitable for their spirituall comfort in this present life that is to say that the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud in the natures and substances of bread and wine is distributed vnto all men both good and euill which receaue it and yet that onely faythfull persons do receaue spiritually by fayth the very body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. So that Christes naturall body is not in the Sacrament really substancially and corporally but onely by representation and signification and in his liuely members by spirituall and effectuall operation But it appeareth that you be foule deceaued in iudgement of the doctrine set out in my booke And if you were not eyther vtterly ignorant in holy scriptures and doctors or not
not of his fleshe as it is vnited vnto his diuinitie pag. 27. lin 53. and. pag. 329. lin 24. God in Baptisme giueth onely the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the aultar the very body and bloud of Christ. pag. 34. lin 44. Unworthy receiuers of the sacrament receiue Christes body with mouth onely the worthy receiuers both with mouth and hart pag. 54. lin 47. c. We must beleue Christes workes to be most perfectly true accordyng to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in Scripture driueth vs from it how soeuer it seeme repugnaunt to reason pag. 62. lin 20. The Fathers did eate Christes body and drinke his bloud in truth of promise not in truth of presence pag. 74. lin 23. c. The Fathers did eate Christ spiritually but they did not eate his body present spiritually and sacramentally pag. eadem lin 26. Their Sacramentes were figures of the thynges but ours contayne the very thynges ibid. lin 27. Albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verified that the Fathers did eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud yet there is no such forme of wordes in scripture And it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the Fathers before Christes Natiuitie did not eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ. pag. 78. lin 28. And although S. Paule in the truth to the Corinthes be so vnderstanded of some that the Fathers should eate and drinke the spirituall meate and drinke that we doe yet to that vnderstandyng all doe not agree Ibidem lin 34. c. Their Sacramentes contayned the promise of that which in our sacramentes is geuen Ibidem lin 36. And although that willyng obedience was ended and perfected vpon the Crosse to the whiche it continued from the begynnyng yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham the earnest will and offeryng was accoumpted for the offeryng in deede so the declaration of Christes will in his last supper was an offeryng of him selfe to God the Father pag. 82. lin 2. c. In that mystery he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the world by the same will that he sayd his body should bee betrayed for vs. Ibidem lin 12. As Christ offered him selfe vpon the Crosse in the execution of his will so hee offered him selfe in his Supper in declaration of his will pag. 82. lin 13. c. Christes body in the supper or communion is represented vnto vs as a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world and it is the onely sacrifice of the Churche and the pure and cleane sacrifice wherof Malachie spake pag. 84. lin 4. pag. 88. lin vltima c. As Christ declareth in the supper him selfe an offeryng and sacrifice for our sinne offeryng him selfe to his Father as our Mediatour so the Church at the same supper in their offeryng of laudes and thankes ioyne them selues with their head Christ representyng and offeryng him pag. 89. lin 10. The sunne beames bee of the same substaunce with the sunne pag. 92. lin 5. We haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sunne Ibidem lin 7. When Christ sayd This is my body this word This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. To eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud is of it selfe a propre speach pag. 112. lin 35. Carnally Ibidem lin 50. with teeth and mouth pag. 112. lin 8. and pag. 34. lin 38. To eate Christes body carnally may haue a good signification pag. 113. lin 4. Origene doth not meane to destroy the truth of the letter in these words of Christ. Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. pag. 114. lin 40. S. Augustin taketh the same for a figuratiue speache bycause it seemeth to commaunde in the letter carnally vnderstanded an haynous and wicked thyng to eate the flesh of a man pag. 116. lin 40. The sayd woordes of Christ. Except you eate c. is to the vnfaythfull a figure but to the faythfull they be no figure but spirite and life Ibidem lin 48. The Fathers called it a figure by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecie apt onely to bee vnderstand of men beleuyng pag. 117. lin 3. That is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded Ibid. lin 13. This word Represent in S. Hierome and Tertullian signifieth a true reall exhibition pag. 120. lin 27. and pag. 128. lin 11. The word Eucharistia can not be well Englished pag. 161. In Gods word and in Baptisme we be made participant of Christes Passion by his spirite but in the Lordes Supper we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanitie exhibite to vs for foode So as in this mystery we receiue him as man and God and in the other by meane of his Godhead we be participant of the effect of his Passion suffered in his manhode In this Sacrament we receiue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the generall resurrection spirituall with our soule In Baptisme we haue bene made spirituall by regeneration of the soule pag. 158. lin 45. c. In Baptisme Christes humanitie is not really present though the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there pag. 159. lin 4. The maner of Christes beyng in the sacrament is onely spirituall Ibidem lin 16. To vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the Church Ibidem lin 34. Our perfect vnitie with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christ bodily naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode pag. 166. lin 32. By Christes flesh in the sacrament we be naturally in him and he is naturally in vs. Ibidem lin 45. c. Christ dwelleth naturally in vs and we bee corporally in him Ibidem lin 35. Christes flesh is very spirituall and in a spirituall maner deliuered vnto vs. pag. 167. lin 12. and pag. 243. lin 11. and pag. 243. lin 28. and pag. 295. lin 33. Christ dwelleth in vs naturally for the naturall communication of our body and his pag. 167. lin 19. When Christ vnited him selfe vnto vs as man which he doth geuyng his body in the sacrament to such as worthely receiue it then he dwelleth in them corporally pag. 172. lin 27. In Baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes Passion and bloud Christes Godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie pag. 181. lin 16. c. In Baptisme our vnitie with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue effect of Christes bloud pag. 181. lin 2. and. 16. In Baptisme our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body in deede but in hope onely pag. 181. lin 6. In Baptisme we be vnited to Christes manhode by his diuinitie but in the Lordes Supper
and manifest vntruth and that I vntruely charge you with the enuious name of a papisticall faith But in your issue you terme the wordes at your pleasure and reporte mee otherwise then I doe say for I doe not say that the doctrine of the reall presence is the papistes faith onely but that it was the papists faith for it was their deuise And herein will I ioyne with you an issue that the papisticall church is the mother of transubstantiation and of all the foure principall errors which I impugne in my booke Winchester It shal be now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the Sacrament which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the maiesty therof requireth in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of S. Iohn he beginneth a litle to low and passeth ouer that pertaineth to the matter and therfore should haue begun a litle higher at this clause and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde The Iewes therfore striued between themselues saying How can this man geue his flesh to be eaten Iesus therfore sayd vnto theÌ„ Uerely verely I say vnto you except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man drink his bloud ye haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life I will rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meat and my bloud very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the lyuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father Euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here is also a faulte in the translation of the text which should be thus in one place For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke In which speach the verbe that coupeleth the words flesh and meate together knitteth them together in their proper signification so as the flesh of Christ is verely meate and not figuratiuely meate as the author would perswade And in these wordes of Christ may appeare plainly how Christ taught the mistery of the food of his humanity which he promised to geue for food euen the same flesh that he sayd he would geue for the life of the world and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholy brought forth that is to say and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I shall geue for the life of the world and so is it plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sence that S. Iohn speaketh in saying The word was made flesh signifying by flesh the whol humanity And so did Cyril agrée to Nestorius when he vpon these textes reasoned how this eating is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitye to which nature in Christes person is properly attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man dispenced and geuen in the Sacrament And betwéene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstanding the misterye that Nestorius estéeming of ech nature in Christ a seuerall person as it was obiected to him and so dissoluinge the ineffable Unitie did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man seperate Cyrill maintayned the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseperable vnited to the Godhead and for the ineffable mistery of that Union the same to be a flesh that geueth life And then as Christ sayth If we eate not the fleshe of the Sonne of man we haue not life in vs because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and bloud to nourish such as be by his holy Spirite regenerate And as in Baptisme we receaue the Spirite of Christe for the renuinge of our lyfe so doe wer in this Sacrament of Christes most precious body and bloud receaue Christes very flesh and drinke his very bloud to continue and preserue increase and augment the life receaued And therefore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme that he speaketh here of the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud and in both Sacramentes geueth dispenseth and exhibiteth in déede those celestiall giftes in sensible elementes as Chrisostome sayth And because the true faithfull beléeuing men doe only by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnity of person the sonne of God so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ in one person the flesh of the Sonne of man is the proper flesh of the sonne of God Saint Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ Uerely verely vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. to be a figuratiue speach because after the bare letter it séemeth vnprofitable considering that flesh profiteth nothing in it self estemed in the own nature alone but as the same flesh in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature so is it as Christ sayd after Cyrilles exposition spirite and life not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therunto It is viuificatrix as Cyrill sayde and as the holy Ephcâ—ine Councell decreed A flesh geuing life according to Christes wordes Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the later day And then to declare vnto vs how in géeuinge this life to vs Christe vseth the instrument of his very humayne body it followeth For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly spirite so doth he sanctifie vs by his godly flesh and therefore repeteth agayn to inculcate the celestiall thing of this mistery and saieth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth to me and I in him which is the naturall and corporall vnion betwéene vs and Christ. Whereupon followeth that as Christ is naturally in his Father and his Father in him so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ he is by nature in Christ and Christ is naturally in him and the worthy receauer hath life increase augmented and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ. And because of the ineffable vnion of the two natures Christ sayd This is the food that came downe from heauen because God whose proper flesh it is came downe from heauen and hath an other vertue then Manna had because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it which Manna being but a figure thereof did not but being in this foode Christes very flesh inseparably vnited to the Godhead the same is of such efficacye as he that worthely eateth of it shall liue for euer And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the
Gospel of S. John Whereby appeareth how euidently they set forth the doctrine of the mistery of the eating of Christes flesh drinking his bloud in the sacrament which must néedes be vnderstanded of a corporal eating as Christ did after order in the institution of the sayd Sacrament according to his promise and doctrine here declared Canterbury HEre before you enter into my seconde vntrueth as you call it you finde faulte by the way that in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the Gospell of S. Iohn I begine a little to lowe But if the reader consider the matter for the which I alleadge S. Iohn he shal wel perceiue that I began at the right place where I ought to begin For I doe not bring forth S. Iohn for the matter of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament whereof is no mention made in that chapter as it would not haue serued me for that purpose no more doth it serue you althoughe ye cyted the whole Gospell But I bring saynt Iohn for the matter of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud wherin I passed ouer nothing that pertaineth to the matter but rehearse the whole fully and faithfully And because the Reader may the better vnderstand the matter and iudge between vs both I shall rehearse the wordes of my former booke which be these THe Supper of the Lord otherwise called the holy communion or sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ hath been of many men and by sundry wayes very much abused but specially within these four or fiue hundered yeares Of some it hath beene vsed as a Sacrifice propiciatory for sinne and otherwise superstitiouslye far from the intent that Christ did first ordaine the same at the beginning doing therein great wrong and iniury to his death and passion And of other some it hath been very lightly estemed or rather contemned and despiced as a thing of smal or of none effect And thus betweene both the parties hath been much variance and contention in diuers partes of Christendome Therefore to the intent that this holy Sacrament or Lords Supper may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed nor of the other party be abused to any other purpose then Christ himselfe did first appoint ordain the same and that so the contention on both parties may be quieted and ended the most sure and playn way is to cleaue vnto holye scripture Wherein whatsoeuer is found must be taken for a most sure ground and an infallible truth and whatsoeuer cannot be grounded vpon the same touching our faith is mans deuise changeable and vncertain And therfore here are set forth the very words that Christ him selfe and his Apostle S. Paule spake both of the eating and drinking of Christs body bloud also of the eating drinking of the sacramēt of the same First as concerning the eating of the body and drinkinge of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ hee speaketh him selfe in the sixte Chapiter of Saynt Iohn in this wise Verely verely I say vnto you except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I wil rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drinke Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here haue I rehearsed the wordes of Christ faithfully and fully so much as pertayneth to the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud And I haue begun neither to high nor to low but taking only so much as serued for the matter But here haue I committed a fault say you in the translation for verely meate translating very meat And this is another of the euydent and manifest vntruthes by me vttered as you esteeme it Wherein a man may see how hard it is to escape the reproches of Momus For what an horrible crime trow you is committed here to call very meat that which is verely meat As who should say that very meat is not verely meate or that which is verely meate were not very meate The olde Authors say very meate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verus cibus in a hundreth places And what skilleth it for the diuersitye of the wordes where no diuersity is in the sence And whether we say very meat or verely meate it is a figuratiue speache in this place and the sence is all one And if you will looke vpon the new testament lately set forth in Greeke by Robert Steuens you shall see that he had three Greeke copyes which in the said sixt chap. of Iohn haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that I may be bold to say that you finde faulte here where none is And here in this place you shew forth your olde condition which you vse much in this booke in following the nature of a cuttil The property of the cuttill saith Pliny is to cast out a black incke or color when soeuer she spieth her selfe in danger to be taken that the water being troubled and darckned therewith she may hide her selfe and to escape vntaken After like maner do you throughout this wholl booke for when you see no other way to flye and escape then you cast out your blacke colors maske your selfe so in cloudes and darcknes that men should not discerne where you become which is a manyfest argument of vntrue meaning for he that meaneth plainly speaketh plainly Et qui sophisticè loquitur odibilis est saith the wise man For he that speaketh obscurely and darckly it is a token that he goeth about to cast mistes before mennes eyes that they should not see rather then to open their eyes that they may cleerely see the truth And therfore to answere you plainly the fattie fleshe that was geuen in Christes last Supper was geuen also vpon the crosse and is geuen daylye in the ministration of the Sacrament But although it be one thinge yet it was diuerslye geuen For vpon the crosse Christ was carnally geuen to suffer and to dye At his last Supper he was spiritually geuen in a promise of his death and in the Sacrament he is daily geuen in remembraunce of his death And yet it is all but one Christ that was promysed to die that died in deede and whose death is remembred that is to say the very same Christ the eternall word that was made flesh And the same flesh was also geuen to be spiritually eaten and was eaten in deede before his supper yea and before his
incarnation also Of which eating and not of Sacramentall eating he spake in the sixt of Iohn My flesh is very meat and my bloud is very drincke He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him And Cyrill I graunt agreed to Nestorius in the substance of the thing that was eaten which is Christes very flesh but in the manner of eating they varyed For Nestorius imagined a carnall eating as the papistes do with mouth and tearing with teeth But Cyrill in the same place sayeth that Christ is eaten onely by a pure faith and not that he is eaten corporally with our mouthes as other meates be Nor that he is eaten in the Sacrament onely And it seemeth you vnderstand not the matter of Nestorius who did not esteeme Christ to be made of two seuerall natures and seuerall persons as you report of him but his errour was that Christ had in hym naturallye but one nature and one person affirming that he was a pure man and not God by nature but that the Godhed by grace inhabited as hee doth in other men And where you say that in baptisme we receiue the Spirit of Christ and in the Sacrament of his body and bloud wee receeue his very fleshe and bloud This your saying is no small derogation to baptisme wherein wee receaue not only the Spirit of Christ but also Christ him selfe whole body and soule manhoode and Godhead vnto euerlasting life as well as in the holy communion For S. Paule sayth Quicunque in Christo baptizati estis Christū induistis as many as be baptized in Christ put Christ vpon them Neuerthelesse this is done in diuers respectes for in baptisme it is done in respect of regeneration and in the holy communion in respecte of nourishment and augmentation But your vnderstanding of the sixt chapiter of Iohn is such as neuer was vttered of any man before your time and as declareth you to be vtterly ignoraunte of Gods misteries For who euer sayd or taught before this time that the Sacrament was the cause why Christ sayd If we eate not the flesh of the sonne of man we haue not life in vs. The spirituall eating of his flesh and drincking of his bloud by faith by digesting his death in our mindes as our onely price raunsome and redemption from eternall damnation is the cause wherefore Christ sayd That if we eate not his flesh and drincke not his bloud we haue not life in vs and if we eate his fleshe and drincke his bloud we haue euerlasting life And if Christ had neuer ordayned the Sacrament yet should we haue eaten his flesh and droncken his bloud and haue had thereby euerlasting life as al the faithfull did before the the Sacrament was ordeyned and doe dayly when they receaue not the Sacrament And so did the holy men that wandered in the wildernesse and in all their life tune very seldome receaued the Sacrament and many holy Martyres either exyled or kept in prison did dayly feede of the foode of Christes body and drancke dayly the bloud that sprange out of his side or els they could not haue had euerlasting life as Christ him selfe sayd in the gospell of S. Iohn and yet they were not suffered with other Christen people to haue the vse of the Sacrament And therefore your argument in this place is but a fallax a non causa vt causa which is another tricke of the deuils sophistry And that in the sixt of Iohn Christ spake neither of corporall nor sacramentall eating of his flesh the time manifestly sheweth For Christ spake of the same present time that was then saying The bread which I will geue is my flesh And He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and Im him and hath euerlasting life At which time the sacramentall bread was not yet Christs flesh For the Sacrament was not then yet ordayned and yet at that time all that beléeued in Christ did eate his flesh and drinke hys bloude or els they could not haue dwelled in Christe nor Christ in them Moreouer you say your selfe that in the sixt of S. Iohns gospell when Christ sayd the bread is my flesh By the word flesh he ment his wholl humanity as is ment in this sentence The word was made flesh which he ment not in the word body when he said of bread this is my body Where by he ment not his wholl humanitye but his flesh onely neither his bloud nor his soule And in the vi of Iohn Christ made not bread his flesh when he said the bread is my flesh but he expounded in those wordes what bread it was that he ment of when he promised them bread that should geue them eternall life He declared in those wordes that himselfe was the bread that should geue life because they should not haue their fantasies of any bread made of corne And so the eating of that heauenly bread could not be vnderstanded of the Sacrament nor of corporall eating with the mouth but of spirituall eating by faith as all the olde authors do most cleerely expound and declare And seeing that there is no corporall eating but chawing with the teeth or swallowing as all men doe know if we eate Christ corporally thē you must confesse that we either swallow vp Christes flesh or chaw teare it with our teeth as pope Nicholas constrained Berengarius to confesse which S. Augustine saith is a wicked hainous thing But in few words to answere to this second euident manifest vntruth as you obiect against me I would wish you as truely to vnderstand these words of the sixt chap. of Iohn as I haue truely translated them Winchester Now where the author to exclude the mistery of corporall manducatiō bringeth forth of S. Augustine such wordes as intreat of the effect and operation of the worthy receauing of the Sacrament The handling is not so sincéere as this matter requireth For as hereafter shal be intreated that is not worthely and well done may because the principall intent fayleth be called not done and so S. Augustine saith Let him not thinke to eate the body of Christ that dwelleth not in Christ not because the body of Christ is not receaued which by S. Augustines minde euill men doe to their condemnation but because the effecte of life fayleth And so the Author by steight to exclude the corporall māducation of Christes most precious body vttereth such wordes as might sound Christ to haue taught the dwelling in Christ to be an eating which dwelling may be without this corporall manducation in him that cannot attayn the vse of it and dwelling in Christ is an effect of the worthy manducation and not the manducation it selfe which Christ doth order to be practised in the most precious Sacrament institute in his supper Here thou Reader mayst sée how this doctrine of Christ as I haue declared it openeth the
corporal manducation of his most holy flesh and drincking of his most precious bloud which he gaue in his supper vnder the formes of bread and wine Caunterbury THis is the third euident and manifest vntruth whereof you note me And because you say that in citing of S. Augustin in this place I handle not the matter so sincerely as it requireth let here be an issue between you and me which of vs both doth hādle this matter more sincerely and I will bring such manifest euidence for me that you shall not be able to open your mouth against it For I alledge S. Augustine iustly as he speaketh adding nothing of my selfe The wordes in my booke be these Of these wordes of Christ it is plain and manifest that the eating of Christs body and drincking of his bloud is not like to the eating and drinking of other meates and drinkes For although without meat and drinke man cannot liue yet it followeth not that he that eateth and drinketh shall liue for euer But as touching this meate and drinke of the body and bloud of Christ it is true both he that eateth and drinketh them hath euerlasting life And also he that eateth and drinketh them not hath not euerlasting life For to eate that meate and drinke that drink is to dwell in Christ and to haue Christ dwelling in him and therfore no man can say or think that he eateth the body of Christ or drinketh his bloud except he dwelleth in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in him Thus haue you heard of the eating and drinking of the very fleshe and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. Thus alleadge I S. Augustin truely without adding any thing of mine own head or taking any thing away And what sleight I vsed is easy to iudge for I cite directly the places that euery man may see whether I say true or noe And if it be not true quarrell not with me but with S. Augustine whose wordes I onely rehearse And that which S. Augustine sayeth spake before him S. Ciprian and Christ himselfe also plainlye inough vpon whose wordes I thought I might be as bold to build a true doctrine for the setting forth of Gods glory as you may be to peruert both the words of Ciprian and of Christ him selfe to stablish a false doctrine to the high dishonor of God and the corruption of his most true word For you adde this word worthely wherby you gather such an vnworthy meaning of S. Augustines wordes as you list your self And the same you doe to the very words of Christ him selfe who speaketh absolutely and plainly without adding of any such word as you put thereto What sophistry this is you know well inough Now if this be permitted vnto you to adde what you list and to expound how you list then you may say what you list without controlment of any man which it seemeth you looke for And not of like sort but of like euilnes doe you handle in reprehending of my seconde vntruth as you call it an other place of S. Augustine in his booke de doctrina Christiana where he sayth that the eating and drinkinge of Christes flesh and bloud is a figuratiue speach which place you expound so farre from S. Augustines meaning that who soeuer looketh vpon his wordes may by and by discern that you do not or wil not vnderstand him But it is most like the words of him being so plain and easy that purposely you will not vnderstand him nor nothing els that is against your will rather then you will goe from any part of your will and receaued opinion For it is plain and cleare that S. Augustine in that place speaketh not one worde of the separation of the two natures in Christ and although Christs flesh be neuer so surely and inseparably vnited vnto his Godhead without which vnion it could profite nothing yet being so ioyned it is a very mans flesh the eating wherof after the proper speech of eating is horrible and abominable Wherfore the eating of Christes flesh must needes be otherwise vnderstanded then after the proper and common eatinge of other meates with the mouth which eating after such sort could auayle nothing And therefore S. Augustine in that place declareth the eating of Christes fleshe to be onely a figuratiue speach And he openeth the figure so as the eatinge must be ment with the minde not with the mouth that is to say by chawing and digesting in our mindes to our great consolation and profite that Christ dyed for vs. Thus doth S. Augustine open the figure and meaning of Christ when he spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud And his flesh being thus eaten it must also be ioyned vnto his diuinitie or els it could not geue euerlasting life as Cyrill and the councell Ephesin truly decreed But S. Augustine declared the figuratiue speech of Christ to be in the eating not in the vnion And where as to shift of the playn words of Christ spoken in the sixt of Iohn he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him you say that dwelling in Christ is not the manducation You say herein directly against S. Cyprian who saith quod mansio nostra in ipso sit manducatio that our dwelling in him is the eating And also against S. Augustine whose wordes be these Hoc est ergo manducare escam illam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere This is to eat that meat and drinke that drinke to dwell in Christ to haue Christ dwelling in him And although the eating and drinking of Christ be here defined by the effect for the very eating is the beleeuing yet where so euer the eating is the effect must be also if the definition of S. Augustine be truely geuen And therfore although good bad eate carnally with their teeth bread being the Sacrament of Christes body yet no man eateth his very flesh which is spiritually eaten but he that dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him And where in the end you referre the Reader to the declaration of Christes wordes it is an euill sequele you declare Christes wordes thus Ergo they be so ment For by like reason might Nestorius haue preuayled against Cyrill Arrius agaynst Alexander and the Pope against Christ. For they al proue their errors by the doctrine of Christ after their own declarations as you doe here in your corporall manducation But of the manducation of Christs flesh I haue spoken more fully in my fourth booke the second third and fourth chapters Now before I answere to the fourth vntruth which I am appeached of I will reherse what I haue said in the matter and what fault you haue found my booke hath thus Now as touching the Sacramentes of the same our Sauiour Christ did institute them in bread wine at his last Supper which
he had with his Apostles the night before his death at which time as Mathew sayth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cup and when hee had geuen thankes he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke hence forth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day whē I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome This thing is rehearsed also of S. Marke in these wordes As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and sayd Take eate this is my body and taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he sayd to them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many verely I say vnto you I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine vntill that daye that I drinke it new in the kingdome of God The Euangelist S. Luke vttereth this matter on this wise When the houre was come he sate down and the twelue Apostles with hym And he said vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer For I say vnto you hēceforth I will not eat of it any more vntil it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he toke the cuppe and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you For I say vnto you I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill the kingdome of God come And he toke bread and when hee had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body which is geeuen for you This doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he toke the cup saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud which is shedde for you Hitherto you haue herd all that the euangelistes declare that Christ spake or did at his last supper concerning thinstitutiō of the communion and sacramēt of his body and bloud Now you shall here what S. Paul sayth concerning the same in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians where he writeth thus Is not the cuppe of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we breake a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread one body For we al are partakers of one bread and one cuppe And in the eleuenth he speaketh on this manner That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed toke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cuppe when Supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drinke it in remembrance of me for as oft as you shal eate this bread and drinke this cup you shew forth the Lords death til he come Wherfore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cuppe vnworthely shal be gilty of the body bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine him selfe and so eat of the bread and drinke of the cuppe For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you many doe sleepe By these wordes of Christ rehearsed of the Euangelistes and by the doctrine also of Saint Paule which he confesseth that he receaued of Christ two thinges specially are to be noted First that our Sauiour Christ called the materiall bread which he brake his body the wine which was the fruit of the vine his bloud And yet he spake not this to the intent that men should thinke that the material bread is his very body or that his very body is materiall bread Neither that wine made of grapes is his very bloud or that his very bloud is wine made of grapes But to signifie vnto vs as S. Paul sayth that the cuppe is a communion of Christes bloud that was shed for vs and the bread is a communion of his flesh that was crucified for vs. So that although in the truth of his humain nature Christ be in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father yet whosoeuer eateth of the bread in the Supper of the Lord according to Christes institution and ordinaunce is assured of Christes own promise and testament that he is a member of his body and receaueth the benefites of his passion which he suffered for vs vpon the crosse And likewise he that drinketh of that holy cuppe in the Supper of the Lord according to Christes institution is certified by Christes legacy and testament that he is made partaker of the bloud of Christ which was shed for vs. And this ment S. Paule when he sayth is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the can bread which we breake a cōmunion of the body of Christ so that no man contēne or lightly esteeme this holy cōmuniō except he contēne also Christs body and bloud and passe not whether he haue any felowship with him or no. And of those men S. Paule saith that they eate and drink their own damnation because they esteme not the body of Christ. The second thing which may be learned of the forsaid wordes of Christe and S. Paule is this that although none eateth the body of Christ and drinketh hys bloud but they haue eternall life as apereth by the wordes before recited of S. Iohn yet both the good and the bad doe eate and drynke the bread and wine which be the Sacramentes of the same But beside the Sacramentes the good eate euerlasting life the euill euerlasting death Therfore S. Paule sayth Who soeuer shall eate of the bread or drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Here S. paul saith not that he that eateth the bread or drinketh the cup of the Lord vn worthely eateth drinketh the body bloud of the Lord but is gilty of the body bloud of the Lord. But what he eateth drynketh S. Paul declareth saying he that eateth drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh his own dānatiō thus is declared the sum of al that scripture speketh of the eating drinking both of the body bloud of Christ also of the sacramēt of the same And as these thinges be most certaynly true
intent by his will preached vnto vs by Scriptures and beleued vniuersally in his church But if it may now be thought séemely for vs to be so bold in so high a mistery to begin to discusse Christes intent What should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall signification as be rehearsed touching the mistery of this Sacrament First in the sixt of Iohn when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signifie beleeuing whereat was no murmuring that then he should enter to speak of geuing of his flesh to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say that he would geue a bread that is his flesh which he would geue for the life of the world In which wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therefore as we beleeue the gift of his flesh to the Iewes to be crucified so we must beléeue the gift of his flesh to be eaten and of that gifte liuery and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his promises faithfull as Christ is to be made in both And therefore when he sayd in his Supper Take eate this is my body he must néedes intend plainly as his words of promise required And these wordes in his Supper purporte to geue as really then his body to be eaten of vs as he gaue his body in deede to be crucified for vs aptly neuerthelesse and conueniently for ech effect and therefore in maner of geuing diuersly but in the substance of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare witnes the same and therefore sayd this is my body that shal be betraied for you expressing also the vse when he said take eate which words in deliuering of material bread had béen superfluous for what should men doe with bread when they take it but eate it specially when it is broaken But as Cyrill sayth Christ opened there vnto them the practise of that doctrine hée spake of in the sixt of S. Iohn and because he sayd he would geue his flesh for food which he would geue for the life of the world he for fulfilling of his promise sayd Take eate this is my body which wordes haue béen taught and beléeued to be of effect and operatory and Christ vnder the forme of bread to haue béen his very body According whereunto S. Paule noteth the receauer to be gilty when he doth not estéeme it our Lordes body wherewith it pleaseth Christ to féede such as be in him regenerate to the intent that as man was redéemed by Christ suffering in the nature of his humanitie so to purchase for man the kingdome of heauen lost by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitye geuing it to be eaten he ordayned it to nourish man and make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to enioy that kingdome And therefore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament and the same to be in déede deliuered Christ vsed playn wordes testified by the Euangelistes Saint Paule also rehearsed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the eleuenth to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuing as it were an exposition of the effect vseth the same proper wordes declaring the effect to be the communication of Christes body and bloud And one thing is notable touching the Scripture that in such notable spéeches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguity the Euangelists by some circumstance declared it or sometime opened it by playn interpretation as whē Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within thrée dayes build it agayne The Euangelist by and by addeth for interpretation This he sayd of the temple of his body And when Christ sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine The circumstaunce of the texte openeth the ambiguity But to shew that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the Euangelistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstaunces whereby to take away the proper signification of the wordes body and bloud so as the same might seeme not in déede geuen as the catholicke faith teacheth but in signification as the author would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ the Spirite geueth life the flesh profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ ech in their property a part considered but not as they be in Christs person vnited the mistery of which vniō such as beléeued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descention from heauen and after of his ascension thether agayn whereby they might vnderstand him very God whose flesh taken in the virgins wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs is as I haue before opened viuifike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes intent was to geue verely as he did in déede his precious body and bloud to be eaten and dronken according as he taught thē to be verely meate and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder forme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniētly and without horror of our nature receaue them Christ therein condescending to our infirmity As for such other wrangling as is made in vnderstanding of the words of Christ shall after he spoaken of by further occasion Caunterbury NOw we be come to the very pith of the matter and the chiefe pointe wherupon the wholl controuersie hangeth whether in these words this is my body Christ called bread his body wherin you and Smith agree like a man and a woman that dwelled in Lincolnshere as I haue heard reported that what pleased the one misliked the other sauing that they both agreed in wilfulness So do Smith and you agree both in this point that Christ made bread his body but that it was bread which he called his body when he sayd This is my body this you graunt but Smith denieth it And because all Smithes buildinges cleerely fall downe if this his chiefe foundation be ouerthrowen therfore must I first proue against Smith that Christ called the materiall bread his body the wine which was the fruite of the vine his bloud For why did you not prooue this my Lord sayth Smith would you that men should take you for a prophet or for one that could not erre in his sayinges First I alleadge against Smithes negation your affirmation which as it is more true in this point then his negation so for your estimation it is able to counteruail his saying if there were nothing els yet if Smith had well pondered what I haue written in the second chap. of my second booke and in the 7. and 8. chapters of my third book he should haue
foūd this matter so fully prooued that he neither is nor neuer shal be able to answere thereto For I haue alleadged the scripture I haue alleadged the consent of the old writers holy fathers and martirs to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud For the Euangelistes speaking of the Lords supper say that he took bread blessed it brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body and of the wine he sayd Take this deuide it among you drinke it this is my bloud I haue alleadged Irene saying that Christ confessed bread to be his body and the cup to be his bloud I haue cyted Tertulliā who sayth in many places that Christ called bread his body I haue brought in for the same purpose Cyprian who sayth that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he named his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes I haue written the wordes of Epiphanius which be these that Christ speakinge of a loafe which is round in fashion and can neither see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierom writing ad Hedibiam sayth that Christ called the bread which he brake his body And S. Augustine sayth that Iesus called meate his body and drinke his bloud And Cyrill sayth more plainly that Christ called the peeces of bread his body And last of all I brought forth Theodorete whose saying is this that when Christe gaue the holy mysteries he called bread his body and the cuppe mixt with wine and water he called his bloud All these Authors I alleadged to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud Which because they speak the thinge so plainly as nothing can be more and Smith seeth that he can deuise nothinge to answere these Authors like a wily fox he stealeth away by them softly as he had a flea in his eare saying nothing to all these authors but that they proue not my purpose If this be a sufficient answere let the Reader be iudge for in such sort I could make a short answere to Smithes whol booke in this one sentence that nothing that he sayth proueth his purpose And as for proofes of his saying Smith hath vtterly none but onely this fond reason That if Christ had called bread his body then should bread haue been crucified for vs because Christ added these words this is my body which shal be geuē to death for you If such wise reason shall take place a man may not take a loafe in his hand made of wheate that came out of Danske and say this is wheate that grew in Danske but it must follow that the loafe grew in Danske And if the wife shall say this is butter of my own cow Smith shall proue by this speach that her mayd milked butter But to this fantasticall or rather frantike reason I haue spoaken more in mine aunswere to Smithes preface How be it you haue taken a wiser way then this graunting that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud but adding thereto that Christs calling was making Yet here may they that be wise learn by the way how euil fauoredly you and Smith agree among your selues And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answere vnto the Authors by me alleadged in this parte I may iustly require that for lacke of answere in time and place where he ought to haue answered he may be condemned as one that standeth mute And being condemned in this his chiefe demur he hath after nothing to answere at al. For this foundation being ouerthrown all the rest falleth down withall Wherefore now will I returne to aunswere you in this matter which is the last of the euident and manyfest vntruthes wherof you appeach me I perceaue here how vntoward you be to learn the truth being brought vp all your life in Papisticall errors If you could forget your law which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth and specially the Canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of Gods word you should be much more apte to vnderstand and receaue the secretes of holy scripture But before those scales fall from your sawlish eyes you neither can nor will perceaue the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christes body bloud But yet I shall doe as much as lyeth in me to teach and instruct you as occasion shall serue so that the fault shall be either in your euill bringing vp altogether in popery or in your dulnes or frowardnes if you attaine not true vnderstanding of this matter Where you speake of the miraculous workinge of Christ to make bread his body you must first learne that the bread is not made really Christes body nor the wine his bloud but sacramētally And the miraculous working is not in the bread but in them that duely eate the bread and drink that drink For the marueylous worke of God is in the feeding and it is Christen people that be fed and not the bread And so the true confession and beleefe of the vniuersall Church from the beginning is not such as you many times affirme but neuer can proue for the Catholicke church acknowledgeth no such diuision betweene Christes holy flesh and his spirite that life is renued in vs by his holy spirite and increased by his holy flesh but the true fayth confesseth that both be done by his holy spirite and flesh iointly together as well the renouation as the increace of our life Wherfore you diminish here the effect of baptisme wherin is not geuen only Christes spirite but wholl Christ. And herein I will ioyne an issue with you And you shall finde that although you thinke I lacke law where with to follow my plea yet I doubt not but I shall haue helpe of Gods word inough to make al men perceiue that you be but a simple diuine so that for lacke of your proofes I doubt not but the sentence shall be geuen vpon my side by all learned and indifferent iudges that vnderstand the matter which is in controuersy betweene vs. And where you say that we must represse our thoughtes and imaginations and by reason of Christes omnipotency iudge his intent by his wil it is a most certayne truth that Gods absolute and determinate wil is the chiefe gouernour of all thinges and the rule wherby all things must be ordered and therto obey But where I pray you haue you any such will of Christ that he is really carnally corporally naturally vnder the formes of bread and wine There is no such will of Christ set forth in the scripture as you pretend by a false vnderstanding of these wordes this is my body Why take you then so boldly vpon you to say that this is Christs will and intent when you haue no warrant in scripture to beare you It is not a sufficient
proofe in Scripture to say God doth it because he can doe it For hee can doe many thinges which hee neither doth nor will doe He could haue sent moe then twelue Legions of Angels to deliuer Christ from the wicked Iewes and yet he would not doe it He could haue created the world and all thinges therin in one moment of time and yet his pleasure was to doe it in sixe dayes In all matters of our christen faith written in holy Scripture for our instruction and doctrin how farre so euer they seeme discrepant from reason we must represse our imaginations and consider Gods pleasure and will and yeald therto beleeuing him to be omnipotent And that by his omnipotent power such thinges are verelye so as holy scripture teacheth Like as we beleeue that Christ was borne of the blessed virgin Mary without company of man that our Sauyour Christ the third day rose agayn from death that he in his humanity ascended into heauen that our bodyes at the day of iudgement shall rise agayne and many other such like thinges which we all that be true christeÌ„ men do beleeue firmely because we finde these thinges written iu Scripture And therfore we knowing Gods omnipotency doe beleue that he hath brought some of the said things to passe already and those things that are yet to come he will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to passe Now if you can proue that your transubstantiatioÌ„ your fleshly presence of Christes body and bloud your carnall eating and drinking of the same your propitiatory sacrifice of the masse are taught vs as plainly in the scripture as the sayd articles of our faith be then I will beleeue that it is so in deede Otherwise neither I nor any man that is in his right wittes will beleeue your said articles because God is omnipotent and can make it so For you might so vnder pretence of Gods omnipotency make as many articles of our faith as you list if such arguments might take place that God by his omnipotent power can conuert the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of his flesh and bloud ergo he doth so in deede And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine yet Christ vsed not so many wordes in the mistery of his holy supper without effectual signification For he is effectually present and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine but in the godly receauers of them to whom he geeueth his own flesh spiritually to feede vpon and his own bloud to quench their great inward thirst And here I would wishe you to marke very wel one true sentence which you haue vttered by the way which is That Christ declared that eating of him signifieth beleeuing and start not from it an other time And marke the same I pray thee gentle Reader For this one sentence assoyleth almost all the argumentes that be brought by this Lawyer in his wholl booke against the truth And yet to the sayd true saying you haue ioyned an other vntruth haue yoaked them both together in one sentence For when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended froÌ„ heauen there was no murmuring thereat say you Which your saying I can not but wonder at to see you so farre deceaued in a matter so plaine and manifest And if I had spoaken such an euident and manifeste vntruth I doubt not but it should haue beene spoaken of to Rome gates For the text sayth there plainly Murmur abant Iudaei de illo qoud dixisset Ego sum panis vinus qui de coelo descendi The Iewes murmured at him because he sayd I am the bread of life that came from heauen But when you wrote this it seemeth you looked a litle to low and should haue looked higher And here by this one place the Reader may gather of your own wordes your intent and meaning in this your booke if that be true which you sayd before that euer where contention is on what parte the Reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lye there he may consider whatsoeuer excuse be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended An other vntruth also followeth incontinently that when Christ sayd The bread which I will geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world In these wordes say you Christ maketh mention of two gifts But what be those two giftes I pray you And by what wordes is the diuersitie of those two giftes expressed If the geuing as Smith sayth be geuing to death then those two giftes declare that Christ dyed for vs twise And if one of Christes giftes haue liuery and seisyn why hath not the other likewise And when was then that liuery and seisyn geuen And if eating of Christ be beleeuing as you sayd euen now then liuerey and seisyn is geuen when we first beleeue whether it be in baptisme or at any other time But what you mean by these wordes that Christ gaue in his supper his body as really to be eateÌ„ of vs as he did to be crucified for vs I vnderstand not except you would haue Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth as he was after crucified whipped and thrust to the hart with a speare But was he not then so really and corporally crucified that his body was rent and torne in peeces And was not he so crucified then that he neuer was crucified after Was he not so slayn then that he neuer dyed any more And if he were so eaten at his supper then did his Apostles teare his flesh at the supper as the Iewes did the day following And then how could he now be eaten agayn Or how could he be crucified the day following if the night before he were after that sort eaten all vp But aptly say you and conueniently Mary Sir I thanke you but what is the aptly and conueniently but spiritually and by faith as you said before not grosly with the teeth as he was crucified And so the manner was diuers I graunt and the substance all one But when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper as you say he did then what needed he after to dye that we might liue if he fulfilled his promise of life at his supper Why said the Prophets that he should be wouÌ„ded for our iniquities and that by his wounds we should be healed if we had life and were healed before he was wounded Why doth the catholick faith teach vs to beleue that we be redeemed by his blud sheading if he gaue vs life which is our redemâ—ion the night before hee shed his bloud And why sayth S. Paule that there is no remission without bloud sheading Yea why did he say Absit mihi
of the fyrst booke declaryng spirituall hunger and thirst and the releuing of the same by spyrituall feeding in Christe and of Christe as we constantly beleue in him to the confirmation of whiche beliefe the author would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ to be adminicles as it were that we by them be preached vnto as in water breade and wyne and by them all our sinnes as it were spoken vnto or properly touched which matter in the grosse although there be some wordes by the way not tollerable yet if those wordes set apart the same were in the summe graunted to be good teachyng and holsome exhortation it contayneth so no more but good matter not well applyed For the Catholicke churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacramēt would therewith vse that declaratiō of hunger of Christ and that spirituall refreshing in Christ with theffect of Christes passion and death and the same to be the onely meane of mans regeneratio and feeding also with the differēces of that feeding from bodilye feeding for continuing thys earthly lyfe But thys toucheth not the principal poynt that should be intreated Whether Christ so ordered to feede such as be regenerate in him to geue to them in the Sacramēt the same his body that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fed by fayth and by merites of Christes passion being the mean of the gift of that fayth and other giftes also and by the suffering of the body of Christ and shedding of his most precious bloud on the altar of the Crosse which worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs by wordes aud Sacramentes and the same doctrine receaued of vs by fayth and theffect of it also And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this author But the Catholicke teaching by the scriptures goeth further cōfessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him not onely by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud deliuered in this Sacrament by hym in deede to vs which the faythfull by his institution and commaūdement receaue with their faith and with their mouth also and with those special deinties be fed specially at Christs table And so God doth not onely preach in his Sacraments but also worketh in them and with them and in sensible thinges geueth celestiall giftes after the doctrine of eche Sacramēt as in baptisme the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the altar the very body and bloud of Christ accordinge to the playne sence of his wordes whiche he spake This is my body c. And this is the Catholicke fayth agaynst which how the Author will fortifye that he woulde haue called Catholick and confute that he improueth I intend hereafter more particularly to touche in discussion of that is sayd Caunterbury I Mystrust not the indifferency of the reader so much but he can well perceiue how simple slender a rehearsall you haue made here of my eight annotations and how little matter you haue here to say agaynst them and how little your sayinges require any aunswere And because this may the more euidently appeare to the reader I shall rehearse my wordes heare agayne Although in this treatie of the Sacrament of the body bloud of our sauiour Christ I haue already sufficiētly declared the institution meaning of the same according to the very wordes of the Gospell and of saint Paule yet it shall not be in vayne somwhat more at large to declare the same according to the minde as well of holy scripture as of olde auncient authours and that so sincerely plainly without doubts ambiguities or vain questions that the very simple and vnlearned people may easily vnderstand the same and be edified thereby And this by Gods grace is myne only intent and desire that the flocke of Christ dispersed in this Realme among whome I am appointed a speciall pastour may no longer lacke the commodite and fruite whiche springeth of this heauenly knowledge For the more clerely it is vnderstood the more swetnes fruite comfort and edification it bringeth to the godly receauers therof And to the clere vnderstandyng of this Sacrament diuers thinges must be cōsidered First that as all men of them selues be sinners and through sinne be in gods wrath banished farre away from him condemned to hell and euerlasting dānation and none is clerely innocent but Christ alone so euery soule inspired by god is desirous to be deliuered from sinne and hell and to obteine at Gods handes mercy fauour righteousnes and euerlasting saluation And this earnest and great desire is called in scripture The hūger and thirst of the soule with which kinde of hunger Dauid was taken when he sayde As an hart longeth for springes of water so doth my soule long for thee O God My soule thyrsteth after God who is the well of lyfe My soule thyrsteth for thee my flesh wisheth for thee And this hunger the seely poore sinfull soule is driuen vnto by meanes of the law which sheweth vnto her the horriblenes of sinne the terror of Gods indignation and the horror of death and euerlasting damnation And when she seeth nothing but damnation for her offences by iustice and accusation of the law and this damnation is euer before her eies then in this great distresse the soule being pressed with heuinesse and sorrow seeketh for some comfort and desireth some remedy for her miserable and sorowfull estate And this felyng of her damnable condition and greedy desire of refreshing is the spirituall hunger of the soule And who so euer hath this godly hunger is blessed of God and shall haue meate and drinke inough as Christ himselfe sayd Blessed be they that hunger thyrst for righteousnes for they shal be filled ful And on the other side they that see not their owne sinfull and dānable estate but thinke themselues holy inough and in good case and condition inough as they haue no spirituall hunger so shall they not be fed of God with any spirituall foode For as almighty God feedeth them that be hungry so doth he send away empty all that be not hungry But this hunger and thyrst is not easily perceiued of the carnall man For when he heareth the holy ghost speake of meate and drinke his mynde is by and by in the kytchen and buttery and he thinketh vpō his dishes and pottes his mouth and his belly But the Scripture in sundry places vseth speciall wordes whereby to draw our grosse mindes from the phantasying of our teeth and belly and from this carnall and fleshly imaginatiō For the Apostles and Disciples of Christ when they were yet carnall knew not what was ment by this kinde of hunger and meate and therfore when they desired him to eate to withdraw their minds from carnall meat he sayd vnto them I haue other meate to eate which you know not And why
neighboures and cause him to put out of his hart all enuy hatred and malice and to graue in the same all amity frendshippe and concord he deceaueth him selfe if he thinke that he hath the spirite of Christ dwelling within him But all these foresayd godly admonitions exhortations and comforts doe the Papistes as much as lyeth in them take away from all christen people by their transubstantiation For if we receaue no bread nor wine in the holy Communion then all these lessons and comfortes be gone which we should learne and receaue by eating of the bread and drinking of the wine and that fantasticall imagination geueth an occasion vtterly to subuert our wholl faith in Christ. For seeing that this Sacrament was ordeyned in bread and wine which be foodes for the body to signifie and declare vnto vs our spirituall foode by Christ then if our corporal feeding vpon the bread and wine be but fantasticall so that there is no bread nor wine there in deede to feede vpon although they appeare there to be then it doth vs to vnderstand that our spirituall feeding in Christ is also fantastical and that in deede we feede not of him which sophistry is so deuilish and wicked and so much iniurious to Christ that it could not come from any other person but only from the Deuill himselfe and from his specyall minister Antichrist The eight thing that is to be noted is that this spiritual meat of Christs body and bloud is not receaued in the mouth and digested in the stomack as corporall meates and drinkes commonly be but it is receaued with a pure hart and a sincere fayth And the true eating and drinking of the said body and bloud of Christ is with a constant and liuely faith to beleeue that Christ gaue his body and shed his bloud vpon the crosse for vs and that he doth so ioyne and incorporate him selfe to vs that he is our head and we his members and flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones hauing him dwelling in vs we in him And herein standeth the wholl effecte and strength of this Sacrament And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hartes by his holy Spirit confirmeth the same outwardly to our eares by hearing of his worde and to our other sences by eating and drinking of the Sacramentall bread and wine in his holy Supper What thing then can be more comfortable to vs then to eate this meate drinke this drinke whereby Christ certifieth vs that we be spiritually truely fed and nourished by him and that we dwell in him and he in vs. Can this be shewed vnto vs more plainly then when he sayth him selfe He that eateth me shall liue by me Wherefore who so euer doth not contemne the euerlasting life how can he but highly esteeme this Sacrament how can he but imbrace it as a sure pledge of his saluation And when he seeth godly people deuoutly receaue the same how can he but be desirous oftentimes to receaue it with them Surely no man that well vnderstandeth and diligently wayeth these thinges can be without a great desire to come to this holy Supper All men desire to haue Gods fauour and when they know the contrary that they be in his indignation and cast out of his fauour what thing can comfort them how be their minds vexed what trouble is in their consciences all Gods creatures seeme to be against them and doe make them afrayd as thinges being ministers of Gods wrath and indignation towardes them and rest or comforte can they finde none neither within them nor without them And in this case they doe hate as well God as the Deuill God as an vnmercifull and extreeme Iudge and the Deuill as a most malicious and cruell tormentor And in this sorrowfull heauines holy Scripture teacheth them that our heauenly Father can by no meanes be pleased with thē again but by the Sacrifice and death of his only begotten Sonne whereby God hath made a perpetuall amity and peace with vs doth pardon the sinnes of them that beleue in him maketh them his children and geueth them to his first begotten Sonne Christ to be incorporate into him to be saued by him and to be made heires of heauen with him And in the receauing of the holy Supper of our Lord we be put in remembrance of this his death and of the wholl mistery of our redemption In the which Supper is made mention of his testament and of the aforesaid communion of vs with Christ and of the remission of our sinnes by his Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Wherfore in this Sacrament if it be rightly receaued with a true faith we be assured that our sinnes be forgiuen and the league of peace and the Testament of God is confirmed betwene him and vs so that who so euer by a true fayth doth eate Christs flesh and drink his bloud hath euerlasting life by him Which thing whē we feele in our hartes at the receauing of the Lords supper what thing can be more ioyfull more pleasaunt or more comfortable vnto vs. All this to be true is most certayne by the wordes of Christ him selfe whē he did first institute his holy Supper the night before hys death as it appeareth as well by the wordes of the Euangelistes as of S. Paule Do this sayth Christ as often as you drinke it in remembraunce of me And S. Paule sayth As often as you eate this bread and drinke this cup you shall shew the Lordes death vntill he come And agayne Christ sayd This cup is a newe testament in myne own bloud which shall be shed for the remission of sinnes This doctrine here recyted may suffice for all that be humble and Godlye and seeke nothing that is superfluous but that is necessary and profitable And therfore vnto such persons may be made here an ende of this booke But vnto them that be contentious Papistes and Idolaters nothing is inough And yet because they shall not glory in their subtill inuentions and deceiuable doctrine as though no man were able to aunswere them I shall desire the readers of patience to suffer me a litle while to spende some time in vayne to confute their most vaine vanities And yet the time shal not be al together spent in vain for thereby shall more clearely appeare the light from the darcknes the truth from false sophisticall subtilties and the certaine worde of God from mens dreames and phantasticall inuentions ALthough I neede make no further aunswere but the rehearsall of my wordes yet thus much will I aunswere that where you say that I speake some wordes by the way not tollerable if there had bene any suche they should not haue fayled to be expressed and named to their reproche as other haue bene Wherfore the reader may take a day with you before he beleue you when you reproue me for vsing some intollerable wordes and in conclusion name not one of them And as
for your catholick confessiō that Christ doth in deed fede such as be regenerated in him not only by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud at his holy table this I confesse also but that he feedeth Iewes Turkes and Infidels if they receaue the sacrament or that he corporally feedeth our mouthes with his flesh and bloud this neither I confesse nor any scripture or auncyeut writer euer taught but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hartes and by fayth not with mouth and teeth except our hartes be in our mouthes and our fayth in our teeth Thus you haue labored sore in this matter and sponne a fayre threde and brought this your first booke to a goodly conclusion For you conclude your booke with blasphemous wordes agaynst both the sacrament of baptisme and the Lordes supper nigardly pinching gods giftes and diminishing hys lyberall promises made vnto vs in them For where Christ hat◠promised in both the sacramentes to be assistant with vs wholl both in body and spirite in the one to be our spirituall regeneration and apparell and in the other to be our spirituall meate and drinke you clyp hys liberall benefites in such sorte that in the one you make him to geue but onely his spirite and in the other but onely hys body And yet you call your booke an Explication and assertion of the true catholicke fayth Here you make an ende of your first booke leauing vnanswered the rest of my booke And yet forasmuch as Smith busieth him selfe in this place with the aunswere therof he may not passe vnanswered againe where the matter requireth The wordes of my booke be these But these thinges cannot manifestly appeare to the reader except the principall poyntes be first set our wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods word which be chiefly fower First the Papistes say that in the supper of the Lord after the wordes of consecration as they call it there is none other substaunce remaining but the substaunce of Christes flesh and bloud so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten nor wine to be dronken And although there be the colour of bread and wine the sauour the smell the bignesse the fashion and all other as they call them accidentes or qualities and quantitees of bread and wine yet say they there is no very bread nor wine but they be turned into the flesh bloud of Christ. And this conuersion they call transubstantiation that is to say turning of one substance into an other substance And although all the accidentes both of the bread and wine remaine still yet say they the same accidentes be in no maner of thing but hang alone in the ayre without any thing to stay them vpon For in the body and bloud of Christ say they these accidentes cannot be nor yet in the ayre for the body and bloud of Christ and the ayre be neither of that bignesse fashion smell nor colour that the bread and wine be Nor in the bread and wine say they these accidentes can not be for the substance of bread and wine as they affirm be clean gone And so there remaineth whitenes but nothing is white there remaineth colours but nothing is colored therwith there remaineth roundnes but nothing is round and there is bignes and yet nothing is bigge there is sweetenes without any sweet thing softnes without any soft thing breaking without any thing broaken diuision without any thing deuided and so other qualities and quantities without any thing to receiue them And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith But it is not the doctrine of Christ but the subtile inuention of Antichrist first decreed by Innocent the third and after more at large set forth by schoole authors whose study was euer to defend and set abroad to the world all such matters as the bishoppe of Rome had once decreed And the Deuill by his minister Antichrist had so daseled the eyes of a great multitude of christian people in these latter dayes that they sought not for their faith at the cleere light of Gods word but at the Romish Antichrist beleeuing what so euer he prescribed vnto them yea though it were against all reason al sences Gods most holy word also For els he could not haue been very Antichrist in deede except he had been so repugnant vnto Christ whose doctrine is clean contrary to this doctrin of Antichrist For Christ teacheth that we receaue very bread and wine in the most blessed Supper of the Lord as Sacraments to admonish vs that as we be fedde with bread and wine bodely so we be fedde with the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spirituallye As in our baptisme we receiue very water to signify vnto vs that as water is an elemēt to wash the body outwardly so be our soules washed by the holy ghost inwardly The second principall thinge wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods worde is this They say that the very naturall fleshe and bloud of Christ which suffred for vs vpon the crosse sitteth at the right hād of father in heauen is also really substancially corporally naturally in or vnder the accidents of the sacramental bread wine which they call the fourmes of bread and wine And yet here they vary not a litle among thē selues for some say that the very naturall body of Christ is there but not naturally nor sensibly And other say that it is there naturally and sensibly and of the same bignes and fashion that it is in heauen and as the same was borne of the blessed virgine Mary and that is there broken and torne in peces with our teeth And this appeareth partly by the schole authors partely by the confession of Berengarius which Nicholas the second constrained him to make which was this That of the Sacramentes of the Lordes table the said Berengarius should promise to hold that faith which the sayd Pope Nicholas his counsel held which was that not only the sacramēts of bread wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar broken and torne with the teeth of the faithful people But the true catholick faith grounded vpon Gods most infallible word teacheth vs that our sauiour Christ as concerning his mans nature and bodily presence is gone vp vnto heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father and there shall he tary vntill the worldes ende at what time he shall come againe to iudge both the quick and the dead as he saith him self in many Scriptures I forsake the world saith he and goe to my Father And in another place he saith You shal euer haue poore men among you but me shall not you euer haue And againe hee saith Many hereafter shall come and say looke here is Christ or looke there
he is but beleeue them not And S. Peter saith in the Actes that heauen must receaue Christ vntill the time that all thinges shall be restored And S. Paule writing to the Colossians agreeth hereto saying Seeke for thinges that be a-aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father And Saint Paul speaking of the very Sacrament saith As often as you shall eate this bread and drinke this cuppe shew forth the Lordes death vntill he come Till he come saith Saint Paule signifying that he is not there corporally present For what speech were this or who vseth of him that is already present to say vntill he come For vntill he come signifieth that he is not yet present This is the catholicke faith which we learne from our youth in our common Creede and which Christ taught the Apostles followed and the Martirs confirmed with their bloud And although Christ in his humain nature substantially really corporally naturally and sensibly be present with his Father in heaueÌ„ yet Sacramentally and Spiritually he is here present For in water bread and wine he is present as in signes and Sacramentes but he is in deede Spiritually in those faithfull christian people which according to Christes ordinaunce be baptized or receaue the holy communion or vnfainedlye beleeue in him Thus haue you heard the second principall article wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of Gods word and from the Catholick faith Now the third thing wherein they vary is this The Papistes say that euill and vngodly men receaue in this Sacrament tâ—â— very body and bloud of Christ and eate and drinke the self same thing that the good and godly men doe But the truth of Gods word is contrary that all those that be godly members of Christ as they corporally eate the bread and drinke the wine so spiritually they eate and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud And as for the wicked members of the Deuill they eate the Sacramental bread and drinke the SacrameÌ„tall wine but they doe not spiritually eate Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud but they eate and drinke their own damnation The fourth thing wherein the Popish priestes dissent froÌ„ the manifest word of God is this They say that they offer Christ euery day for remission of sinne and distribute by their Masses the merits of Christs passion But the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists doe say that Christ himselfe in his own person made a sacrifice for our sinnes vpon the Crosse by whose woundes all our diseases were healed and our sinnes pardoned and so did neuer no priest man nor creature but he nor he dyd the same neuer more then once And the benefit hereof is in no mannes power to gyue vnto any other but euery man must receaue it at Christes handes himselfe by his own fayth and beliefe as the Prophet saieth Here Smith findeth him selfe much greeued at two false reports wherwith he saith that I vntruely charge the Papists One when I write that some say that the very naturall body of Christ is in the Sacrament naturally and sensibly which thing Smith vtterly denieth any of them to say and that I falsely lay this vnto their charge And moreouer it is very false saith he that you lay vnto our charges that we say that Christes body is in the Sacrament as it was borne of the virgin and that it is broken and torne in peeces with our teeth This also Smith saith is a false report of me But whether I haue made any vntrue report or no let the bookes be iudges As touching the first the Bishop writeth thus in his booke of the Deuils sophistry the 14. leafe Good men were neuer offended with breaking of the hoost which they daily saw being also perswaded Christes body to be present in the Sacrament naturally and really And in the 18. leafe he saith these words Christ God and man is naturally present in the Sacrament And in ten or twelue places of this his last booke he saith that Christ is present in the SacrameÌ„t naturally corporally sensibly and carnally as shall appeare euidently in the reading therof So that I make no false reporte herein who report no otherwise then the â—apistes haue written and published openly in their bookes And it is not to be passed ouer but worthy to be noted how manifest falshoode is vsed in the printing of this Bishoppes booke in the 136. leafe For where the Bishoppe wrote as I haue two coppies to shew one of his own hand and another exhibited by him in open court before the Kinges Commissioners that Christes body in the Sacrament is truely present therfore really present corporally also and naturally The printed booke now set abroad hath changed this word naturally and in the stede therof hath put these wordes but yet supernaturally corrupting and manifestly falsefying the Bishops booke Who was the Author of this vntrue acte I cannot certainly define but if coniectures may haue place I think the Bishop himselfe would not commaund to altar the booke in the printing and then set it forth with this title that it was the same booke that was exhibited by his own hand for his defence to the kinges maiesties commissioners at Lamhith And I thinke the Printer being a French man would not haue enterprised so false a deed of his own head for that which he should haue no thanks at all but be accused of the Author as a falsifier of his booke Now for as much as it is not like that either the Bishop or the Printer would play any such pranks it must then be some other that was of counsell in the printing of the booke which being printed in Fraunce whether you be now fled from your own natiue countrey what person is more like to haue done such a noble acte then you who being so full of craft and vntruth in your own countrey shew your selfe to be no changeling where soeuer you become And the rather it seemeth to me to be you then any other person because that the booke is altred in this word naturally vpoÌ„ which word standeth the reproofe of your saying For he saith that Christ is in the Sacrament naturally and you deny that any man so saith but that Christ is there supernaturally Who is more like therefore to change in his booke naturally into supernaturall then you whom the matter toucheth and no maÌ„ els but whether my coniectures be good in this matter I will not determine but referre it to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader Now as concerning the second vntrue report which I should make of the Papistes I haue alleadged the wordes of Berengarius recantation appointed by Pope Nicholas the 2. and written De consecrat dist 2. which be these that not only the Sacraments of bread and wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ are sensibly handeled of the Priest in the Altar broaken and torne with the teeth of
the faithfull people Thus the Reader may see that I misreport not the Papists nor charge them with any other words then they doe write that is to say that the body of Christ is naturally and sensibly in the Sacrament and broken and torne in peeces with our teeth But saith Smith the meaning of Berengarius in his recantatiō was otherwise that the formes of bread and wine are broaken and torne with our teeth but Christ is receaued wholly without breaking of his body or tearing with our teeth Well what so euer the meaninge of Berengarius was his wordes be as I report so that I make no false report of the Papistes nor vntruely charge them with that they say not But how should men know what the Papists meane when they say one thing and meane another For Berengarius said that not only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth and you say he ment contrary that only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth Berengarius said that also the very flesh and bloud of Christ be broken and torne and you say he ment clean contrary that the flesh and bloud of Christ be not broaken and torne Well then would I faine learne how it may be knowen what the Papists meane if they mean yea when they say nay and mean nay when they say yea And as for S. Iohn Chrisostom and other old authors by whom you would excuse this manner of speech they helpe you herein nothing at all For not one of them speake after this sorte that Berengarius doth For although though they say sometimes that we see Christ touch him and breake him vnderstanding that speech not of Christ him selfe but of the Sacraments which represent him yet they vse no such forme of speech as was prescribed to Berengarius that we see feele and break not only the sacraments but also Christ him selfe And likewise of Loth Abraham Iacob Iosue Mary Magdalen and the Apostles whom you bring forth in this matter there is no such speeche in the scripture as Berengarius vseth So that all these things be brought out in vame hauing no colour to serue for your purpose sauing that same thing you must say to make out your booke And as for al the rest that you say in this proces concerning the presence of Christ visible and inuisible nedeth no answere at all because you prooue nothing of all that you say in that matter which may easely therfore be denied by as good authoritie as you affirme the same And yet all the olde writers that speake of the diuersity of Christes substantiall presence and absence declare this diuersitie to be in the diuersity of his two natures that in the nature of his humanitie he is gone hence and present in the nature of his diuinitie and not that in diuers respectes and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent which I haue proued in my third booke the fifth chapter And for as much as you haue not brought one author for the proofe of your saying but your own bare wordes nor haue aunswered to the authorities alleadged by me in the forsaid place of my third booke reason would that my proofes should stand and haue place vntill such time as you haue proued your sayings or brought some euidēt matter to improue mine And this I trust shall suffice to any indifferent Reader for the defence of my first booke Winchester Wherein I will kéepe this order First to consider the third booke that speaketh against the faith of the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament then against the fourth and so returne to the second speaking of Transubstantiation wherof to talke the reall presence not being discussed were cleerely superfluous And finally I will somewhat say of the fifte booke also Caunterbury BUt now to returne to the conclusion of the Bishops booke As it began with a marueilous sleight and suttlety so doth he conclude the same with a like notable suttlety changing the order of my bookes not answering thē in such order as I wrote them nor as the nature of the thinges requireth For seeing that by all mennes confessions there is bread and wine before the consecration the first thing to be discussed in this matter is whether the same bread and wine remain still after the cōsecratiō as Sacraments of Christs most precious body and bloud And next by order of nature and reason is to be discussed whether the body and bloud of Christ represented by those Sacramentes be present also with the said Sacramentes And what manner of presence Christ hath both in the Sacraments and in thē that receiue the Sacramentes But for what intent the Bishoppe changed this order it is easie to perceiue For he saw the matter of Transubstantiation so flat plain against him that it was hard for him to deuise an answere in that matter that should haue any apparance of truth but all the world should euidētly see him cleerely ouerthrowen at the first onset Wherefore he thought that although the matter of the reall presence hath no truth in it at all yet for as much as it seemed to him to haue some more apparaunce of truth then the matter of Transubstantiatiō hath he thought best to beginne with that first trusting so to iuggle in the matter and to dasell the eyes of them that be simple and ignorant and specially of such as were alredy perswaded in the matter that they should not well see nor perceiue his lieger de main And whē he had won credite with them in that matter by making them to wonder at his crafty iuggeling then thought he it should be a fitte and meete time for him to bring in the matter of Transubstantiation For when men be amased they doe wonder rather then iudge And when they be muffeled and blindfolded they cannot finde the right way though they seek it neuer so fast nor yet follow it if it chaunce them to finde it but geue vp cleerely their own iudgement and follow whom so euer they take to be their guid◠And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of Transubstantiation thought the bishop if I can first perswade them and get their good willes in the reall presence This sleight and suttlety thou maist iudge certainly good Reader to be the cause and none other wherefore the order of my booke is chaunged without ground or reason The ende of the first booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE THIRD BOOKE IN the beginning of the third booke the author hath thought good to note certain differences which I wil also particularly consider It followeth in him thus They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine But we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine Note here Reader euen in the entry of the comparison of these differences how vntruly the true faith of the Church is reported
which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine which was the doctrine of Luther but the true faith is that Christes most precious body and bloud is by the might of his word and determination of his will which he declareth by his word in his holy Supper present vnder forme of bread and wine The substance of which natures of bread and wine is conuerted into his most precious body bloud as it is truely beleeued taught in the Catholick church of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant So as the Author of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittingly against his conscience to say they teach calling them papists that Christ is in the bread and wine but they agrée in forme of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holy Communion in that it is there said the body and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wine And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong vntrue report of the faith of the Catholick Church made of this Author in the setting forth of this difference on that parte which it pleaseth him to name Papistes And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference such as no Catholick man would deny For euery Catholick teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament vnles he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him For otherwise such one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condemnation Christ cannot be receued worthely but into his own temple which be ye S. Paul saith and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him is not his As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecration in substance Wherefore appeareth how the Author of this booke in the lieu and place of a difference which he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholick man must néedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud or the bread and wine as this Author speaketh But as this Author would haue speaken plainly and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges he should in the second parte haue said from what contrary to that the Catholick Church teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaration of the second parte to say that repugneth not to the first matter and that no Catholicke man will deny considering the said two teachinges be not of one matter nor shoote not as one might say to one marke For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely as before is sayd which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy so both the differences thus taught make but one Catholick doctrine Let vs sée what the Author saith further Caunterbury NOw the craftes wiles and vntruthes of the first booke being partly detected after I haue also answered to this booke I shall leaue to the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answere I shall rehearse the wordes of mine owne thirde boke which you attēpt next out of order to impugne My words be these Now this matter of Transubstantiatiō being as I trust sufficiently resolued which is the first part before rehearsed wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth order requireth next to intreate of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacramēt thereof wherin is no lesse cōtentiō thē in the first part For a plain explication whereof it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people that our Sauiour Christ being perfecte God and in all thinges equall and coeternall with his Father for our sakes became also a perfect man taking flesh and bloud of his blessed mother and virgin Mary sauing sinne being in all thinges like vnto vs adioyning vnto his diuinity a most perfect soul of man And his body being made of very flesh and bones not onely hauing all members of a perfect mannes body in due order and proportion but also being subiect to hunger thirst labour sweate werines cold heate and all other like infirmities and passions of a manne and vnto death also and that the most vile and painfull vpon the crosse and after his death he rose againe with the self same visible and palpable body and appeared therewith and shewed the same vnto his Apostles and specially to Thomas making him to put his handes into his side and to feele his woundes And with the selfe same body he forsooke this world and ascended into heauen the Apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father there shall remaine vntill the last day when he shall come to iudge the quick dead This is the true Catholick faith which the Scripture teacheth and the vniuersall Church of Christ hath euer beleeued from the beginning vntill within these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares last passed that the Bishop of Rome with the assistance of his Papistes hath set vp a new faith and beleefe of their own deuising that the same body really corporally naturally and sensibly is in this worlde still and that in an hundred thousand places at one time being inclosed in euery pixe and bread consecrated And although we doe affirme according to Gods word that Christ is in all persons that truly beleeue in him in such sort that with his flesh and bloud he doth spiritually nourish and feede them and geueth them euerlasting life doth assure them thereof as well by the promise of his word as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper which he did institute for the same purpose yet we doe not a little vary from the hainous errors of the Papists For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine but we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the bread wine Here it pleaseth you to passe ouer all the rest of my sayinges and to aunswere onely to the difference betweene the Papists and the true Catholicke faith Where in the first ye finde fault that I haue vntruely reported the Papisticall faith which you
call the faith of the Church which teacheth not say you that Christ is in the bread and wine but vnder the formes of bread and wine But to aunswere you I say that the Papists do teach that Christ is in the visible signes and whether they list to call them bread and wine or the formes of bread and wine all is one to me for the truth is that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine nor in or vnder the formes figures of them but is corporally in heauen and spiritually in his liuelye members which be his tēples where he inhabiteth And what vntrue reporte is this when I speake of bread and wine to the Papistes to speak of them in the fame sence that the Papistes meane taking bread and wine for the formes and accidences of bread and wine And your selfe also doe teach to vnderstand by the bread and wine not their substances but accidentes And what haue I offended then in speaking to you after your own māner of speach which your self doth approue and allow by and by after saying these wordes As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name If a Catholick man forbeareth not that name and Catholick men be true men then true men forbeare not that name And why then charge you me with an vntruth for vsing that name which you vse your selfe and affirme Catholicke men to vse But that you be geuen altogether to finde faultes rather in other then to amend your own and to reprehend that in me which you allow in your selfe and other and purposely will not vnderstand my meaning because ye would seeke occasion to carpe and controll For els what man is so simple that readeth my booke but he may know well that I meane not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine For I know that you say ther is nether bread nor wine although you say vntruely therein but yet for as much as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine and say that in them is Christ therfore I reporte of you that you say Christ is in the bread and wine meaning as you take bread and wine the accidentes thereof Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent Reader of my booke then you in this place who vnderstoode my wordes as I meante and as the Papistes vse and therefore would not purposely calūniate and reprehend that was well spoaken But there is no man so dull as he that will not vnderstand For men know that your witte is of as good capacitie as D. Smithes is if your will agreed to the same But as for any vntrue reporte made by me herein willingly against my conscience as you vntruely report of me by that time I haue ioyned with you throughout your booke you shall right well perceiue I trust that I haue sayd nothing wittingly but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day in the sight of the euerliuing God and that I am able before any learned and indifferent iudges to iustifie by holy Scriptures and the auncient Doctors of Christes church as I will appeale the consciences of all godly men that be any thing indifferent ready to yealde to the truth when they reade and consider my booke And as concerning the forme of doctrine vsed in this church of Englād in the holy Communiō that the body and bloud of Christ be vnder the formes of bread and wine whē you shall shew the place where this forme of words is expressed then shall you purge your selfe of that which in the meane time I take to be a plain vntruth Now for the second parte of the difference you graunt that our doctrine is true that Christ is in them that worthely eate and drunke the bread and wine and if it differ not from youres then let it passe as a thing agreed vpon by both partes And yet if I would captiously gather of your wordes I could as well prooue by this second parte that very bread and wine be eatē and drunken after consecration as you could prooue by the first that Christ is in the very bread and wine And if a Catholick man call the bread wine as you say in the second parte of the difference what ment you then in the first parte of this difference to charge me with so hainous a crime with a note to the Reader as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost because I said that the Papistes doe teach that Christ is in the bread and wine doe not you affirme here yourselfe the same that I reporte that the Papistes which you call the Catholickes doe not forbeare to call the Sacrament wherein they put the reall and corporall presence bread and wine Let the Reader now iudge whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the successe of them that study to wrangle in wordes without any respecte of opening the truth But letting that matter passe yet we vary from you in this difference For we say not as you doe that the body of Christ is corporally naturally and carnally either in the bread and wine or formes of bread and wine or in them that eate and drinke thereof But we say that he is corporally in heauen onely and spiritually in them that worthely eate and drink the bread and wine But you make an article of the faith which the olde Church neuer beleeued nor heard of And where you note in this second parte of the difference a sleight and crafte as you note an vntruth in the first euen as much crafte is in the one as vntruth in the other being neither sleight nor vntruth in either of both But this sleight say you I vse putting that for a difference wherein is no difference at all but euery Catholick man must needes confesse Yet once againe there is no man so deafe as he that will not heare nor so blinde as he that will not see nor so dul as he that wil not vnderstand But if you had indifferent eares indifferent eyes and indifferent iudgement you might well gather of my wordes a plain and manifest difference although it be not in such tearmes as contenteth your mind But because you shall see that I meane no sleight nor crafte but goe plainly to worke I shall set out the difference truely as I ment and in such your own tearmes as I trust shall content you if it be possible Let this therfore be the difference They say that Christ is corporally vnder or in the formes of bread and wine We say that Christ is not there neither corporally nor spiritually but in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine he is spiritually and corporally in heauen Here I trust I haue satisfied as well the vntrue report wittingly made as you say in the first parte of the difference against my conscience as the crafte and sleight vsed
Christ made bread his body and wyne his bloud and vnder the figure of those visible creatures gaue inuisibly his precious body any bloud presently there And as he gaue sayth S. Barnarde his life for vs so he gaue his flesh to vs in that mistery to redéeme vs in this to féede vs. Which doings of Christ we must vnderstand to haue béene perfited not in an imagination in a figure and signification but really in very déede truely and vnfaynedly not because we beléeue it so but because he wrought it so whose works we must beleue to be most perfitly true according to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in scripture driueth vs from it howsoeuer it seme repugnant to our reason be we neuer so wise and wittie which mans reason now a dayes enflamed with fury of language is the only aduersary against the most blessed Sacrament as it may appeare by these comparysons of differences throughly considered Caunterbury DId not you beleue I pray you many yeares together that the bishop of Rome was Christs vicar and the head of his church If you did not you wittingly and willingly defended a false errour in the open Parliament But sithens that tyme you haue called that beléefe as it is in deede very folish And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter be no more abashed to confesse it in this if you haue respect more vnto Gods trueth then to your owne estimation It is lawfull and commendable for a man to learn from time to tyme and to go from his ignorance that he may receaue and embrace the trueth And as for me I am not I graunt of that nature that the Papists for the most part be who study to deuise all shamefull shiftes rather then they will forsake any errour wherewith they were infected in youth I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance as S. Paul S. Ciprian S. Augustine and many other holy men did who now be with Christ to bring other to the knowledge of the trueth of whose ignoraunce I haue much ruth and pitie I am content to geue place to Gods word that the victory may be Christs What a member had the church of God lost if Paule would haue been as froward as some Papistes be that will sticke to their errour tooth and nayle though the Scripture and auncient writers be neuer so plain and fâ—at against them Although S. Paule erred yet because his errour was not wilfull but of ignoraunce so that he gaue place to the trueth when it was opened vnto him he became of a most cruell persecutor a most seruent setter forth of the trueth and Apostle of Christ. And would God I were as sure that you be chaunged in déede in those matters of religion wherein with the alteration of this realme you preteÌ„d a change as I am glad euen from the bottom of my hart that it hath pleased almighty God in this latter end of my yeares to giue me knowledge of my former errour and a will to embrace the truth setting a part all maner of worldly respectes which be speciall hinderances that hold backe many from the free profession of Christ and his word And as for the booke of common prayer although it say that in ech part of the bread broken is receaued the whole body of Christ yet it sayth not so of the partes vnbroken nor yet of the partes or whole reserued as the Papistes teach But as in baptisme we receaue the holy ghost and put Christ vpon vs as well if wee be Christened in one dysh full of water taken out of the fonte as if we were chistned in the whole fonte or riuer so we be as truely fed refreshed and comforted by Christ receauing a peece of bread at the Lords holy table as if we dyd eat an whole loafe For as in euery part of the water in baptisme is wholl Christ and the holy spirit sacramentally so be they in euery part of the bread broken but not corporally and naturally as the Papists teach And I beare not the catholick church in hand as you report of me that it sayth and teacheth that whole Christ is in euery part of the bread consecrated but I say that the Papistes so teach And because you deny it read the chiefe pillers of the Papistes Duns and Thomas de Aquino which the Papists call S. Thomas who say that Christ is whole vnder euery part of the formes of bread and wine not only when the host is broken but wheÌ„ it is wholl also And there is no distance sayth he of partes one from an other as of one eie from another or of the eye from the eare or the head from the feet These be Thomas wrds Christus totus est sub qualibit parte specicruÌ„ panis vini non soluÌ„ cuÌ„ frangitur hostia sed etiaÌ„ cuÌ„ integra manet Nec est distaÌ„tia partiuÌ„ ab inniceÌ„ vt oculi ab oculo aut oculi ab aure eut capitis à pedibus sicut est in alijs corporibus orgameis Talis enim distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero sed non prout est in hoc Sacraâ—eÌ„to And not only the Papists do thus write and teach but the Pope himself Innocentius the third And so beare I in haÌ„d or report of the Papisies nothing but that which they say indeed And yet you say the church sayth not so which I affirme also and then it must needs follow that the doctrine of the Papistes is not the doctrine of the church Which Papists not by reason with out faith but agaynst aswell reason as fayth would direct our mindes to seeke in euery little crum of bread whole Christ and to find him in so many places there as be small crums in the bread And where you trauesse the matter of the iudgement of our senses herein it is quite and cleane from the matter and but a crafty shift to conuey the matter to an other thing that is not in question lyke vnto crafty male-factours whych perceauing them selues to be sore pursued with a hound make a new trayn to draw the hound to an other fresh suit For I speake not of the iudgement of our senses in this matter whether they perceaue any distinction of partes and members or no but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no which the Papistes do deny And therefore I say not vntruely of them that in the sacrament they say There is no distance of partes one from another And if the parts in theyr substance be distinct one from an other as you say and be not so distinct in the SacrameÌ„t as Thomas sayth theÌ„ must it follow that the partes in their owne substaunce be not in the sacrament And if this distinction of partes be in the true body of Christ and not in the sacrament as Thomas saith then followeth it again that the true body of Christ
is not in the sacrament And forasmuch as I speake not one word of the comprehension of our senses to what purpose do you bring this in if it be not to draw vs to a new matter to auoyd that which is in controuersy You do herein as if Iames should by of Iohn a percell of land and by his atturney take state and possession therein And after Iohn should trauers the matter and say that there was neuer no state deliuered and thereupon ioyne their issue And when Iames should bryng forth his witnesses for the state and possession theÌ„ should Iohn runne to a new matter and say that Iames saw the possession deliuered what were this allegation of Iohn to the purpose of the thing that was in issue whether the possession were deliuered in deede or no Were this any other thing then to auoid the issue craftely by bringing in of a new matter And yet this shift is a common practise of you in this booke and this is another point of the deuils Sophistry wherin it is pitty that euer such a wit as you haue should be occupied Again you say that impudently I beare the Catholick church in hand to teach that I list to beare in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching wheras al true christen men beleeue simply Christs words and trouble not their heads with such consequences This is in the author no whispering but plain railing say you This is your barking eloqueÌ„ce wherewith your booke is well furnished for as dogs barke at the moone without any cause so doe you in this place For I doe no more but truely reporte what the Papistes them selues doe write and no otherwise not bearing the Catholick church in hand that it so teacheth but charging the Papistes that they so teach nor bearing the Papistes in hand what I list or what by wantoÌ„ reason may be deduced of their teaching but reporting onely what their own words and sayinges be And if they be no true christen men that trouble their heades with such matters as you affirme they be not then was Innocent the third the chiefe author of your doctrin both of transubstantiation and of the reall preseÌ„ce no true christian man as I beleeue well inough Then was your Saint Thomas no true christian man Then Gabriell Duns Durand and the great rablement of the schoole authors which taught your doctrin of traÌ„substantiation and of the reall presence were not true christen men And in few words to comprehend the whol then were almost none that taught that doctrine true christen men but your selfe alone For almost all with one consent doe teach that wholl Christ is really in euery part of the host But your termes here of rayling mocking and scorning I would haue taken patiently at your hand if your tongue and pen had not ouershot theÌ„ selues in braging so far that the truth by you should be defaced But now I shal be so bold as to send those termes thether from whence they came And for the matter it selfe I am ready to ioyn an issue with you notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words But in Gods workes say you as the Sacramentes be we must think all seemelines in deede without deformity But what seemelines is this in a mannes body that the head is where the feete be and the armes where the legges be which the Papistes doe teach and your selfe seeme to confesse when you say that the partes of Christes body be distinct in themselues one from another in their own substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places And yet you seeme again to deny the same in your wise dialogue or quadriloge betweene the curious questioner the folish ansÌ„werer your wise catholick man standing by and the mediator In which dialoge you bring in your wise catholick man to condemne of madnes all such as say that Christes head is there where his feete be and so you condemne of madnes not onely al the scholasticall doctors which say that Christ is wholl in euery part of the coÌ„secrated bread but also your own former saying where you deny the distinction of the partes of Christs body in seuerall places Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser then you all who losing this knot of Gordius saith that Christes body how big soeuer it be may be as well signified by a little peece of bread as by a greate and so as concerning the reason of a sacrameÌ„t al is one whether it be an whol bread or a peece of it as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the wholl fonte or in a parte of the water taken out therof For the respect and consideration of the Sacrament is all one in the lesse and more But this fourth man say you hath no participation with faith condemning all the true publick faith testified in the church from the beginning hetherto which hath euer with wonder marueiled at the mistery of the Sacrament which is no wonder at all if bread be but a signification of Christ his body this is a wonderfull saying of you as of one that vnderstoode nothing vtterly what a Sacrament meaneth and what is to be wondred at in the Sacrament For the wonder is not how God worketh in the outward visible Sacrament but his marueilous worke is in the worthy receauers of the Sacramentes The wonderfull worke of God is not in the water which oâ—ely washeth the body but God by his omnipotent power worketh wonderfully in the receauers thereof scouring washing and making them clean inwardly and as it were new meÌ„ and celestiall creatures This haue allâ—olde authors wondered at this wonder passeth the capacities of all mens wits how damnation is turned into saluation and of the Sonne of the deuill condemned into hell is made the Sonne of God and inheritour of heauen This wonderfull worke of God all men may maruel and wonder at but no creature is able sufficiently to comprehend it And as this is wondred at in the Sacrament of Baptisme how he that was subiect vnto death receiueth life by Christ and his holy Spirite So is this wondred at in the Sacrament of Christes holy Table how the same life is continued and endureth for euer by continuall feeding vpon Christes flesh and his bloud And these wonderfull workes of God towardes vs we be taught by Gods holy worde and his Sacramentes of breade wine and water and yet be not these woÌ„derfull workes of God in the Sacraments but in vs. And although many authors vse this manner of speech that Christ maketh bread his body and wine his bloud and wonder thereat yet those authors mean not of the bread and wine in them selues but of the bread and wine eaten and dronken of faithfull people For when Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud he wake not those words to the bread wine but to the eaters and drinkers of them saying Eat this is my body Drink this is my
bloud signifying to theÌ„ that worthely do eat that bread drink that cuppe that they be inwardly and inuisibly fed with Christes flesh and bloud as they outwardly and visibly receaue the sacraments of them To be short here in this processe you vse plenty of words at your pleasure to make the reader beleue that I should suppose confusion monstrousnes absurditie and vnseemelinesse to be in Gods holy sacraments where as I do no more but tel what monstrous absurdities and errors the Papists do teach in the sacraments But if the reader take good heede to your talk he shall finde that you lacking good matter to aunswere this comparison do fall vnto railing and enforce your pen to inuent such stuffe as might bring me into hatred vndeserued which kind of rhetorick is called Canma facunda and is vsed onely of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their aduersary which is yet an other trick of the deuils sophistry And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred you couple me with Sabellius and Arrius whose doctrines as you say were facile and easy as here you confesse mine for to be But if all such expositions as make the Scriptures plain should by and by be slaunderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius then should all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger because that by their paines they haue made hard questions facile and easy And yet whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to vnderstand or not I cannot define but it seemeth so hard that you cannot vnderstand it except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulnes that you can and wil not vnderstaÌ„d it Now followeth the sixt comparison Furthermore the Papistes say that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ if they by chaunce doe eate the Sacramentall bread We say That no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ nor drink his bloud but onely man Winchester I haue red that some intreate these chances of dogges and cattes but I neuer heard any of that opinion to say or write so as a doctrine that a dogge or a catte eateth the body of Christ and set it forth for a teaching as this author most impudently supposeth and I maruell much that such a worde and such a reporte can come out of a christian maÌ„nes mouth and therefore this is by the author a maruelous surmise Whereupon to take occasion to bring the aduersatiue But for the Authors parte being such a saying on that side as all christendome hath euer taught that no creature can eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ but onely man But this abhominable surmysed no truth in the former parte of his comparison may be taken for a proofe whether such beastly asseuerations procéede from the spirite of truth or now And whether truth be there intended where such blasphemy is surmised But let vs see the rest Caunterbury YEt stil in these comparisons you grauÌ„t that part of the difference to be true which I affirme but you say that I reporte vntruely of the Papistes impudently bearing them in hand to say such abhominable beastly asseuerations as you neuer heard Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in deniall of that thing which either you know the Papists do say or you are in doubt whether they say or saying hauing not read what it is that they say For why doe they reiect the Master of the sentences in this point that he said a mouse or bruite beast receaueth not the body of Christ although they seeme to receau it Wherin if you say as the Master did that the mouse receiueth not the body of Christ looke for no fauor at the papists hands but to be reiected as the Master was unles they forbeare you vpon fauour and because that in other matters you haue bene so good a captayne for them they will pardon you this one faulte Aâ—d so is this first parte of the difference no vntrue surmise of me but a determination of the Papistes condemning who so euer would say the contrary And this is a common proposition among the schoole diuines that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the forme of the bread is remayning where so euer it be whereof your S. Thomas wryteth thus Quidam vero dixerunt quod quaÌ„ primum Sacramentum sumitur à mure vel cane desinit ibi esse corpus Christi Sed hoc deregat veritati huius Sacramenti Substantia enim panis sumpta à peccatore I am diu manet dion per calorem naturalem est in digestione igitur tam diu manet corpus Christi sub speciebus Sacramentalibus And Perin in his booke printed and set abroad in this matter for all men to read saith That although the mouse or any other beast doe eate the Sacrament yet neuerthelesse the same is the very and reall body of Christ. And he asketh what inconuenience it is against the verity of Christs reall body in the Sacrament though the impassible body lye in the mouth or maw of the beast Is it not therfore the body of Christ Yes vndoubtedly saith he So that now these abhominable opinions and beastly asseuerations as you truely terme them meaning thereby to bite me as appeareth be fitte termes and meete for the Papists whose asseuerations they be Now followeth the seuenth comparyson They say that euery man good and euill eateth the body of Christ. We say that both doe eate the Sacramentall bread and drink the wine but none do eate the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud but only they that be liuely members of his body Winchester In this comparison the former part speaking of such men as be by baptisme receiued into Christes church is very true confirmed by S. Paule and euer since affirmed in the church in the proofe whereof here in this booke I wil not trauell but make it a demurre as it were in law whereupon to fly the truth of the hole matter if that doctrin called by this author the doctrine of the Papistes and is in déede the Catholick doctrine be not in this point true let all be so iudged for me If it be true as it is most true let that be a marke whereby to iudge the rest of this authors vntrue asseuerations For vndoubtedly S. Augustine sayth We may not of mens matters estéeme the Sacraments they be made by him whose they be but worthely vsed they bring reward vnworthely handled they bring iudgement He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely and he that vseth it vnworthely lie not one but that thyng is one whether it be handled worthely or vnworthely so as if is neither better ne worse but life or death of them that vse it Thus saith S. Augustine and therefore be the receauers worthy or vnworthy good or euil the substance of Christs Sacrament is all one as beyng Gods worke
who worketh vniformely and yet is not in all that receaue of like effect not of any alteration or diminution in it but for the diuersitie of him that receaueth So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholicke Church vnder the name of Papists is a very true report and for want of grace reproued by the Author as though it were no true doctrine And the second part of the comparison on the authors side contained vnder We say by them that in hypocrisy pretend to bée fruethes frendes conteineth an vntrueth to the simple reader and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader because of the word very which referred to the effect of eating the body of Christ whereby to receaue lyfe may be so spoaken that none receaue the body of Christ with the very effect of lyfe but such as eate the sacrament spiritually that is to say with true fayth worthely And yet euill men as Iudas receaue the same very body touching the truth of the presence thereof that S. Peter did For in the substāce of the Sacrament which is Gods worke is no varietie who ordeineth all as afore vniformely but in man is the varietie amongst whom he that receaueth worthely Christes body receaueth life and be that receaueth vnworthely receaueth condemnation There followeth further Caunterbury I Thanke you for this demurre for I my selfe could haue chosen no better for my purpose And I am content that the trial of the whole matter be iudged hereby as you desire You say that all that be baptised good and euill eate the body of Christ and I say only the good and not the euill Now must neyther I nor you be iudges in our own causes therefore let Christ be iudge betwene vs both whose iudgemēt it is not reason that you refuse Christ sayth Who so euer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the lyuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came down from heauen Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Now I aske you this question whether euil men shal liue for euer Whether they liue by Christ Whether they dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them If you say nay as you must needes if you will say the truth then haue I proued my negatiue wherein stood the demurre that ill men eat not Christs body nor drinke his bloud for if they did then by Christs own words they should liue for euer and dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them And what proofes will you require more vpon my part in this demurre For if Christ be with me who can be able to stand agaynst me But you alleadge for you S. Paule who speaketh for you nothing at al. For the messenger will not speake against him that sent him I know that S. Paule in the 11. to the Corinthians speaketh expressly of the vnworthy eating of the bread but in no place of the vnworthy eating of the body of Christ. And if he doe shew the place or t is the demurre passeth against you and the wholl matter tried with me by your own pact and couenant And yet for further proofe of this demure I refer me to the 1.2.3.4 and 5. chapters of my 4. booke And where you bring S. Augustine to be witnesse his witnesse in that place helpeth nothing your cause For he speaketh there generally of the vsing of the Sacramentes well or ill as the dyuersity of men be rehearsing by name the sacrament of circumcision of the paschal lamb and of baptisme Wherefore if you wil proue any real and corporall presence of Christ by that place you may aswell proue that he was corporally present iii circumcisiō in eating of the paschal lamb and in baptism as in the Lords supper And here ye vse such a subtilty to deceaue the symple reader that he hath good cause to suspect your proceedinges and to take good heed of you in all your writings who do nothing els but go about to deceaue him For you conclude the matter of the substance of the Sacrament that the reader might thinke that place to speak only of the sacrament of Christs body aud bloud and to speak of the substaunce thereof where S. Augustine neither hath that word Substaunce nor speaketh not one word specially of that sacrament but all his processe goeth chiefely of Baptisme which is alone sayth S. Augustine against the Donatists which reproued Baptisme for the vice of the minister whether the minister be good or ill and whether he minister it to good or to ill For the Sacraments is all one although the effect be diuers to good and to euill And as for them whom ye say that in hypocrisy pretend to be truthes frends all that be learned and haue any iudgemēt know that it is the Papists which no few yeres passed by hypocrisy and fained religion haue vttered and solde theyr lyes and fables in sted of Gods eternall truth and in the place of Christ haue set vp idols and Antichrist And for the conclusion of this comparison in this word Very you make such a wrangling where none occasion is geuen as neuer was had before this tyme of any learned man For who heard euer before this tyme that an adiectiue was referred to a verb and not to his proper substantiue of any man that had any learning at all And as for the matter of Iudas is answered before For he receaued not the bread that was the Lord as S. Augustine sayth but the bread of the Lord. Nor no man can receaue the body of Christ vnworthely although he may receaue vnworthely the Sacrament thereof And hitherto D. Smyth hath found no fault at all in my comparisons whereby the reader may see how nature passeth arte seing here much more captiousnesse in a subtill sophisticall wit then in hym that hath but learned the Sophisticall art Now followeth the eyght comparyson They say that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud only at that time when they receaue the Sacramēt We say that they eat drink and feed of Christ continually so long as they be members of his body Winchester What forehead I pray you is so hardened that can vtter this amōg them that know any thing of the learning of Christs Church In which it is a most common distinction that there is thrée manner of eatinges of Christes body and bloud one spirituall only which is here affirmed in the second part of We say wherin the author and his say as the church sayth Another eating is both sacramentally and spiritually which is when men worthely communicate in the supper The thyrd is sacramentally only which is by men vnworthy who eat and drink in the holy supper to their
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
And yet it is not to be denied but that Christ is truely eaten as he was truly born but the one corporally and without figure and the other spiritually and with a figure Now followeth my 11 comparison They say that the body of Christ is euery day many tymes made as often as there be Masses sayd and that then and there he is made of bread and wine We say that Christes body was neuer but once made and then not of the nature substance of bread and wine but of the substance of his blessed mother Winchester The body of Christ is by Gods omnipotency who so worketh in his word made present vnto vs at such tyme as the church praye it may please him so to doe which prayer is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayer now set foorth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ which they can not be vnlesse God worketh it and make them so to be In which mistery it was neuer taught as this author willingly misreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that order exhibited and made preset vnto vs by conuersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine but a new presence of the body that is neuer old made present there where the substāce of bread and wine was before So as this comparison of difference is meere wrangling and so euident as it needeth no further aunswere but a note Lo how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter and without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in sclander if it were possible May not this be accompted as a part of Gods punishmēt for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part Caunterbury Christ is present when so euer the church praieth vnto him and is gathered togither in his name And the bread and wine be made vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ as it is in the book of common praier but not by chaunging the substaunce of bread and wine into the substance of Christes naturall body and bloud but that in the godly vsing of thē they be vnto the receauers Christes body and bloud As of some the Scripture saith that their riches is their redemption and to some it is their damnatiō And as Gods word to some is life to some it is death and a snare as the prophet saith And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at to some is a raysing frō death not by conuersion of substances but by good or euill vse that thing which to the godly is saluation to the vngodly is damnation So is the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Lords supper to the worthy receauers Christ himselfe and eternall life and to the vnworthy receauers euerlasting death and damnation not by conuersion of one substance into an other but by godly or vngodly vse thereof And therfore in the book of the holy communion we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and bloud of Christ but that vnto vs in that holy mistery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthely receaue the same that we may be partakers of Christes body and bloud and that therwith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished And a like praier of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion of all such offerings as at that time all the people vsed to offer praying that their offerings might be vnto them the body and bloud of Christ. And where you say it was neuer taught as I say that Christs body is made of the matter of bread you knowingly and willingly misreport me For I say not of the matter of bread but of bread which when you deny that the Papists so say it semeth you be now ashamed of the doctrin which the Papistes haue taught thys 4. or 5. hundred yeres For is it not playnely written of all the Papists both lawyers and scholl authors that the body of Christ in the sacramēt is made of bread and his bloud of wine And they say not that his body is made present of bread wine but is made of bread and wine Be not their books in print ready to be shewed Do they not say that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into nothing but into the body of Christ And do not your selfe also say here in this place that the substance of bread is conuerted into Christes precious body And what is that els but the body of Christ to be made of bread and to be made of a new matter For if the bread doe not vanish away into nothing but be turned into Christes body then is Christs body made of it and then it must needes follow that Christes body is made of new and of an orher substance then it was made of in his mothers wombe For there it was made of her flesh and bloud and here it is made of bread and wine And the Papistes say not as you now would shift of the matter that Christes body is made present of bread but they say plainly without addition that it is made of bread Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the Papists Ex pane fit Corpus Christi of bread is made the body of Christ and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance therof◠And what reason sentence or english could be in this saying Christes body is made present of bread Marye to be present in bread might be some sentence but the speeche will you in no wise admitte And this your saying here if the reader mark it wel turneth ouer quite and cleane all the wholl Papisticall doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament as well touching transubstantiation as also the carnall presence For their doctrine with one whol consent and agreement is this That the substance of bread remaineth not but is turned into the substance of Christes body and so the body of Christ is made of it But this is false say you and not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a place to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And so the wholl doctrine of the papists which they haue taught these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares doe you condemne with condigne reproches as a teaching intollerable not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play Why doe you then take vpon you to defend the Papistical doctrine if it be so intollerable Why doe you not forsake those scoffers and players which haue iugled with the world so long and embrace the
most certayne truth that Christs body is not made of bread And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place why stand you not constantly therin but goe from it againe in all the rest of your booke defending the Papisticall doctrine cleane contrary to yours in this pointe in that they teach that Christes body is made of bread And you varry so much from your selfe herein that although you deny the Papistes sayinges in wordes that Christes body is made of bread yet in effect you graunt and maintayn the same which you say is intollerable and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play For you say that Christ calleth bread his body and that his calling is making And then if he make bread his body it must needes follow that he maketh his body of the bread moreouer you say that Christes body is made present by conuersion or turning of the substance of bread into the substance of his precious bodye where of must follow that his body is made of bread For when so euer one substāce is turned into another thē the second is made of the first As because earth was turned into the body of Adam we say that Adam was made of earth and that Eue was made of Adams ribbe And the wine in Galily made of water because the water was turned into wine and the ribbe of Adames side into the body of Eue. If the water had beene put out of the pottes and wine put in for the water we might haue saide that the wine had been made present there where the water was before But then we might not haue said that the wine had been made of the water because the water was emptied out and not turned into wine But when Christ turned the water into the wine then by reason of that turning we say that the wine was made of the water So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ his body we must not only say that the body of Christ is present where the bread was before but also that it is made of the bread because that the substance of the bread is conuerted and turned into the substaunce of his bodye Which thing the papists saw must needes follow and therfore they plainly confessed that the body of Christ was made of bread which doctrine as you truely say in this place is intollerable and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play when his fellow had forgotten his parte And yet you so far forget your selfe in this booke that throughout the same what so euer you say here you defend the same intollerable doctrin not to be deuised by a scoffer And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lye that I say that the Papistes say that Christes body is made of bread and wine Here Smith and you agree both together in one lye For it is truth and no lye that the Papistes so say and teach as Smith in other parts of his booke saith that Christes body is made of bread and that priestes doe make Christes body My 12. comparison is this They say that the masse is a Sacrifice satisfactory for sinne by the deuotion of the Priest that offreth and not by the thing that is offered But we say that their saying is a most haynous yea and detestable error against the glory of Christ for the satisfaction for our sinnes is not the deuotion nor offering of the Priest but the only host and satisfactiō for all the sinnes of the world is the death of Christ and the oblation of his body vpon the Crosse that is to say The oblation that Christ him selfe offred once vpon the crosse and neuer but once not neuer any but he And therfore that oblation which the Priestes make dayly in their papisticall masses cannot be a satisfaction for other mennes sinnes by the Priests deuotion but it is a mere illusion and suttle crafte of the Deuil wherby Antichrist hath many yeares blinded and deceiued the world Winchester This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament which presence this author in the first part of his comparison semeth by implication to graunt when he findeth fault that the priestes deuotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory and not the thing that is offered which maner of doctrine I neuer read I thinke my selfe it ought to be improued if any such there be to make the deuotion of the Priest a satisfaction For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully who hath payd our wholl debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his iust wrath againste vs and hath cancelled the bill obligatory as S Paul saith that was against vs. For further opening whereof if it be asked how he satisfied we answere as we be taught by the Scriptures By the accomplishment of the will of his Father in his innocent willing obedient suffering the miseries of this world without sinne and the violent persecution of the world euen to the death of the Crosse and sheading of his most precious bloud Wherein was perfited the willing Sacrifice that he made of him selfe to God the Father for vs of whom it was written in the beginning of the booke that he should lie the body and perfectt accomplishment of all Sacrifices as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadowes and figures And here is to be considered how the obedient will in Christes Sacrifice is specially to be noted who suffered because he would Which S. Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christes humility And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on the crosse to the which it continued from the beginning by reason wherof the oblatiō is in S. Paules spéech attributed thereunto Yet as in the Sacrifice of Abraham when he offered Isaac the earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering in déede whereupon it is said in Scripture that Abraham offered Isaac and the declaration of the will of Abraham is called the offering So the declaration of Christes will in his last Supper was an offering of him to God the Father assuring there his Apostles of his will and determination and by them all the world that his body should be betrayed for them and vs and his precious bloud shed for remission of sinne which his word he confirmed then with the gifte of his precious body to be eaten and his precious bloud to be dronken In which mistery he declared his body and bloud to be the wery Sacrifice of the world by him offered to God the father by the same will that he said hid body should be betrayed for vs. And thereby ascertained vs that to be in him willing that the Iewēs on the crosse séemed to execute by violence and force against his will And therfore as Christ offred himself on the crosse in the execution of the worke of his will so he offered himself in his Supper in
and prayer If man should then waxe proud and glory as of him selfe and extoll his own deuotiō in these ministeries such men should bewray their own naughty hipocrisie yet therby empayr not the very dignity of the ministery ne the very true fruit and effect therof And therfore when the Church by the minister and with the minister prayeth that the creatures of bread and wine set on the aultar as the booke of common prayer in this Realme hath ordred may be vnto vs the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ we require then the celebration of the same Supper which Christ made to his Apostles for to be the continuall memory of his death with all fruite and effect such as the same had in the first institution Wherfore when the minister pronounceth Christes wordes as spoaken of his mouth it is to be beléeued that Christ doth now as he did then And it is to be noted that although in the Sacrament of Baptisme the minister saith I baptise thée yet in the celebration of his Supper the wordes be spoaken in Christes person as saying him selfe this is my body that is broaken for you which is to vs not onely a memory but an effectuall memory with the very presence of Christes body and bloud our very Sacrifice Who doing now as he did then offreth him selfe to his Father as he did then not to renue that offering as though it were imperfecte but continually to refresh vs that daily fall and decay And as S. Iohn saith Christ is our aduocate and intreateth for vs or pleadeth for vs not to supply any want on Gods behalfe but to relieue our wantes in edification wherein the ministery of the Church trauaileth to bring man to perfection in Christ which Christ himselfe doth assist and absolutely performe in his Church his misticall body Now whē we haue Christes body thus present in the celebration of the holy Supper and by Christes mouth present vnto vs saying this is my body which is betraied for you Then haue we Christes body recommended vnto vs as our Sacrifice and a Sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world being the onely Sacrifice of Christes Church the pure and cleane Sacrifice wherof the Prophet Malachie spake and wherof the Fathers in Christs church haue since the beginning continually written the very true presence whereof most constantly beléeued hath encreased from time to time such ceremonies as haue béene vsed in the celebration of that Supper in which by Christes own mouth we be ascertained of his most glorious death and passion and the selfe same body that suffred deliuered vnto vs in mistery to be eaten of vs and therefore so to be worshipped and acknowledged of vs as our very onely Sacrifice in whom by whom and for whom our other priuate giftes and Sacrifices be acceptable and no otherwise And therfore as Christ declareth in the Supper himselfe an offering and Sacrifice for our sinne offering himselfe to his Father as our Mediator and so therewith recommendeth to his Father the Church his body for which he suffreth so the Church at the same Supper in their offering of laudes and thankes with such other giftes as they haue receaued from God ioyne them selues with their head Christ presenting and offering him as one by whom for whom and in whom all that by Gods grace man can doe well is auailable and acceptable and without whom nothing by vs done can be pleasaunt in the sight of God Wherupon this perswasion hath béen truely conceiued which is also in the booke of common prayer in the celebration of the holy supper retained that it is very profitable at that time when the memory of Christes death is solemnized to remember with prayer all estates of the Church and to recommend them to God which S. Paule to Timothy séemeth to require At which time as Christ signifieth vnto vs the certainty of his death and geueth vs to be eaten as it were in pledge the same his precious body that suffered So we for declaration of our confidence in the death and Sacrifice doe kindely remember with thankes his speciall giftes and charitably remember the rest of the mēbers of Christes church with praier and as we are able should with our bodely goodes remember at that time specyally to reléeue such as haue néede by pouerty And againe as Christ putteth vs in remembraunce of his great benefite so we should throughly remember him for our parte with the true confession of this mistery wherin is recapitulate a memoriall of all giftes and misteries that God in Christ hath wrought for vs. In the consideration and estimation wherof as there hath been a fault in the securitie of such as so their names were remembred in this holy time of memory they cared not how much they forgat themselues So there may be a fault in such as neglecting it care not whether they be remembred there at all therfore would haue it nothing but a plain eating and drinking How much the remembrance in prayer may auaile no man can prescribe but that it auaileth euery christen man must confesse Man may nothing arrogate to his deuotion But S. Iames said truely Multum valet oratio iusti assidua It is to be abhorred to haue hipocrites that counterfaite deuotion but true deuotion is to be wished of God and prayed for which is Gods gifte not to obscure his glory but to set it forth not that we should then trust in mennes merites and prayers but laude and glorifie God in them Qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus one to be iudged able to reléeue another with his prayer referring all to procéede from God by the mediation of our Sauiour and redéemer Iesus Christ. I haue taryed long in this matter to declare that for the effect of all celestiall or worldly giftes to be obteyned of God in the celebration of Christes holy Supper when we call it the communion is now prayed for to be present and is present and with Gods fauoure shalbée obtayned if we deuoutly reuerently charitably and quietly vse and frequents the same without other innouations then the order of the booke prescribeth Now to the last difference Caunterbury HOw is this comparison out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament when the Papistes say that the masse is not a sacrifice propiciatory but because the presence of Christes most precious body beyng presently there And yet if this comparison be out of the matter as you say it is why doe you then wrastle and wrangle with it so much And doe I seeme to graunt the peesence of Christs body in the first part of my comparison when I do nothing there but rehearce what the Papists do say But because all this proceeds which you bring in here out of tune and time belōgeth to the last booke I wil passe it ouer vnto the propper place onely by the way touching shortly some
wherupoÌ„ we might coÌ„clude that Christ did in this mortal life but in one particular momeÌ„t of time offer him self to the father to what purpose you bring forth this momeÌ„t of time I caÌ„not tell for I made no meÌ„tâ—on therof but of the day of his death the scripture saith plainly that as it is ordained for euerye man to dye but once so Christe was offered but once And saith further that sinne is not forgeueÌ„ but by effusioÌ„ of bloud therefore if Christ had ben offered many times he should haue dyed many times And of any other offering of Christes body for sin the scripture speaketh not For although S. Paul to the PhillippiaÌ„s speaketh of the humiliatioÌ„ of Christ by his incarnatioÌ„ so to worldly miseries afflictioÌ„s eueÌ„ vnto death vpoÌ„ the crosse yet he calleth not euery humiliatioÌ„ of Christ a sacrifice oblatioÌ„ for remissioÌ„ of sin but onely his oblatioÌ„ vpoÌ„ good Fryday which as it was our perfect redeÌ„ptioÌ„ so was it our perfect recoÌ„ciliatioÌ„ propitiatioÌ„ satisfactioÌ„ for sinne And to what purpose you make here a long processe of our sacrifices of obedience vnto Gods coÌ„mauÌ„demeÌ„ts I caÌ„not deuise For I declare in my last booke that all our whole obedience vnto Gods will a commauÌ„demeÌ„ts is a sacrifice acceptable to God but not a sacrifice propitiatory for the sacrifice Christ onely made and by that his sacrifice all our Sacrifices be acceptable to God without that none is acceptable to him And by those sacrifices al christeÌ„ people offer theÌ„selues to God but they offer not Christ again for sin for that did neuer creature but Christ him self alone nor he neuer but vpoÌ„ good Fryday For although he did institute the night before a remeÌ„brance of his death vnder the SacrameÌ„ts of bread wine yet he made not at that time the sacrifice of our redeÌ„ptioÌ„ satisfaction for our sinnes but the next day following And the declaration of Christ at his last supper that he would suffer death was not the cause wherfore Ciprian sayd that Christ offered himselfe in his supper For I reade not in any place of Ciprian to my remeÌ„brance any such wordes that Christ offered himselfe in his supper but he saith that Christ offered the fame thing whiche Melchisedech offered And if Ciprian say in any place that Christ offered himself in his supper yet he sayd not that Christ did so for this cause that in his supper he declared his death And therfore here you make a deceitful fallax in sophistry pretending to shew that thing to be a cause which is not the true cause in deede For the cause why Ciprian and other olde authors say that Christ made an oblation and offering of him selfe in his last supper was not that he declared there that he would suffer death for that he had declared many times before but the cause was that there he ordained a perpetuall memory of his death which he would all faithfull christeÌ„ people to obserue froÌ„ time to time remembring his death with thankes for his benefites vntill his comming again And therfore the memoriall of the true sacrifice made vpon the crosse as S. Augustine saith is called by the name of a sacrifice as a thing that signifyeth an other thing is called by the name of the thing which it signifyeth although in very deede it be not the same And the long discourse that you make of Christes true presence and of the true eating of him and of his true assisting vs in our doing of his commaundement all these be true For Christes flesh bloud be in the sacrament truely present but spiritually and sacramentally not carnally and corporally And as he is truely present so is he truely eaten and dronken and assisteth vs. And he is the same to vs that he was to them that saw him with their bodely eyes But where you say that he is as familiare with vs as he was with theÌ„ here I may say the French terme which they vse for reuerence sake Saue vostre grace And he offered not him selfe then for them vpon the crosse and now offereth himself for vs daily in the Masse but vpon the crosse he offered him selfe both for vs and for them For that his one sacrifice of his body than onely offered is now vnto vs by fayth as auailable as it was then for them For with one sacrifice as S. Paul saith he hath made perfect for euer them that be sanctifyed And where you speake of the participation of Christes flesh and bloud if you meane of the sacramentall participatioÌ„ onely that therby we be ascertayned of the regeneration of our bodies that they shall liue and haue the fruition of God with our soules for euer you be in an horrible errour And if you meane a spirituall participation of Christes body and bloud then all this your processe is in vaine and serueth nothing for your purpose to proue that Christes flesh and bloud be corporally in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine and participated of them that be euill as you teach which be no whit therby the more certain of their saluation but of their damnation as S. Paul saith And although the holy supper of the Lord be not a vain or phantasticall supper wherein thinges should be promised which be not performed to them that worthely come thereunto but Christes flesh and bloud be there truely eaten and dronken in deede yet that misticall supper can not be without misteries and figures And although wee feede in deede of Christes body and drinke in deed his bloud yet not corporally quantitatiuely and palpably as we shal be regenerated at the resurrection and as he was betrayed walked here in earth and was very man And therfore although the thinges by you rehearsed be all truely done yet all be not done after one sort and fashion but some corporally and visibly some spiritually and inuisibly And therfore to al your comparisons or similitudes here by you rehearsed if there be geuen to euery one his true vnderstanding they may be so graunted all to be true But if you will linke all these together in one sort and fashioÌ„ and make a chaine thereof you shall farre passe the bondes of wanton reason making a chaine of golde and copper together confounding and mixing together corporall and spiritual heauenly and earthly thinges and bring all to very madnes and impiety or plaine and manifest heresy And because one single error pleaseth you not shortly after you linke a number of errors almost together in one senteÌ„ce as it were to make an whole chaine of errors saying not onely that Christes body is verely present in the celebratioÌ„ of the holy supper meaning of corporal presence but that it is also our very sacrifice and sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world and that it is the onely sacrifice of the church and that it is the pure aud cleane
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
the meane tyme they should forget what thing it was that was called and made Like vnto men that dare larkes which hold vp an hoby that the larks eyes beyng euer vppon the hoby should not see the nette that is layd on theyr heades And yet finally you graunt that which Smyth denyeth that it was bread which Christ called hys body when he sayd This is my body And so that which was not hys body in deede he called hys body who calleth thynges that be not as they were the thinges in deede And if hys calling be making then hys callyng bread hys body is making bread hys body and so is not onely Christes body made presēt but also the bread is made his body because it is called hys body and so must bread be the thing wherof Christes body is made which before you denyed in the xi comparison callyng that saying so foolish that it were not tolerable to be deuised by a scoffer in a play to supply when hys felow had forgotten hys part And thus should you conclude your self if Christs callyng were making which in deede is not true for then should Christ haue made hym selfe a vine when he called hymselfe a vine and haue made S. Iohn the blessed virgine Maries sonne when he called hym her sonne and should haue made his Apostles vine braunches when he called them so and should haue made Peter a deuil when he called him deuill After when you come to make aunswere vnto the authors cited by me in this place fyrst you skip ouer Irene the eldest author of them all because I think he is to hard meate for you well to digest and therefore you will not once taste of hym In Tertullian and Cyprian you agree again that when Christ sayd This is my body It was bread that he called hys body And so when he sayd this he ment the bread making demonstration vpon it as before you haue sayd more at large in your book which you named the Detection of the deuils sophestrie And herein you say more truely then the other Papistes do which deny that the demonstration was made vppon the bread although you say not true in the other part that Christes callyng was makyng And if hys calling be chaunging of the bread and making it the body of Christ yet then it is not true to speake of the bread and to say that it is the body of Christ. For when one thing is chaunged into an other the first stil remaining it may be sayd both that it is made the other thing and that it is the other thing as when cloth is made a gowne we may say this cloth is made a gowne and also this cloth is a gowne but when the former matter or state remaineth not it may be said that it is made the other thing but not that it is the other thing As when Christ had tourned water into wine And likewise although we say a wicked man is made iust a sick man is made whole or an whole man sicke yet it is no true speach to say a wicked man is iust a sicke mā is whole or an whole man is sicke because the former state remayneth not And therefore although it might in speech be allowed that the bread is made Christes body when the bread is gone yet can it not be proper and approued speach to say it is his body except the bread remayne still For of that thing which is not it can not be said that it is Christes body For if it be his body it must needes be by the rule of the Logike à tertio adiacente ad secundum adiacens And I meruaile how you haue ouer shot your selfe in this place when you teach how and after what maner bread is made Christes body not that bread say you being bread is his body but that which was bread is now made his body whereof it followeth necessarily that his body is made of bread For as the wine in the Cane of Galile was made of water when the substaunce of water was tourned into the substaunce of wine so if in the Sacrament the substaunce of bread be tourned into the substaunce of Christes body then is his body in the sacrament made of bread which is in the xi comparison you affirmed to be so foolish a saying as were not tollerable to be deuised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part Therefore I haue not here partly opened the faith of Transubstantiaon as you say of me but you haue here manifestly opened the wisedome of the Papisticall doctrine which is more foolish then were to be deuised by a scoffer in a play But what neede I much to contend with you in this place seing that you graunt the thing for the whiche I cyted all these authors that is to say that Christ called bread his body when he said This is my body And in your detection of the Deuils sophestrie as you call it you say that Christ spake plainly This is my body making demonstration of the bread when he said This is my body But it seemeth you be sory that you haue graunted so much and that you spake those wordes vnaduisedly before you knew what the Papistes had written in this matter and now when you perceaue how farre you varie from them you would fain call your wordes backe agayn and prepare away for the same saying thus When Christ said This is my body there is no necessitie that the demonstratiō this should be referred to the outward visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce In these your wordes it semeth you begin to doubt in that thing which before you certainly affirme without all doubt And when you haue confessed the whole matter that I do here proue which is onely this that Christ called bread his body wine his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud yet you conclude your aunswere with an issue of mine ignoraunce that it is so great that I vnderstand not what I say if my knowledge be no better then is vttered here in my pen. And yet my wordes be so playne that the least chyld as they say in the town may vnderstand them For all my study is to speak plain that the truth may be known and not with darke speches as you do to hide the truth But when I had made a plaine issue against all the Papists in general it had bene your part to haue ioyned in the sayd issue and not to deuise new issues But because neither you nor Smith dare ioyne with me in mine issue I shall repete mine issue againe and take it for confessed of you both bicause neither of you dare say the contrary ioyne an issue with mee therin My issue is this Let all the Papists together shew any one authority either of scripture or of auncient author either Greeke or
that there is onely bread in the Sacrament sayth Smith and not Christes body what then What is that to purpose here in this place I pray you For I goe not about in this place to proue that onely bread is in the sacrament and not Christes body but in this place I proue onely that it was very bread which Christ called his body and very wine which he called his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud Which Smith with all his rablement of the Papistes deny and yet all the old Authors affirme it with Doctor Steuen Gardiner late Bishope of Winchester also who sayth that Christ made demonstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body And as all the old Authors be able to counteruayle the Papistes so is the late Bishope able to matche Smith in this mater so that we haue at the least a Rowland for an Oliuer But shortly to comprehend the aunswere of Smith where I haue proued my sayinges a dosen leaues together by the authoritie of Scripture and old catholike writers is this a sufficient aunswer onely to say without any proofe that al my trauayl is lost and that all that I haue alleadged is nothing to the purpose Iudge indifferently gentle Reader whether I might not by the same reason cast away all Smithes whole booke and reiect it quite cleane with one word saying All his labore is lost and to no purpose Thus Smith and Gardiner being aunswered I will returne agayne to my booke where it followeth thus Now this being fully proued it must needes folow consequently that this manner of speaking is a figuratiue speach For in playne and proper speach it is not true to say that bread is Christes body or wine his bloud For Christes body hath a soule lyfe sence and reason but bread hath neither soule lyfe sence nor reason Lykewise in playne speche it is not true that we eate Christes body and drinke his bloud For eating drinking in their proper and vsuall signification is with the tongue teeth and lyppes to swallow diuide and chawe in peeces which thinge to do to the flesh and bloud of Christ is horrible to be heard of any Christian. So that these speaches To eate Christes body and drinke his bloud to call bread his body and wine his bloud be speches not taken in the proper signification of euery worde but by translation of these wordes eating and drinking from the signification of a corporall thing to signifie a spirituall thing and by calling a thing that signifieth by the name of the thing which is signified thereby Which is no rare nor straunge thing but an vsuall manner and phrase in common speech And yet least this faulte should be imputed vnto vs that we do fayne thinges of our owne heades without auctoritie as the papistes be accustomed to do here shall be cited sufficient authoritye as well of Scriptures as of olde auncient authors to approue the same First when our Sauiour Christ in the sixt of Iohn sayd that he was the bread of lyfe which who so euer did eate should not dye but liue for euer and that the bread which he would geue vs was his flesh and therefore who so euer should eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should haue euerlasting lyfe and they that should not eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should not haue euerlasting lyfe When Christ had spoken these wordes with many moe of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud both the Iewes and many also of his disciples were offended with his wordes and sayd This is an hard saying For howe can hee geue vs his flesh to be eaten Christ perceiuing their murmuring hartes because they knew none other eating of his flesh but by chawing and swallowing to declare that they should not eate his body after that sort nor that he ment of any such carnall eating he sayd thus vnto them What yf you see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before It is the spirite that geueth life the flesh auaileth nothing the words which I spake vnto you be spirite and lyfe These wordes our Sauiour Christ spake to lift vp their mindes from earth to heauen and from carnall to spirituall eating that they should not phantasy that they should with their teeth eate him present here in earth for his flesh so eaten sayth he should nothing profite them And yet so they should not eate him for he would take his body away from them and ascend with it into heauen and there by fayth and not with teeth they should spiritually eate him sitting at the right hand of his father And therefore sayth he The wordes which I do speake be spirite and lyfe That is to say are not to be vnderstand that we shall eate Christ with our teeth grossely and carnally but that we shall spiritually and gostly with our fayth eate him being carnally absent from vs in heauen And in such wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eate him many yeares before he was incarnated and borne as Saint Paule sayth that all they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doo and drinke the same spirituall drinke that is to say Christ. For they spiritually by their fayth were fed and nourished with Christes body and bloud and had eternall lyfe by him before he was borne as we haue now that come after his ascention Thus haue you heard the declaration of Christ himselfe and of Saint Paul that the eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud is not taken in the common signification with mouth and teeth to eate and chaw a thing being present but by a liuely fayth in hart and minde to chaw and digest a thing being absent either ascended hence into heauen or els not yet borne vpō earth Winchester In the lx leaf the auctor entreateth whether it be a plaine spéech of Christ to say eate and drincke speaking of his body and bloud I answer the spéech of it selfe is propre commaunding them present to eate and drincke that is proponed for them and yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like cōmon effect worke in eating and drinking that heauenly meate drincke as it doth in earthly and carnall meates In this mistery man doth as Christ ordeined that is to say receyue with his mouth that is ordered to be receiued with his mouth graunting it neuerthelesse of that dignitie and estimation that Christes wordes affirms and whether he so doth or no Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it selfe alone whereof no good man iudgeth carnally or grosely ne discusseth the vnfaythfull question how which he can not conceiue but leaueth the déepenes thereof and doth as he is bidden This misterie receiueth no mans thoughtes Christes institution hath a propertie in it which can not be discussed by mans sensuall reason Christes wordes be spirite and life which this auctor wresteth with
I know that euery thing that men see hath a certayne bignes For that nature that hath no bignes can not be seene Moreouer to sit in the throne of glory and to sette the Lambes vpon his right hand and the goates vpon his left hand signifieth a thing that hath quantitie and bygnes Hitherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes and shortly after Eranistes sayth Eran. We must tourne euery stone as the prouerb sayth to seeke out the truth but specially when godly matters be propounded Orth. Tell me than the sacramentall signes which be offered to God by his priestes wherof be they signes sayst thou Eran. Of the Lordes body and bloud Orth. Of a very body or not of a very body Eran. Of a very body Orth. Very well for an image must be made after a true paterne for Paynters follow nature and paynt the images of such thinges as we see with our eyes Eran. Truth it is Orth. If therfore the godly sacramentes represent a true body than is the Lordes body yet still a body not conuerted into the nature of his Godhead but replenished with Goddes glory Eran. It cometh in good tyme that thou makest mention of Gods sacramentes for by the same I shall proue that Christes body is tourned into an other nature Answer therfore vnto my questions Orth. I shall answer Eran. What callest thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the priest Orth. We must not speake playnly for it is like that some be present which haue not professed Christ. Eran. Answer couertly Orth. It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like Eran. Than how call we the other signe Orth. It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drinke Eran. But how doest thou call them after the sanctification Orth. The body of Christ and the bloud of Christ. Eran. And doest thou beleue that thou art made partaker of Christes body and bloud Orth. I beleue so Eran. Therfore as the tokens of Gods body and bloud be other thinges before the priestes inuocation but after the inuocation they be chaunged and be other things so also the body of Christ after his assumption is chaunged into his deuine substaunce Ortho. Thou art taken with thine owne nette For the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and may be seene and touched as well as before yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Therfore cōpare their images to the paterne and thou shalt see them like For figure must be like to the thing it selfe For Christes body hath his former fashion figure and bignesse and to speake at one word the same substance of his body but after his resurrection it was made immortall and of such power that no corruption nor death could come vnto it and it was exalted vnto that dignity that it was sette at the right hand of the father and honoured of all creatures as the body of him that is the Lord of nature Eran. But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name for it is no more called as it was before but is called Christes body Therfore must his body after his ascention be called God and not a body Orth. Thou semest to me ignorant for it is not called his body onely but also the bread of lyfe as the Lord called it So the body of Christ we call a godly body a body that giueth life Gods body the Lordes body our masters body name ning that it is not a common body as other mennes bodies be but that it is the body of our Lord Iesu Christ both God and man This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus whom some of the Papists perceiuing to make so playnly agaynst them haue defamed saying that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition which is euen in a manifest matter rather to lie without shame than to giue place vnto the truth and confesse their owne errour And although his aduersaries falsely bruted such a fame agaynst him whan he was yet a liue neuerthelesse he was purged therof by the whole Councell of Calcedon about a leuen hundred yeares agoe And furthermore in his booke which he wrote agaynst heresies he specially condemneth Nestorius by name And also all his iij. bookes of his dialogues before rehersed he wrot chiefly agaynst Nestorius and was neuer here in noted of error this thousand yeare but hath euer bene reputed and taken for an holy Byshop a great learned man and a graue author vntill now at this present tyme whan the Papistes haue nothing to answer vnto him they begin in excusing of them selues to defame him Thus much haue I spoken for Theodoretus which I pray thee be not weary to read good reader but often and with delectation deliberation and good aduertisement to read For it conteineth playnly and breefly the true instruction of a Christian man concerning the matter which in this booke we treate vpon First that our sauiour Christ in his last supper whan he gaue bread and wine to his apostles saying This is my body This is my bloud it was bread which he called his body and wine mixed in the cup which he called his bloud so that he changed the names of the bread and wine which were the misteries sacramentes fignes figures and tokens of Christes flesh and bloud and called them by the names of the thinges which they did represent and signifie that is to say the bread he called by the name of his very flesh and the wine by the name of his bloud Second that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification yet neuertheles the thinges them selues remayned the selfe same that they were before the sanctification that is to say the same bread and wine in nature substance form and fashion The thyrd seing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed why be then their names changed and the bread called Christes flesh and the wine his bloud Theodoretus sheweth that the cause therof was this that we should not haue so much respect to the bread and wyne which we see with our eyes and tast with our mouthes as we should haue to Christ him selfe in whome we beleue with our hartes and fele and tast him by our faith and with whose flesh and bloud by his grace we beleue that we be spiritually fedde and norished These thinges we ought to remember the reuolue in our myndes and to lift vp our hartes from the bread and wine vnto Christ that sitteth aboue And bicause we should so do therfore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine but the body and bloud of Christ. The forth It is in these sacramentes of bread and wine
ease it with other wordes of calling beleuing reputing and esteming and for adoration reuerence Consider what prayse this author geueth Theodoret which prayse condemneth this author sore For Theodoret in his doctrine would haue vs beleue the mistery and adore the sacrament where this author after in his doctrine professeth there is nothing to be worshiped at all If one should now say to me Yea syr but this Theodoret semeth to condemne transubstantiation bicause he speaketh so of the bread Therunto shall be answered when I speake of transubstantiation which shall be after the iij. and iiij booke discussed For before the truth of the presence of the substance of Christes body may appeare what should we talke of transubstantiation I will trauayle no more in Theodoret but leaue it to thy iudgment reader what credite this author ought to haue that handleth the mater after this sorte Canterbury THis blader is so puffed vp with wind that it is maruayll it brasteth not Bnt be patient a while good reader and suffer vntill the blast of wind be past and thou shalt see a great calme the bladder broken and nothing in it but all vanitie Ther is no difference betwene your translation and mine sauing that myne is more playne and geueth lesse occasion of errour and youres as all your doinges be is darke and obscure and conteineth in it no little prouocation to Idolatrie For the wordes of Theodoret after your interpretation contayne both a playne vntruth and also manifest idolatry for the signes and tokens which he speaketh of be the very fourmes and substances of bread and wine For the nominatiue case to the verb of adoring in Theodoret is not the body and bloud of Christ but the misticall tokens by your owne translation which misticall tokens if you will haue to be the very body and bloud of Christ what can be spoken more vntrue or more folish And if you will haue them to be worshiped with godly worship what can be greater Idolatry Wherfore I to eschew such occasious of errour haue translated the wordes of Theodoretus faythfully and truly as his mynd was and yet haue auoyded all occasions of euill for tanquam or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not the truth as you say but is an aduerbe of similitude as it is likewise in this place of S. Paul Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam sint For S. Paul sayth asthough they were Which indede were not as he sayd the next word before non sunt they be not And neuerthelesse vnto God all thinges be present and those thinges which in their nature be not yet present vnto God were euer present in whome be not these successions of tyme before and after for Christ the Lambe in his present was slayne before the world began and a thousand yeare to his eyes be but as it were yesterday and one day before him is as it were a thousand yeare and a thousand yeare as one day And if you had read and considered a saying of Saynt Augustine De doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 9. you myght haue vnderstand this place of The odoret better than you do He serueth vnder a signe sayth Augustine who worketh or worshipeth any signe not knowing what it signifieth But he that worketh or worshipeth a profitable signe ordayned of God the strength and signification wherof he vnderstandeth he worshipeth not that which is seene and is transitory but rather that thing wherto all such signes ought to be referred And anon after he sayth further At this tyme when our Lord Iesus Christ is risen we haue a most manifest argument of our fredome and be not burdeined with the heauy yoke of signes which we vnderstand not but the Lord and the teaching of his Apostles hath geuē to vs a few signes for many and those most ease to be done most exellent in vnderstanding and in performing most pure as the sacrament of baptisme and the celebration of the body and bloud of our Lord which euery man when he receiueth knoweth wherunto they be referred being taught that he worship not them with a carnall bondage but rather with a spirituall fredom And as it is a vile bondage to follow the letter and to take the signes for the thinges signified by them so to interpret the signes to no profit is an errour that shewdly spreadeth abroad These wordes of Saynt Augustine being conferred with the wordes of Theodoret may declare playnly what Theodoretes meaning was For where he sayth that we may not worship with a carnall bondage the visible signes meaning of water in baptisme and of bread and wine in the holy communion when we receaue the same but rather ought to worship the thinges wherunto they be referred he ment that although those signes or sacraments of water bread and wine ought highly to be estemed and not to be taken as other common water bakers bread or wine in the tauern but as signes dedicated consecrated and referred to an holy vse and by those erthly thinges to represent thinges celestiall yet the very true honor and worship ought to be geuē to the celestial things which by the visible signes be vnderstād not to the visible signes themselues And neuertheles both S. Augustine and Theodoret count it a certayn kind of worshiping the signes the reuerent esteming of them aboue other common prophane things yet the same principally to be referred to the celestial thīgs represented by the signs and therfore sayeth S. Augustin potius rathar And this worship is as wel in the sacramēt of baptisme as in the sacrament of Christs body and bloud And therfore although whosoeuer is baptised vnto Christ or eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud in his holy supper do first honor him yet is he corporally and carnally neither in the supper nor in baptisme but spiritually and effectually Now where you leaue the iudgment of Theodoret to the reader euen so do I also not doubting but the indifferent reader shall soone espy how litle cause you haue so to boast and blow out your vayne glorious wordes as you do But heare now what followeth next in my booke And meruayle not good reader that Christ at that tyme spake in figures whan he did institute that sacrament seing that it is the nature of all sacramentes to be figures And although the scripture be full of Schemes tropes and figures yet specially it vseth them whan it speaketh of sacraments When the Ark which represented Godes maiestie was come into the army of the Isralites the Philistians sayd that God was come into the army And God him selfe sayd by his prophet Nathan that from the tyme that he had brought the Children of Israell out of Egipt he dwelled not in howses but that he was caried about in tentes and tabernacles And yet was not God him selfe so caried about or went in tentes or tabernacles but bicause the arke which was a figure of God was so remoued
represented vnto vs his testament confirmed by his bloud And if the Papistes will say as they say in deed that by this cup is neither mēt the cup nor the wine cōtayned in the cup but that thereby is mēt Christs bloud contayned in the cup yet must they nedes graunt that there is a figure For Christes bloud is not in proper speach the new testament but it is the thing that confirmed the new Testament And yet by this strange interpretation the Papistes make a very strange speach more strange then any figuratiue speach is For this they make the sentence this bloud is a new Testament in my bloud Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason that the foolishnes therof is euident to euery man Winchester As for the vse of figuratiue speaches to be accustomed in scripture is not denyed But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to Decolampadius of the sacrament geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speaches in gods ordinances and commaūdementes and otherwise For if in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinaunces and commaundementes figures may be often receiued truth shal by allegories be shortly subuerted and all our religion reduced to significations There is no speach so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speach but such as expresseth the common playne vnderstanding and then the common vse of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speach As these speaches drink vp this cup or eate this dish is in deed a figuratiue speach but by custome make so common that it is reputed the playne speach bicause if hath but one onely vnderstanding commonly receyued And when Christ sayd This cup is the new testament the proper speach therof in letter hath an absurditie in reason and fayth also But whan Christ sayd this is my body although the truth of the lytterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason yet hath it no absurditie in humilitie of fayth nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture And seing it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their proper sence there can no reasoning be made of other figuratiue speaches to make this to be their fellow and like vnto them No man denieth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper but such as be equall with playne proper speach or be expounded by other Euangelestes in playne speach Canterburie I See well you would take a dong forke to fight with rather then you would lack a weapon For how highly you haue estemed Melancthō in tymes past it is not vnknowne But whatsoeuer Melancthon sayeth or how soeuer you vnderstand Melancthon where is so conuenient a place to vse figuratiue speeches as when figures and Sacraments be instituted And S. Augustine giueth a playne rule how we may know when Gods commādemēts be giuen in figuratiue speches yet shal neither the truth be subuerted nor our religion reduced to significations And how can it be but that in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinances commaundements figures must needes be often receaued contrary to Melancthons saying if it be true that you say that there is no spech so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speech But now be all speches figuratiue when it pleaseth you What need I then to trauaile any more to proue that Christ in his supper vsed figuratiue speches seyng that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying And these wordes This is my body spoken of the bread and This is my bloud spoken of the cuppe expresse no playne comon vnderstanding wherby the common vse of these figures should be equall with plain proper speches or cause them to be taken as common proper speches for you say your felf that these speches in letter haue an absurdity in reason And as they haue absurdity in reason so haue they absurdity in fayth For neither is there any reason fayth myracle nor truth to say that materiall bread is Christes body For then it must be true that his body is material bread a conuersa ad conuertentem for of the materiall bread spake Christ those words by your confession And why haue not these words of Christ This is my body an absurdity both in fayth and reason aswell as these words This cup is the new Testament seyng that these wordes were spoken by Christ as well as the other and the credite of him is all one whatsoeuer he sayth But if you will needes vnderstand these wordes of Christ This is my body as the playn wordes signify in their proper sence as in the end you seeme to do repugning therein to your owne former saying you shall see how farre you go not onely from reason but also from the true profession of the christian fayth Christ spake of bread say you This is my body appoynting by this word this the bread whereof followeth as I sayd before If bread be his body that his body is bread And if his body be bread it is a creature without sence and reason hauing neither life nor soule which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken Heare now what followeth further in my booke Now forasmuch as it is playnly declared manifestly proued that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that these sentences be figuratiue speches and that Christ as concerning his humanity bodily presence is ascended into heauen with his whole flesh and bloud and is not here vpon earth and that the substance of bread and wine do remayne still and be receaued in the sacrament and that although they remayne yet they haue changed their names so that the bread is called Christs body and the wine his bloud and that the cause why their names be changed is this that we should list vp our harts minds frō the things which we se vnto the things which we beleue be aboue in heauē wherof the bread wine haue the names although they be not the vey same things in deed these things well considered and wayed all the authorities and arguments which the Papists fayn to serue for their purpose be clean wiped away For whether the authors which they alleadge say that we do eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud or that the bread and wine is conuerted into the substance of his flesh and bloud or that we be turned into his flesh or that in the Lordes supper we do receiue his very flesh and bloud or that in the bread and wine is receiued that which did hang vpon the crosse or that Christ hath left his flesh with vs or that Christ is in vs and we in him or that he is whole here and whole in heauen or that the same thing is in the Chalice which flowed out of his side or that the same thing is receiued with out mouth which is
beleued with our faith or that the bread and wine after the Consecration be the body and bloud of Christ or that we be nourished with the body and bloud of Christ or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here or that Christ at his last supper bare himselfe in his owne hands These and all other like sentences may be vnderstanded of Christes humanity litterally carnally as the words in cōmō spech do properly signifye for so dooth no man eat Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud nor so is not the bread and wine after the consecration his flesh and bloud nor so is not his flesh and bloud whole here in earth eatē with our mouthes nor so did not Christ take him selfe in his own hands But these and all other like sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth to be eaten and drunken of Christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euery where or els they must be vnderstanded figuratiuely or spiritually For figuratiuely he is in the bread and wine and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread wine but really carnally and corporally he is onely in heauen from whence he shall come to iudge the quick and dead This briefe aunswere will suffice for all that the papists can bryng for their purpose if it be aptly applyed And for the more euidence hereof I shall apply the same to somme such places as the Papistes think do make most for thē that by the aunswere to those places the rest may be the more easely answered vnto Winchester In the lxxiiii leaf this author goeth about to geue a generall solution to all that may be sayd of Christes beyng in earth in heauen or in the sacrament and geueth iustructions how these wordes of Christs diuine nature figuratiuely spiritually really carnally corporally may be placed and thus he sayth Christ in his diuine nature may be sayed to be in the earth figuratiuely in the sacrament spiritually in the man that receiueth but really carnally corporally only in heauen Let vs consider the placing of these termes When we say Christ is in his diuine nature euery where is he not really also euery where according to the true essēce of his godhed in deed euery where that is to say not in fantasy nor imagination but verily truely and therefore really as we beleue so in déed euery where And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace is not Christ in them really by grace but in fantasy and imagination And therfore what soeuer this author sayth the word really may not haue such restraint to be referred onely to heauen vnles the author would deny that substance of the godhead which as it comprehendeth all being incomprensible is euery where without limitation of place so as it is truely it is in déed is and therfore really is and therfore of Christ must be sayd wheresoeuer he is in his diuine nature by power or grace he is there really whether we speak of heauen or earth As for the termes carnally and corporally as this author semeth to vse them in other places of this book to expresse the maner of presence of the humaine nature in Christ I maruaile by what scripture he shall proue that Christs body is so carnally and corporally in heauen We be assured by fayth groūded vpon the scriptures of the truth of the beyng of Christs flesh and body there and the same to be a true flesh and a true body but yet in such sence as this author vseth the termes carnall and corporall against the sacrament to imply a grossenes he can not so attribute those termes to Christes body in heauen S Augustine after the grosse sense of carnally sayth Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen And Gregory Nazianzen sayth Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge so as he shal be sene yet there is in him no grossenes he sayth and referreth the maner of his being to his knowlege onely And our resurrection S. Augustine sayeth although it shall be of our true flesh yet it shall not be carnally And when this author had defamed as it were the termes carnally and corporally as tearmes of grossenes to whō he vsed alwayes to put as an aduersatiue the terme spiritually as though carnally and spiritually might not agrée in one Now for all that he would place them both in heauē where is no carnallyty but all the maner of being spirituall where is no grossenes at all the secrecie of the manner of which life is hidden from vs and such as eye hath not séen or eare heard or ascended into the hart and thought of man I know these termes carnally and corporally may haue a good vnderstanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossenes or made them aduersaries to spirituall and a man may say Christ is corporally in heauen because the truth of his body is there and carnally in heauen because his flesh is truly there but in this vnderstanding both the wordes carnally and corporally may be coupled with the word Spiritually which is agaynst this authors teaching who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christes presence in the man that receiued the sacrament worthely which spech I do not disalow but as Christ is spiritually in the man that dooth receiue the Sacrament worthely so is he in him spiritually before be receiue or els he can not receiue worthely as I haue before said And by this appeareth how this author to frame his generall solution hath vsed neither of the tearmes really carnally and corporally or spiritually in a conuenient order but hath in his distribution misused them notably For Christ in his diuine nature is really euery where and in his humaine nature is carnally and corporally as these words signify substāce of the flesh and body continually in heauen to the day of iudgement neuertheles after that signification present in the sacrament also And in those termes in that signification the fathers haue spoken of the effect of the eating of Christ in the sacrament as in the perticuler solutions to the authors here after shall appear Mary as touching the vse of the word figuratiuely to say that Christ is figuratiuely in the bread and wine is a saying which this author hath not proued at all but is a doctrine before this diuerse times reproued and now by this author in England renewed Caunterbury ALthough my chief study be to speak so playnly that all men may vnderstand euery thing what I say yet nothing is plaine to him that wil finde knots in a rish For when I say that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth and to be eaten and drunken of christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euerye where or els they must be vnderstand figuratiuely or spiritually for figuratiuely he
not haue fayled here to alleage it But bicause you haue nothing that maketh for you in dede therfore you alleage nothing in especiall least in the answer it should euidently apeare to be nothing and so slide you from the matter as though all men should beleue you bicause you say it is so And as for the place of Irene alleaged by Melancthon in an Epistle Decolampadius without any such troubling of him selfe as you imagine maketh a playne and easy answer therto although Melancthon wrot not his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius as you negligētly looking vpon their workes be deceaued but to Frideritus Miconius And the wordes of Irene aleadged by Melancthon meane in effect no more but to proue that our bodyes shall rise agayne and be ioyned vnto our soules and reigne with them in the eternall life to come For he wrote agaynst Ualentine Martion and other hereticks which deneied the resurrection of our bodies from whō it semeth you do not much dissent when you say that our bodyes shall rise spiritually if you meane that they shall rise without the forme and fashion of mens bodies without distinction and proportiō of members For those shal be maruaylous bodies that shal haue no shape nor fashion of bodies as you say Christs body is in the sacramēt to whose body oures shall be like after the Resurrection But to returne to answere Irene clearely and at large his meaning was this that as the water in baptisme is called Aqua regenerans the water that doth regenerate and yet it doth not regenerate indeed but is the Sacrament of regeneration wrought by the Holy Ghost and called so to make it to be esteemed aboue other common waters so Christ confessed the creatures of bread and wine ioyned vnto his wordes in his holy supper there truely ministred to be his body bloud meaning thereby that they ought not to be taken as common bread or as bakers bread and wine drunken in the tauern as Smyth vntruely gesteth of me throughout his booke but that they ought to be taken for bread wine wherin we geue thanks to God and therfore be called Eucharistia corporis sanguinis Domini the thanking of Christs body and bloud as Irene termeth them or Misteria corporis sanguinis Domini the misteries of Christes flesh and bloud as Dionysius calleth them or Sacramenta corporis sanguinis Domini the sacraments of Christs flesh and bloud as diuers other authours vse to call them And when Christ called bread and wine his body and bloud why do the the old Authours chaunge in many places that speech of Christ and call them Eucharistia misteria sacramenta corporis sanguinis Domini the thankes geuing the misteries and the sacraments of his flesh and bloud but because they would clearely expound the meaning of Christes speech that whē he called the bread and wine his flesh and bloud he ment to ordayne them to be the sacraments of his flesh and bloud According to such a spech as S. Augustine expresseth how the Sacramentes of Christes flesh and bloud be called his flesh and bloud and yet in deede they be not his flesh bloud but the sacramēts therof signifying vnto the godly receiuers that as they corporally feed of the bread and wine which comfort theyr harts and cōtinue this corruptible life for a seasō so spiritually they feed of Christs very flesh drinke his very bloud And we be in such sort vnited vnto him that his flesh is made our flesh his holy spirite vnityng him and vs so together that we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and make all one misticall body wherof he is the head and wee the members And as feding nourishing and life commeth from the head and runneth into all partes of the body so doth eternal nourishment and life come from Christ vnto vs completely and fully as well into our bodyes as soules And therfore if Christ our head be risen agayne then shall we that be the members of his body surely rise also forasmuch as the members can not be seperated from the head but seyng that as he is our head and eternall foode we must needs by him liue with him for euer This is the argument of Irene agaynst those heriticks which denyed the resurrection of our bodies And these things the sacraments of bread and wine declare vnto vs but neither the carnall presence nor the carnall eating of Christes flesh maketh the things so to be nor Irene ment no such thing For then should all manner of persons that receaue the sacramentes haue euerlasting life and none but they Thus haue I answered to Irene playnly and shortly and Oecolampadius neded not to trouble himselfe greatly with aunswering this matter For by the corporal eating and drinking of Christs flesh and bloud Irene could neuer haue proued the resurrection of our bodies to eternal life And Peter Martir maketh the matter so playn that he concludeth Ireneus wordes to make directly agaynst the doctrine of the Papistes The answere also is easely made to the place which you alleadge out of Ignatius where he calleth Eucharistia the flesh of our sauior Iesus Christ. For he meaneth no more but that it is the sacramēt of his flesh or the mistery of his flesh or as Irene sayd Eucharistia of his flesh as euen now I declared in mine answere to Irene And your long processe here may haue a short aunswere gathered of your owne wordes This word Eucharistia say you can not be well Englished but the body of Christ is good and playne English then if Eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be well Englished it can not be called the body of Christ but by a figuratiue speech And how can you thē conclude of Ignatius words that this is my body is no figuratiue speech It semeth rather that the cleane contrary may be concluded For if these ii speeches be like of one sence Eucharistia is Christs body and this is my body the first be a declaration of the second is this a good argument The fyrst is a figure Ergo the second is none Is it not rather to be gathered vpon the other side thus The first is a declaratiō of the secōd and yet the first is a fygure Ergo the second is also a figure And that rather then the first because the declaration should be a more playne speech then that which is declared by it And as for your coulor of Rhetorick which you cal Reiectiō it is so familiar with your self that you vse it commonly in your booke when I alleage any author or speake any thing that you can not answere vnto And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader that Ignatius in this epistle entreateth not of the manner of the presēce of Christ in the sacramēt but of the maner of his very body as he was borne of his mother crucified and rose agayn appeared
that Christes flesh is a spirituall meat and hys bloud a spirituall drink and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud may not be vnderstand litterally but spiritually it is manifested by Origens own words in his seuenth Homily vpon the booke called Leuiticus where he sheweth that those words must be vnderstand figuratiuely and whosoeuer vnderstandeth them otherwise they be deceiued and take harme by their owne grosse vnderstanding Winchester Origens wordes be very playne and meaning also which speake of manifestation and exhibition which be two things to be verified thrée wayes in our religion that is to say in the word and regeneration and the sacramēt of bread and wine as this author termeth it which Origen sayth not so but thus the flesh of the word of God not meaning in euery of these after one sort but after the truth of the Scripture in ech of them Christ in his word is manifest and exhibited vnto vs and by fayth that is of hearyng dwelleth in vs spiritually for so we haue his spirit Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as many as be baptysed be clad in christ Now in the sacramēt of bred wine by Origens rule Christ should be manifested and exhibited vnto vs after the scriptures so as the sacrament of bread and wine should not onely signify Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him sensibly as Origens wordes be reported here to be So as Christes wordes This is my body should be wordes not of fygure or shewing but of exhibiting Christes body vnto vs and sensibly as this author alleageth him which should signifye to be receiued with our mouth as Christ commaunded when he sayd Take eat c. diuersely from the other two wayes in which by Christes spirite we be made participant of the benefite of his passion wrought in his manhode But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanity exhibit vnto vs for food and so in this mistery we receaue him man and God and in the other by meane of his godhead be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhod In this sacrament Christes manhode is represented and truly present whereunto the godhead is most certaynly vnited wherby we receaue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the general resurrection spirituall with our soule as we haue bene in baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfect And therfore this author may not compare baptisme with the sacrament throughly in which Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present although the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there but the truth of the mistery of this sacrament is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherunto eating and drinking is by Christ in his supper apropriate In which supper Christ sayd This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not This is my spirite This is my vertue Wherfore after Origenes teaching if Christ be not onely manifested but also exhibited sensibly in th◠sacrament then is he in the sacrament indede that is to say Really and then is he there substancially because the substaunce of the body is there and is there corporally also bycause the very body is there and naturally bicause the naturall body is there not vnderstanding corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly neither For then were the maner of presence within mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the catholique teaching is that the maner of Christes presence in the sacrament is spirituall and supernaturall not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall the how and maner wherof God knoweth and we assured by his word know onely the truth to be so that it is there indede and therfore really to be also receaued with our handes and mouthes and so sensibly there the body that suffered and therfore his naturall body there the body of very flesh and therfore his carnall body the body truely and therfore his corporall body there But as for the maner of presence that is onely spirituall as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this author enforceth me therunto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosely sensibly naturally applying them to the maner of presence doth maliciously and craftely cary away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these words grosely vnderstanded import astonieth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these wordes as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repeate the vnderstanding of these words oftener then elswere necessary These thinges well considered no man doth more playnly confound this author then this saying of Origene as he alleageth it whatsoeuer other sentences he would pycke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise And as I haue declared a fore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church and to esteme godes misteries most true in the substaunce of the thing so to be although the maner excedeth our capacities which is a spirituall vnderstanding of the same And here also this author putteth in for figuratiuely spiritually to deceaue the reader Caunterbury YOu obserue my wordes here concerning Origene so captiously as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayinges word by word which I did not but bicause they were very long I went about onely to rehearse the effect of his mind brefely and playnly which I haue done faythfully and truely although you captiously carpe and reprehend the same And where as craftely to alter the sayinges of Origene you goe about to put a diuersitie of the exhibition of Christ in these iii. thinges in his worde in baptisme and in his holy supper as though in his worde and in baptisme he were exhibited spiritually in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouthes this distinction you haue dreamed in your slepe or imagined of purpose For Christ after one sort is exhibited in all these iii. in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say spiritually and for so much in one sorte as before you haue confessed your selfe And Origene putteth no such diuersitie as you here imagine but declareth one maner of giuing of Christ vnto vs in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say in all these iii. secundum speciem That as vnto the Iewes Christ was geuen in figures so to vs he is geuen in specie that is to say in rei veritate in his very nature meaning nothing els but that vnto the Iewes he was promised in figures and to vs after his incarnation
vs doth it not make Christ by communication of his flesh to dwell corporally in vs Why be the members of faythfull mennes bodyes called the members of Christ Know you not sayth S. Paule that your members be the members of Christ And shall I make the members of Christ partes of the whores body God forbid And our sauiour also sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Although in these wordes Cyrill doth say that Christ doth dwel corporally in vs when we receaue the misticall benediction yet he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally only at such tymes as we receaue the sacrament nor that he dwelleth in vs and not we in him but he sayth as well that we dwell in him as that he dwelleth in vs. Which dwelling is neyther corporall nor locall but an heauenly spirituall and supernaturall dwelling wherby so long as we dwell in him and he in vs we haue by him euerlasting life And therfore Cyril sayth in the same place that Christ is the vine and we the branches bicause that by him we haue lyfe For as the branches receaue lyfe and nourishment of the body of the vine so receaue we by him the naturall property of his body which is life and immortality and by that meanes we being his members do liue and are spiritually nourished And this ment Cirill by this word Corporally when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs. And the same ment also S. Hilarius by this worde Naturally when he sayd that Christ dwelleth naturally in vs. And as S. Paule when he sayd that in Christ dwelleth the full diuinity Corporally by this word Corporally he ment not that the diuinity is a body and so by that body dwelleth bodily in Christ. But by this word Corporally he ment that the diuinity is not in Christ accidentally lightly and slenderly but substancially and perfectly with all his might and power so that Christ was not onely a mortall man to suffer for vs but also he was immortall God able to redeeme vs. So S. Ciril when he sayd that Christ is in vs Corporally he ment that we haue him in vs not lightly and to small effect and purpose but that we haue him in vs substancially pithely and effectually in such wise that we haue by him redemption and euerlasting life And this I sucke not out of mine owne singers but haue it of Cirils owne expresse wordes where he sayth A litle benediction draweth the whole man to God and filleth him with his grace and after this manner Christ dwelleth in vs and we in Christ. But as for corporall eating and drinking with our mouthes and digesting with our bodyes Cirill neuer ment that Christ doth so dwell in vs as he playnly declareth Our sacrament sayth he doth not affirme the eating of a man drawing wickedly christen people to haue grosse imaginations and carnall fantasies of such thinges as be fine and pure and receaued onely with a sincere fayth But as two waxes that be molten and put togither they close so in one that euery part of the one is ioyned to euery part of the other euen so sayth Cirill he that receaueth the flesh and bloud of the Lord must needes be so ioyned with Christ that Christ must be in him and he in Christ. By these wordes of Cirill appeareth his mynd playnly that we may not grossely and rudely think of the eating of Christ with our mouthes but with our fayth by which eating although he be absent hence bodely and be in the eternall life and glory with his father yet we be made partakers of his nature to be immortall and haue eternall lyfe and glory with him And thus is declared the mind as well of Cirill as of Hilarius Winchester The author sayth such answer as he made to Hilary will serue for Cyrill and indeede to say truth it is made after the fame sort and hath euen such an error as the other had sauing it may be excused by ignorance For where the author trauayleth here to expound the word corporally which is a sore word in Cirill agaynst this author and therfore taketh labour to temper it with the word Corporaliter in S. Paule applied to the dwelling of the diuinity in Christ and yet not content therwith maketh further search and would gladly haue somewhat to confirme his phansy out of Cirill him selfe and seeketh in Cirill where it is not to be found and seeketh not where it is to be found For Cirill telleth him selfe playnly what he meaneth by the word corporally which place and this author had found be might haue spared a great many of wordes vttered by diuination but then the truth of that place hindreth and quayleth in manner all the booke I will at my perill bring forth Cirils owne wordes truely vpon the seuententh chapiter of S. Iohn Corporaliter filius per benedictionem misticam nobis vt homo vnitur spiritualiter autem vt deus Which be in English thus much to say The sonne is vnite as man corporally to vs by the misticall benediction spiritually as god These be Cirils wordes who nameth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the misticall benediction land sheweth in this sentence how him selfe vnderstandeth the wordes corporally and spiritually That is to say when Christ vniteth him selfe to vs as man which he doth geuing his body in this Sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it then he dwelleth in them corporally which Christ was before in them spiritualy or els they could not worthely receaue him to the effect of the vnity corporal corporal dwelling by which word corporal is vnderstanded no grossenes at all which the nature of a mistery excludeth and yet kepeth truth still being the vnderstanding onely attayned by fayth But where the author of the booke alleadgeth Cirill in wordes to deny the eating of a man and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion that Cirill sayth not so and the translations of Cirill into Latine after the print of Basill in a booke called Antidotum and of whole Cirils workes printed at Colen haue not in that place such sentence So as following the testimony of those bookes set forth by publique fayth in two sundry places I should call the allegation of Cirill made by this author in this poynt vntrne as it is indeede in the matter vntrue And yet bicause the originall errour proceedeth from Decolampadius it shall serue to good purpose to direct the originall fault to him as he well deserueth to be as he is noted gilty of it whose reputation deceaued many in the matter of the sacrament and being well noted how the same Decolampadius corrupteth Cirill it may percase somewhat worke with this author to consider how he hath in this place bene
where Emissene declareth the meaning of his wordes there you leaue all the rest out of your booke which can not be without a great vntruth and fraud to deceaue the simple reader For when you haue recited these wordes of Emissene that the inuisible priest by the secret power with his word tourneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud and so further as serueth to your affection when you come euen to the very place where Emissen declareth these words there you leaue and cut of your writing But because the reader may know what you haue cut of and thereby know Emissens meaning I shall here rehearse Emisenes words which you haue left out If thou wilt know sayth Emissene how it ought not to seeme to thee a thing new and impossible that earthly and incorruptible things be tourned into the substance of Christ looke vpō thy self which art made new in baptisme When thou wast far from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast dead yet sodenly thou beganst an other new life in Christ and wast made new by holesome misteries and wast tourned into the bodye of the church not by seing but by beleuing of the child of damnatiō by a secret purenes thou wast made the sonne of God Thou visibly didst remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any encrease of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was mā made the sonne of Christ and Christ formed in the mind of man Therefore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receiue a new dignity not feling any chaunge in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not seene with thine eyes but beleued in thy minde so likewise when thou doost goe vp to the reuerend aulter to feed vpon the spirituall meat in thy fayth looke vpon the body and blud of him that is thy God honour hym touch him with thy minde take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man These be Emissens own wordes Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleadged For where you bring in these wordes that Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud straightwaies in these wordes by me now rehearsed he sheweth what maner of turning that is after what maner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ euē so saith he as it is in baptisme wherin is no Transubstantiation So that I gather his meaning of his own playne words and you gather his meaning of your own imagination deuisyng such phantasticall things as neither Emissen sayth nor yet be catholike And this word truth you haue put vnto the wordes of Emissen of your own head which is no true dealing For so you may proue what you lift if you may adde to the authors what words you please And yet if Emissē had vsed both the wordes substaunce and trueth what should that helpe you For Christ is in substaunce and truth present in baptisme aswell as he is in the Lords supper and yet is he not there carnally corporally and naturally I will passe ouer here to aggrauate that matter how vntruely you adde to my wordes this word onely in an hundred places where I say not so what true and sinsere dealing this is let all men iudge Now as concerning my coupling togither of the ii sacraments of baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ Emissene himself coupleth thē both together in this place sayth that the one is like the other without putting any difference euen as I truely recited him So that there appereth neither malice nor ignorāce in me but in you adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not to deceaue the simple reader and adding such your own inuentions as be neither true nor catholick appereth much shift and craft ioyned with vntruth and infidelity For what christian man would say as you do that Christ is not inded which you call really in baptisme Or that we be not regenerated both body and soule as well in baptisme as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ Or that in baptisme we be not vnited to Christes diuinity by his manhood Or that baptisme represēteth not to vs the high state of our glorification and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurrection In which thinges you make difference betweene baptisme and the sacrament as you call it of the aultare Or what man that were learned in gods word would affirme that in the general resurrection our bodies and soules shal be all spirituall I know that S. Paule sayth that in the resurrection our bodies shal be spirituall meaning in the respect of such vilenes filthines sinne and corruption as we be subiect vnto in this miserable world Yet he sayth not that our bodies shal be all spirituall For not withstanding such spiritualnes as S. Paule speaketh of we shall haue all such substantiall partes and members as pertaine to a very naturall mans body So that in this part our bodyes shall be carnall corporall reall and naturall bodies lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect mens bodies And in the respect is the body of Christ also carnall and not spirituall And yet we bring none other carnall imaginations of Christes body nor meane none other but that Christes body is carnall in this respect that it hath the same flesh and naturall substaunce which was borne of the virgine Mary and wherin he suffered and rose agayne and now sitteth at the right hand of his father in glory and that the same his naturall body now glorified hath all the naturall partes of a mans body in order proportion place distinct as our bodies shal be in these respects carnall after our resurrection Which maner of carnalnes and diuersitie of partes and members if you take away now from Christ in heauen from vs after our resurrectiō you make Christ now to haue no true mās body but a phantasticall body as Martion Ualentine did as concerning our bodies you run into the error of Origen which phansied imagined that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual that women should be turned into men and bodies into soules And yet it is to be noted by the way that in your aunswere here to Emissene you make spiriturally and a spirituall manner all one Now followeth myne aunswere to S. Ambrose in this wise And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose which is alwayes in their mouthes Before the consecration sayth he as
creatures of bread and wine be much bound vnto you and can no lesse do then take you for their sauior For if you can make them holy and godly then shall you glorifie them and so bryng them to eternall blisse And then may you aswell saue the true laboring bullocks and innocēt shepe and lambes and so vnderstand the prophet Homines iumenta saluabis domine But to admonish the reader say you how the bread and wine haue no holynes this fortune of spech not vnderstand of the people engendreth some scruple that nedeth not By which your saying I cannot tel what the people may vnderstand but that you haue a great scruple that you haue lost your holy bread And yet S. Paule speaketh not of your holy bread as you imagine being vtterly ignoraunt as appeareth in the scripture but he speaketh generally of all manner of meates which christian people receaue with thankes giuing vnto God whether it be bread wine or water fish flesh white meat herbes or what manner of meat and drinck so euer it be And the sanctified bread which S. Augustine writeth to be geuen to them that be catechised was not holy in it selfe but was called holy for the vse and signification And I expresse S. Cyprians minde truely and not a whit discrepant from my doctrine here when I say that the diuinitye may be sayd to bee powred or put sacramentally into the bread as the spirite of God is sayd to be in the water of baptisme when it is truely ministred or in his word when it is syncerely preached with the holy spirite working mightely in the hartes of the hearers And yet the water in it selfe is but a visible element nor the preachers word of it self is but a sound in the ayre which as soone as it is hard vanisheth away and hath in it selfe no holines at all although for the vse ministery therof it may be called holy And so likewise may be sayd of the sacramentes which as S. Augustine sayth be as it were Gods visible word And whereas you reherse out of my wordes in an other place that as hoat and burning yron is yron still yet hath the force of fyre so the bread and wine be tourned into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud you neyther report my words truly nor vnderstād thē truely For I declare in my booke vertue to be in them that godly receaue bread and wine and not in the bread and wine And I take vertue there to signifie might and strength or force as I name it which in the greeke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which sence we say that there is vertue in herbs in words and in stones and not to signify vertue in holynes which in greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wher of a person is called vertuous whose fayth and conuersation is godly But you sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word vertue to an other significatiō then I mēt to approue by my words your own vayne error that bread should be vertuous holy making in your argument a fallax or craft called equiuocation For where my meaning is that the death of Christ and the effusion of his bloud haue effect and strength in them that truely receaue the sacrament of his flesh and bloud you turne the matter quite as though I should say that the bread were godly and vertuous which is very frantick and vngodly opiniō and nothing pertaining to mine application of the similitude of yron But this is the mother of many errors both in interpretation of scriptures and also in vnderstandyng of old auncient writers when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered But the similitude is applied vnto other matters then the meaning was Which fault may be iustly noted in you here when you reason by the similitude of hoat burning yron that bread may conceiue such vertue as it may be called vertuous and holy For my onely purpose was by that similitude to teach that yron remayning in his proper nature substance by conceauing of fire may work an other thing thē is the nature of yrō And so likewise bread remaynyng in is proper nature and substaunce in the ministration of the sacrament hath an other vse then to feed the body For it is a memoriall of Christes death that by exercise of our fayth our soules may receaue the more heauenly food But this is a strange maner of spech which neither scripture nor approued author euer vsed before you to cal the sacrametal bread vertuous as you doe But into such absurdities men do cōmonly fall when they will of purpose impugne the euident truth But was there euer any man so ouersene say you as this author is Who seeth not S. Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first Was there euer any man so destitute of reason say I but that he vnderstandeth this that when bread is balled bread it is called by the proper name as it is in deed and when bread is called the body of Christ it taketh the name of a thing which it is not in deed but is so called by a figuratiue spech And calling say you in the words of Christ signifieth making which if it signifieth when bread is called bread then were calling of bread a making of bread And thus is aunswered your demaund why this word call in the one signifieth the trueth and in the other not because that the one is a playne speche and the other a figuratiue For els by our reasoning out of reason when the cup which Christ vsed in his last supper was called a cup and when it was called Christes bloud all was one calling and was of like trueth without figure so that the cup was Christes bloud in deed And likewise the stone that flowed out water was called a stone and when it was called Christ the arke also when it was called the arke when it was called god all these must be one spech and of like trueth if it be true which you here say But as the arke was an arke the stone a stone bread very bread and the cup a cup playnely without figuratiue spech so whē they be called God Christ the body and bloud of Christ this can not be alike calling but must needes be vnderstād by a figuratiue spech For as Christ in the scripture is called a lambe for his innocency meeknes a Lyon for his might and power a doore and way wherby we enter into his fathers house wheat corne for the property of dying before they ryse vp bring increase so is he called bread and bread is called his body wine his bloud for the propertie of feedyng nourishing So that these al like speches where as one substaūce is called by the name of an other substaunce diuers and distinct in
nature must needs be vnderstād fyguratiuely by some similitude or propriety of one substance vnto an other and can in no wise be vnderstand properly and playnly without a figure And therfore when Christ is called the sonne of God or bread is called bread it is a most playne and proper spech but when Christ is called bread or bread is called Christ these can in no wise be formall and proper speches the substāces and natures of them being so diuers but must nedes haue an vnderstanding in figure signification or similitude as the very nature of all sacramentes require as al the old writers do playnly teach And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ his body bycause it is so in deed for then it were no figuratiue speach as all the old authors say it is And as for this word corporall you openly confessed your owne ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambheth when I asked you what corporall body Christ hath in the sacrameut whether he had distinction of members or no your answere was in effect that you could not tell And yet was that a wiser saying then you spake before in Cyril where you sayd that Christ hath onely a spirituall body and a spirituall presence and now you say he hath a corporall presēce And so you confoūd corporal spiritual as if you knew not what either of them ment or wist not or cared not what you sayd But now I will returne to my booke rehearse myne aunswere vnto S. Iohn Chrysostome which is this Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrisostome who in sound of words maketh most for the aduersaries of the truth but they that be familiar and acquanted with Chrisostomes manner of speaking how in all his writynges he is full of allusions schemes tropes and figures shall soone perceyue that he helpeth nothing their purposes as it shall well appeare by the discussing of those places which the Papistes do alleadge of him which be spicially two One is in Sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs And the other is De proditione Iudae And as touching the first no man can speake more playnly agaynst them then S. Iohn Chrisostome speaketh in that sermon Wherfore it is to be wondred why they should alleage hym for their partie vnlesse they be so blind in their opinion that they can se nothing nor discerne what maketh for them nor what against thē For there he hath these wordes When you come to these misteries speaking of the Lordes boord and holy communion do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God meaning of Christ. These be S. Iohn Chrisostome his owne wordes in that place Than if we receiue not the body of Christ at the hands of a man Ergo the body of Christ is not really corporally and naturally in the Sacrament and so geuen to vs by the Priest And then it followeth that all the Papistes be lyers because they fayne and teach the contrary But in this place of Chrisostome is touched before more at lēgth in answering to the Papistes Transubstantiation Wherfore now shall be answered the other place which they alleadge of Chrisostome in these wordes Here he is present in the sacramēt and doth cōsecrate which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper For it is not man which maketh of the bread and wine being set forth to be consecrated the body and bloud of Christ but it is Christ himselfe which for vs is crucified that maketh himselfe to be there present The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest but the consecration is by the vertue might grace of God himselfe And as this saying of God Increase be multiplied fill the earth once spoken by God tooke alwayes effect toward generation euen so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken doth throughout all churches to this present shall to his last comming geue force and strength to this sacrifice Thus farre they reherse of Chrisostomes words Which wordes although they sound much for the purpose yet if they be throughly cōsidered and conferred with other places of the same author it shal well appeare that he ment nothing lesse thē that Christes body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine but that in such sort he is in heauen onely and in our mindes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen to eate him there although sacramētally as in a signe and figure he be in the bread wine and so is he also in the water of Baptisme and in them that rightly receaue the bread wine he is in a much more perfection then corporally which should auayle them nothing but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power geuing them eternall lyfe And as in the first creatiō of the world all liuing creatures had their first life by gods onely word for God onely spake his word and all things were created by and by accordingly and after their creation he spake these wordes Increase and multiply and by the vertue of those wordes all thinges haue gendred increased euersince that tyme euen so after that Christ sayd Eat this is my body drinke this is my bloud Do this hereafter in remembraunce of me by vertue of these wordes and not by vertue of any man the bread and wine be so cōsecrated that whosoeuer with a liuely fayth doth eat that bread and drinke that wine doth spiritually eat drinke and feede vpon Christ sitting in heauen with his Father And this is the whole meaning of S. Chrisostome And therfore doth he so often say that we receaue Christ in baptisme And when he hath spoken of the receauing of him in the holy communion by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme without declaring any diuersity of his presence in the one from his presence in the other He sayth also in many places that We ascend into heauen and do eat Christ sitting there aboue And where S. Chrisostome and other Authors do speak of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes passing all mans wit senses and reason they meane not of the working of God in the water bread wine but of the maruaylous working of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramētes secretly inwardly and spiritually transforming them renuing feding comforting and nourishing them with his flesh and bloud through his most holy spirite the same flesh and bloud still remayning in heauen Thus is this place of Chrisostome sufficiently aunswered vnto And if any man require any more thē let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of Transubstantiation Winchester This author noteth in Chrisostome two places and bringeth them forth and in handling the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reprofe For where in the second booke
serued to the sustentation and increase of it therfore the bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it appeareth not flesh but bread that we should not lothe the eating of it for if flesh did appeare we should be vnpleasantly disposed to the communion of it Now our lord condescending to our infirmitie the misticall meat appeareth such to vs as those we haue ben accustomed vnto Hitherto I haue faythfully expressed Theophilactes wordes out of latine of Oecolampadius translation without terming the substantiall poyntes of her wise theÌ„ the words purport in latine By which may appeare what was Theophilactes meaning what doctrine he geueth of the sacrament and how his owne wordes vpon saynt Marke be to be vnderstanded when he sayth Speciem quide panis vim seruat in vertutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat incorupting of which wordes this author maketh a great matter when they were not alleaged for his but as they be his seruare speciem may be well translate forme and aparance bycause vpon S. Iohn before alleadged he sayth of the bread it appeareth And as for these wordes the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud must be vnderstanded to agree with the playne place of Theophilact vpon S. Iohn and vpon S. Marke also to signifie not onely vertue but veritie of the flesh and bloud of Christ. For if Theophilact by that spech ment the vertue of the body of Christ and not the verytie of the very body as thor sayth he did why should Theophilact both vppon S. Marke and also vpon S. Iohn aske this question why doth not the flesh appeare if him selfe by those wordes should teach there were onely present the vertue of his flesh who and he had ment so would not haue asked the question or if he had would haue answered it thâ—s accordingly there is no flesh in dede but the vertue of the flesh and that had bene a playne answer and such as he would haue made This author will aske then why doth Theophilact vse this phrase to say changed into the vertue of the body of Christ Hereunto I answer that this word vertue in phrase of speach many tymes oâ—â—ly filleth the speach and is comprehended in the signification of his genetiue following and therfore as Luke in the xxii chap. sayth à dextris vertutis Dei so in the Actes in the same sentence is spoken à dextris Dei both out of one pen and à dextris virtutis Dei is no more to say then à dextris Dei and so is virtutem carnis sanguinis no more to say but in carnem sanguinem which sentence the same Theophilact with vpon S. Iohn before alleaged in this saying The bread is changed into flesh anâ—â— Marke in this phrase into the vertue of flesh being like these speaches à dextris Dei and à dextris virtutis Dei. Which and if had liked this author to haue considered he should haue taken Theophilactes speach as Theophilact vnderstandeth himselfe and sayd the wordes alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophilactes wordes and then he had sayd for so much true which would do well among and the wordes be not indede Theophilactes wordes nor were not alleaged for his Now when this author sayth they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes that is a large negatiue and will be hardly proued otherwise then by addition of the authors knowledge for any thing that he can finde and so there shal be no absurditie to graunt it And thus I returne to myne issue with this author that Theophilact himselfe hath no such meaning expressed in wordes as this author attributed vnto him but an euident contrary meaning sauing herein I will agree with this author that Theophilact ment not grossely sensibly carnally as these wordes sound in carnall mennes iudgementes For we may not so thinkâ— of Gods misteries the worke wherof is not carnall nor corporall for the maner of it But the maner spirituall and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ bicause Christ is in his very true flesh present he may be sayd so carnally present and naturally after Hilary and corporally after Cyrill vnder standing the wordes of the truth of that is present Christes very bydy and flesh and not of the maner of the presence which is onely spirituall supernaturall and aboue mannes capacitie And therfore a high mistery a great miracle a wonderfull woorke which it is holsome to beleue simply with a sincere fayth and daungerous to serch and examine with a curious imagination such as idlenes and arogancy would tempt a man vnto and by diuising of a figure or metaphore bring it within the compasâ—e of our busy reason Caunterbury THis is a pretie sleight of you to passeouer the authors name saying that you found it so alleaged in an author and tell not in what author There is surely some hid mistery in this matter that you would not haue his name knowen For if you had found any approued author who had fathered these wordes vpoÌ„ Theophilus Alexandrinus I doubt not but I should haue herd him here named it should haue serued so much for your purpose For to what purpose should you coÌ„ceale his name if you had any such author But shall I open the mistery of this matter Shall I by coniectures tell the author which you followed as you by coniecture gathered of him the name of Theophilus Thomas de Aquino in his cathena aurea citeth the wordes by you alleaged in these letters Theoph. which letters be indiferent aswel to Theophilus as to Theophilactes so that you might haue christened the child whether you would by the name of Theophilus or of Theophilactus And because Theophilus was a more auncient author and of more learning and estimation then was Theophilact therfore the name pleased you better to geue more credite to your sayinges and so of Theoph you made the whole name Theophilus And bycause one Theophilus was a byshop of Alexandry you added as it were his syr name calling him Theophilus Alexandâ—inus And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter peraduenture it might be doctor Fisher somtyme byshop of Rochester who writing in the same matter that you do was or would be deceaued as you be But what author so euer you folowed you shall not honestly shake of this matter except you tell his name For els I will say that you be fayne to bring in for you fayned authors whispered in corners And yet that Theophilus wrot not that wordes alleaged vpon Marke this is no smale profe that Theophilact hath the same sentences word by word and that neyther S. Hierom Gennadius Eusebius Tritemius nor any other that euer wrot hitherto made euer any mention that Theophilus wrot vpon the gospell of S. Marke And as concerning your issue thus much I graunt without issue that no catholike
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
not learned And whosoeuer misreporteth hym and hath neuer heard him may not be called so well Momus as Sicophanta whose property is to mysreporte thē whome thy neither see nor knowe Now resteth onely Damascene of whome I write thus But here Iohn Damascen may in no wise be passed ouer whome for is anctoritie the aduersaries of Christes trew naturall body do recken as a stout champion sufficient to defende all the whole matter alone But neither is the authorite of Damascene so greate that they may oppresse vs therby nor his wordes so playne for them as they boast and vntruly pretende For he is but a yong new author in the respecte of those which we haue brought in for our partie And in diuers poyntes he varieth from the most auncient authors if he meane as they expound him as when he sayeth that the bread and wine be not figures which all the olde authors call figures and that the bread and wyne consume not nor be auoyded downward which Origen and S. Augustine affirme or that they be not called the examples of Christes body after the consecration which shall manefestly appeare false by the Lyturgy ascribed vnto S. Basyll And moreouer the sayd Damascene was one of the Byshop of Romes chief proctours agaynst the Emperours and as it were his right hand to set abroad all idolatrye by his owne hand writing And therfore if he lost his hande as they say he didde he lost it by Goddes most righteous iudgemente whatsoeuer they fayne and fable of the myraculous restitution of the same And yet whatsoeuer the sayd Damescen writeth in other matters surely in this place which the aduersaries do alleadge he writeth spiritually and godly although the Papists eyther of ignoraunce mistake him or els willingly wrast him and writh him to theyr purpose cleane contrary to his meaning The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this That as Christ being both God and man hath in him two natures so hath he two natiuities one eternall and the other temporall And so likewise we being as it were double men or hauing euery one of vs two men in vs the new man and the old man the spirituall man and the carnall man haue a double natiuitie One of our first carnall father Adam by whome as by auncient inheritaūce cometh vnto vs maledictiō and euerlasting damnation and the other of our heauenly Adam that is to say of Christ by whome we be made heires of celestiall benediction and euerlasting glory and imortalitie And bicause this Adam is spirituall therfore our generation by him must be spirituall and our feeding must be likewise spirituall And our spirituall generation by him is playnly set forth in baptisme and our spirituall meat and food is set forth in the holy communion and supper of the Lord. And because our sightes be so feeble that we cannot see the spirituall water wherwith we be washed in baptisme nor the spirituall meat wherwith we be fed at the Lordes table Therfore to help our infermities and to make vs the better to see the same with a pure fayth our sauiour Christ hath set forth the same as it were before our eyes by sensible signes and tokens which we be dayly vsed and accustomed vnto And bycause the common custome of men is to wash in water therfore our spirituall regeneration in Christ or spirituall washing in his bloud is declared vnto vs in baptisme by water Likewise our spirituall norishmēt feeding in Christ is set before our eyes by bread wine bicause they be meates and drinkes which chiefly vsually we be fedde withal◠that as they feede the body so doth Christ with his flesh bloud spiritually feed the soule And therfore the bread and wine be called examples of Christes flesh and bloud and also they be called his very flesh and bloud to signifie vnto vs that as they feed vs carnally so doe they admonish vs that Christ with his flesh and bloud doth feed vs spiritually and most truely vnto euerlasting lyfe And as almighty God by his most mighty word and his holy spirite and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the beginning and euer sithens hath preserued them euen so by the same word and power he worketh in vs from tyme to tyme this meruailous spirituall generation and wonderfull spirituall nourishment and feeding which is wrought onely by God and is comprehended and receaued of vs by fayth And as bread and drincke by naturall nourishment be chaunged into a mannes body and yet the body is not chaunged but is the same that it was before so although the bread and wine be sacramētally changed into Christes body yet his body is the same and in the same place that it was before that is to say in heauen without any alteration of the same And the bread and wine be not so changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ that they be made one nature but they remayne still distinct in nature so that the bread in it selfe is not his flesh and the wine his bloud but vnto them that worthely eare and drincke the bread and wine to them the bread and wine be his flesh and bloud that is to say by things naturall and which they be accustomed vnto they be exaulted vnto things aboue nature For the sacramentall bread and wine be not bare and naked figures but so pithy and effectuous that who soeuer worthely eateth them eateth spiritually Christes flesh and bloud and hath by them euerlasting life Wherfore whosoeuer commeth to the Lordes table must come with all humilitie feare reuerence and puritie of lyfe as to receaue not onely bread and wine but also our sauiour Christ both God and man withall his benefites to the reliefe and sustentation both of theyr bodyes and soules This is briefly the summe and true meaning of Damascene concerning this matter Wherfore they that gather of him eyther the naturall presence of Christes body in the Sacraments of bread and wine or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament or that after the consecration there remayneth no bread nor wine nor other substaunce but onely the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ eyther they vnderstand not Damascene or els of wilfull frowardnes they will not vnderstād him which rather seemeth to be true by such colections as they haue vniustly gathered and noted out of him For although he say that Christ is the spirituall meat yet as in baptisme the holy ghost is not in the water but in him that is vnfaynedly baptised so Damascene ment not that Christ is in the bread but in him that worthely eateth the bread And though he say that the bread is Christes body and the wine his bloud yet he ment not that the bread considered in it selfe or the wine in it selfe being not receaued is his flesh and bloud but to such as by vnfayned fayth worthely receaue the bread and wine to such the bread and wine
learne vs And yet these sayd wordes limit not the mistery of the supper for as much as that mistery of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud extendeth further then the supper and continueth so long as we be liuely membres of Christes body For none feede nor be nourished by him but that be liuely members of his body and so long and no longer feede they of him then they be his true membres and receaue life from him For feeding of him is to receaue life But this is not that inuisible sacrament which you say S. Augustin speaketh of in sermone Domini in monte the iij booke For he calleth there the dayly bread which we continually pray for eyther corporall bread and meate which is our dayly sustenaunce for the body or els the visible sacrament of bread and wine or the inuisible sacrament of gods word and cōmaundementes of the which sacramentes gods word is dayly heard and the other is dayly seene And if by the inuisible sacrament of goddes word S. Augustine ment our norishment by Christes flesh and bloud than be we nourished with them as well by gods word as by the sacrament of the lordes supper But yet who so euer tolde you that S. Augustine wrote this in the iij. booke de sermone Domini in monte trust him not much hereafter for he dyd vtterly deceaue you For S. Augustine wrote no more but .ij. bookes de sermone Domine in monte and if you can make iij. of ij as you do here and one of iiij as you dyd before in the substances of Christ you be a meruailouse auditour and then had all men neede to beware of your accomptes least you deceaue them And you cannot lay the fault here in the Printer for I haue seen it written so both by your own hand and by the hand of your secretary Now when you haue wrangled in this matter as much as you can at length you confesse the truth that who so feedeth vpon Christ spiritually must needes be a good man for only good men be membres of Christes misticall body which spirituall eating is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessarelye to be good And therfore it must be and is a certaine conclusion that onely good menne doe eate and drinke the bodye and bloude of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to lyfe This you write in conclusion and this is the very doctrine that I teache and in the same tearmes marry I adde therto that the eating of Christes body is a spirituall eating and the drinking of his bloud is a spirituall drinkyng and therfore no euill man can eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud as this my forth booke teacheth and is necessary to be writen For although neither good nor euell men eate Christes body in the sacrament vnder the visible signes in the which he is not but sacramentally yet the good feede of him spiritually being inhabiting spiritually within them although corporally he be absent and in heauen but the euell men neither feede vpon him corporally nor spiritually from whom he is both the sayd wayes absent although corporally they eate and drinke with theyr mouthes the sacramentes of his body and bloud Now where you note here three manner of eatinges and yet but two manner of eatinges of Christ this your noting is very true if it be truly vnderstand For there be in dede three maner of eatinges one spirituall onely an other spiritual and sacramentall both together the third sacramentall only and yet Christ him selfe is eaten but in the first two manner of waies as you truely teache And for to set out this distinctiō somewhat more playnly that playne menne may vnderstand it it may thus be tearmed That there is a spirituall eating only when Christ by a true fayth is eaten without the sacrament Also there is an other eating both spirituall and sacramental when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth and Christ him selfe is eaten with a true fayth The third eating is sacramentall only when the sacrament is eaten and not Christ himselfe So that in the fyrst is Christ eaten without the sacrament in the seconde he is eaten with the sacrament and in the thirde the sacrament is eaten without him and therfore it is called sacramentall eating onely bycause onely the sacramente is eaten and not Christ himselfe After the two first maner of wayes godly men do eate who feede and liue by Christ the thirde manner of wayes the wicked do eate and therfore as S. Augustine sayth they neither eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud although euery day they eat the sacrament therof to the condemnation of theyr presumption And for this cause also S. Paule sayth not He that eateth Christes body and drinketh his bloud vnworthely shall haue condemnation and be gilty of the Lordes body but he sayth he that eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely shal be giltie of the Lordes body and eateth and drinketh his owne damnation bycause he estemeth not the Lordes body And here you committe two fowle faultes One is that you declare S. Paule to speake of the body and bloud of Christ when he spake of the bread and wine The other fault is that you adde to S. Paules wordes this word there and so buylde your worke vpon a foundation made by your owne selfe And where you say that if my doctrine be true neyther good men nor euill eate but the sacramentall bread it can be none other but very frowardnes and mere wilfulnes that you will not vnderstand that thinge which I haue spoken so playnly repeted so many tymes For I say that good men eat the Lordes body spiritually to theyr eternall nourishment where as euyl men eat but the bread carnally to their eternall punishment And as you note of S. Augustine that baptisme is very well called health and the sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in which God gyueth health and lyfe if we worthely vse them so is the sacramentall bread very well called Christes body and the wine his bloud as in the ministration wherof Christ geueth vs his flesh and bloude if we worthely receaue them And where you teach how the workes of God in them selues be alway true and vniforme in all men without diuersitie in good and euill in worthy and vnworthy you bring in this misticall matter here clearly without purpose or reason farre passyng the capacitie of simple readers onely to blinde their eyes withall By which kynde of teaching it is all one worke of God to saue and to damne to kill and to gyue lyfe to hate and to loue to elect and to reiect and to be short by this kinde of doctrine God and all his workes be one without diuersite eyther of one worke from an other or of his workes from his substaunce And by this meanes it is all one worke of God in baptisme and in the Lordes supper
But all this is spoken quite besides the matter and serueth for nothing but to cast a myst before mens eyes as it semeth you seeke nothing els thorow your whole booke And this your doctrine hath a very euill smacke that spirite and life should fall vppon naughty men although for theyr malice it tary not For by this doctrine you ioyne togither in one man Christ and Beliall the spirite of God and the spirite of the diuell lyfe and death and all at one tyme which doctrine I will not name what it is for all faythfull men know the name right well and detest the same And what ignoraunce can be shewed more in him that accoumpteth himselfe learned then to gather of Christes wordes where her sayth his wordes be spirit and life that spirit and lyfe should be in euill men because they heare his wordes For the wordes which you recyte by and by of S. Augustin shew how vayne your argument is when he sayth The wordes be spirite and life but not to thee that doest carnally vnderstand them What estimation of learning or of truth would you haue men to conceaue of you that bring such vnlearned argumentes wherof the inuadilitie appeareth within six lynes after Which must nedes declare in you either much vntruth and vnsincere proceding or much ignoraunce or at the least all exceding forgetfulnes to say anythyng reproued agayn within six lynes after And if the promises of God as you say be not disapoynted by our infidelitie then if euyll men eate the very body of Christ and drink his bloud they must nedes dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them and by him haue euerlasting lyfe bycause of these promises of Christ Qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in memanet et ego in eo Et quimanducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe And he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him And yet the third promise Qui manducat me ipse viues propter me He that eateth me he shall also lyue by me These be .iij. promises of God which if they can not be disapoynted by our infidilitie then if euyll men eat the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud as you say they doe in the sacrament then must it nedes follow that they shall haue euerlasting life and that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them bicause our infidilitie say you can not disappoynt Goddes promises And how agreeth this your saying with that doctrine which you were wont earnestly to teach both by mouth and penne that all the promises of God to vs be made vnder condition if our infidilitie can not disappoynt Gods promises For then the promises of God must nedes haue place whether we obserue the condition or not But here you haue fetched a great compasse circuit vtterly in vayne to reproue that thing which I neuer denied but euer affirmed which is That the substaunce of the visible sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which I say is bread and wine in the sacrament as water is in baptisme is all one substance to good and to badde and to both a figure But that vnder the fourme of bread and wine is corporally present by Christes ordinaūce his very body and bloud eyther to good or to ill that you neyther haue nor can proue yet thereupō would you bring in your conclusion here wherin you commit that folly in reasoning which is caled Petitio principij What neede you to make herein any issue when we agree in the matter For in the substance I make no diuersitie but I say that the substance of Christes body and bloud is corporally present neyther in the good eater nor in the euill And as for the substance of bread and wine I say they be all one whether the good or euill eate and drincke them As the water of Baptisme is all one whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned therin and it is one word that to the euill is a sauoure of death and to the good is a sauoure of lyfe And as it is one Sonne that shineth vppon the good and the badde that melteth butter and maketh the earth harde one flower wherof the bee sucketh hony and the spyder poyson and one oyntment as Decumenius sayth that kylleth the bettyll and strengthneth the doue Neuerthelesse as all that be washed in the water be not washed with the holy spirite so all that eate the sacramentall bread eate not the very body of Christ. And thus you see that your issue is to no purpose except you would fight with your owne shadowe Now forasmuch as after all this vayne and friuolous consuming of wordes you begin to make answere vnto my profes I shall here reherse my profes and argumentes to the intent that the reader seyng both my profes and your confutations before his eyes may the better consider and geue his iudgement therein My forth booke begynneth thus THe grosse errour of the Papistes is Of the carnall eating and drinking of Christes flesh and bloud with our mouthes For they say that whosoeuer eate and drincke the sacramentes of bread and wine do eat and drincke also with theyr mouthes Christes very flesh and bloud be they neuer so vngodly and wicked persons But Christ him selfe taught cleane contrary in the sixt of Iohn that we eate not him carnally with our mouthes but spiritually with our fayth saying Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleueth in me hath euerlasting lyfe I am the bread of life Your fathers did eat Manna in the wildernes and dyed This is the bread that cam from heauen that who so euer shall eate therof shall not dye I am the liuely bread that cam from heauen If any man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer And the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the lyfe of the world This is the most true doctrine of our sauiour Christ that whosoeuer eateth him shall haue euerlasting lyfe And by and by it followeth in the same place of S. Iohn more clearly Verely verely I say vnto you except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drincke his bloud you shall not haue life in you He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will rayse him agayne at the last day For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drincke He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this
bread shall liue for euer This taught our sauiour Christ as well his disciples as the Iewes at Capernaum that the eating of his flesh and drincking of his bloud was not like to the eating of Manna For both good and bad did eate Manna but none do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud but they haue euerlasting lyfe For as his father dwelleth in him and he in his father and so hath life by his father so he that eateth Christes flesh and drinketh his bloud dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him and by Christ he hath eternall life What neede we any other witnes when Christ himselfe doth testifie the mater so playnly that who so euer eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath euerlasting life and that to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud is to beleue in him And who so euer beleueth in him hath euerlasting lyfe wherof it followeth necessarily that vngodly persons being limmes of the deuill do not eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud except the Papistes would say that such haue euerlasting life But as the diuell is the food of the wicked which he nourisheth in all iniquitie and bringeth vp into euerlasting damnatiō so is Christ the very foode of all them that be the liuely members of his body and them he nourisheth fedeth bringeth vp and cherisheth vnto euerlasting life And euery good and faythfull Christian man seleth in himselfe how he fedeth of Christ eating his flesh and drincking of his bloud For he putteth the whole hope and trust of his redemption and saluation in that onely sacrifice which Christ made vpon the Crosse hauing his body there broken and his bloud there shedde for the remission of his sinnes And this great benefite of Christ the faythfull man earnestly considereth in his mynd chaweth and digesteth it with the stomake of his hart spiritually receauing Christ wholy into him and giuing agayne him selfe wholy vnto Christ. And this is the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud the feeling wherof is to euery man the feling how he eateth and drincketh Christ which none euill man nor member of the deuill can do For as Christ is a spirituall meate so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spirituall part of vs and giueth vs spirituall and eternall lyfe and is not eaten swallowed digested with our teeth tongues throtes bellies Therfore sayth S. Ciprian he that drincketh of the holy cup remembring this benefite of God is more thirsty then he was before And lifting vp his hart vnto the liuing God is taken with such a singular hunger and apetite that he abhorreth all gally and bitter drinkes of sinne and all sauor of carnall pleasure is to him as it were sharp and sowre viniger And the sinner being conuerted receauing the holy misteries of the Lordes supper geueth thankes vnto God and boweth downe his head knowing that his sinnes be forgeuen and that he is made clean and perfect and his soule which God hath sanctified he rendreth to God agayne as a faythfull pledge and then he glorieth with Paule and reioyseth saying Now it is not I that liue but it is Christ that liueth within me These thinges be practised and vsed among faythful people and to pure myndes the eating of his flesh is no horror but honor and the spirit deliteth in the drinking of the holy and sanctifiing bloud And doing this we whet not our teeth to bite but with pure fayth we breake the holy bread These be the wordes of Ciprian And according vnto the same S. Augustine sayth Prepare not thy iawes but thy hart And in an other place he sayth why doest thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten But of this matter is sufficiently spoken before where it is proued that to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud be figuratiue speaches And now to returne to our purpose that onely the liuely members of Christ do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud I shall bring forth many other places of auncient authors before not mentioned Fyrst Origen writeth playnly after this maner The word was made flesh and very meat which who so eateth shall surly liue for euer which no euill man can eate For if it could be that he that continueth euill might eat the word made flesh seing that he is the word and bread of life it should not haue bene written Who so euer eateth this bread shall liue for euer These wordes be so playne that I need say nothing for the more clere declaration of them Wherfore you shall heare how Ciprian agreeth with him Cyprian in his sermon ascribed vnto him of the Lordes supper sayth The author of this tradition sayd that except we eat his flesh drincke his bloud we should haue no life in vs instructing vs with a spirituall lesson opening to vs a way to vnderstand so priuy a thing that we should know that the eating is our dwelling in him and our drincking is as it were an incorporation in him being subiect vnto him in obedience ioyned vnto him in our willes and vnited in our affections The eating therfore of this flesh is a certayne hunger and desire to dwell in him Thus writeth Cyprian of the eating and drinking of Christ ' And a litle after he sayth that none do eate of this lambe but such as be true Israelites that is to say pure christian men without colour or dissimulation And Athanasius speaking of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud sayth that for this cause he made mention of his ascentiō into heauen to plucke them from corporall phantasy that they might lerne hereafter that his flesh was called the celestiall meate that came from aboue and a spirituall food which he would geue For those thinges that I speake to you sayth he be spirit and life Which is as much to say as that thing which you se shal be slayne and giuen for the nourishment of the world that it may be distributed to euery body spiritually and be to all men a conseruation vnto the resurrectiō of eternall life In these wordes Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made mention of his ascension into heauen when he spake of the eating and drincking of his flesh and bloud The cause after Athanasius mynd was this that his hearers should not thinke of any carnal eating of his body with their mouthes for as concerning the presence of his body he should be taken from them and ascend into heauen but that they should vnderstād him to be a spirituall meate spiritually to be eaten and by that refreshing to giue eternall life which he doth to none but to such as be his liuely members And of this eating speaketh also Basilius that we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud being made by his incarnation and sensible lyfe partakers of his word and wisedome For his flesh and bloud he calleth
all his misticall conuersation here in his flesh and his doctrine consisting of his whole life pertayning both to his humanitie and diuinitie wherby the soule is nourished and brought to the contemplation of thinges eternall Thus teacheth Basilius how we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud which pertayneth only to the true and faythfull members of Christ. S. Hierom also sayth All that love pleasure more then God eate not the flesh of Iesu nor drincke his bloud Of the which himselfe sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe And in an other place S. Hierom sayth that heritikes do not eate and drincke the body and bloud of the Lord. And more ouer he sayth that heretiks eat not the flesh of Iesu whose flesh is the meat of faythfull men Thus agreeth S. Hierom with the other before rehersed that heretikes and such as follow worldly pleasures eate not Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud bicause that Christ sayd He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting life And S. Ambrose sayth that Iesus is the bread which is the meat of sainctes and that he that taketh this bread dyeth not a sinners death For this bread is the remission of sinnes And in other booke to him intituled he writeth thus This bread of life which came downe from heauen doth minister euerlasting life and who soeuer eateth this bread shall not dye for euer and is the body of Christ. And yet in an other booke set forth in his name he sayth on this wise He that did eate Manne dyed but he that eateth this body shall haue remission of his sinnes and shall not dye for euer And agayne he sayth As often as thou drinckest thou hast remission of thy sinnes These sentences of S. Ambrose be so playne in this matter that there nedeth no more but onely the rehersall of them But S. Augustine in many places playnly discussing this matter sayth He that agreeth not with Christ doth neither eate his body nor drinke his bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he receaue euery day the sacramēt of so hygh a matter And moreouer S. Augustine most playnly resolueth this matter in his booke De ciuitate Dei disputing agaynst two kindes of heretikes Wherof the one sayd that as many as were Christned and receaued the sacramēt of Christes body and bloud should be saued how so euer they liued or beleeued bycause that Christ sayd This is the bread that came from heauen that who so euer shall eate therof shall not dye I am the bread of lyfe which came from heauen who so euer shall eate of this bread shall liue for euer Therfore sayd these heretikes all such men must nedes be deliuered from eternall death and at length be brought to eternall life The other sayd that heretikes and scismatikes myght eate the sacrament of Christes body but not his very body bycause they be no members of his body And therfore they promised not euerlasting life to all that receaued Christes baptisme and the sacrament of his body but to all such as professed a true fayth although they liued neuer so vngodly For such sayd they do eate the body of Christ not onely in a sacrament but also in deede bycause they be members of Christes body But S. Augustine answering to both these heresies sayth That neither heretikes nor such as professe a true fayth in theyr mouthes and in theyr liuing shew the contrary haue eyther a true fayth which worketh by charitie and doth none euil or are to be counted among the members of Christ. For they can not be both members of Christ and members of the deuill Therfore sayth he it may not be sayd that any of them eate the body of Christ. For when Christ sayth he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him He sheweth what it is not sacramentally but indeed to eate his body and drincke his bloud which is when a man dwelleth so in Christ that Christ dwelleth in him For Christ spake those wordes as if he should say He that dwelleth not in me and in whom I dwell not let him not say or thincke that he eateth my body or drincketh my bloud These be the playne wordes of S. Augustine that such as liue vngodly although they may seme to eate Christes body bicause they eate the sacrament of his body yet in deed they neyther be members of his body nor do eate his body Also vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth that he that doth not eate his flesh and drincke his bloud hath not in him euerlasting lyfe And he that eateth his flesh and drincketh his bloud hath euerlasting lyfe But it is not so in those meates which we take to sustayne our bodyes For although without them we cannot liue yet it is not necessary that who so euer receaueth them shall liue for they may dye by age sicknes or other chaunces But in this meat and drincke of the body and bloud of our Lord it is otherwise For both they that eate and drincke them not haue not euerlasting lyfe And contrariwyse who so euer eate and drincke them haue euerlasting life Note and ponder well these wordes of S. Augustine that the bread and wine and other meates drinckes which nourish the body a man may eate and neuerthelesse dye but the very body and bloud of Christ no man eateth but that hath euerlasting life So that wicked men can not eate nor drincke them for then they must nedes haue by them euerlasting life And in the same place S. Augustine sayth further The sacramēt of the vnitie of Christes body bloud is takē in the Lordes table of some men to lyfe of some mē to death but the thing it selfe wherof it is a sacramēt is takē of all men to lyfe of no man to death And more ouer he sayth This is to eate that meate and drincke that drincke to dwell in Christ and to haue Christ dwelling in him And for that cause he that dwelleth not in Christ in whome Christ dwelleth not without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh nor drincketh his bloud although carnally and visibly with his teeth he byte the Sacrament of his body and bloud Thus writeth S. Augustine in the xxvj homely of S. Iohn And in the next homely following he sayth thus This day our sermon is of the body of the Lord which he sayd he would geue to eat for eternall life And he declared the maner of his gift and distribution how he would geue his flesh to eate saying He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him This therfore is a token or knowledge that a man hath eaten and drunken that is to say if he dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in him If he cleaue so to Christ that he is not seuered from him This therfore Christ
men eate and drincke the body and bloud of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors playnly which I haue alleadged without your addition of spirituall manducation and not one of them all say as you do that in the visible Sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do But I make no such vayne proofes as you fayne in my name that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present bycause euil men receaue it But this argument were good although I make no such Euell men eate and drincke the sacrament and yet they eate and drincke not Christes flesh and bloud Ergo his flesh and bloud be not really and corporally in the sacrament And when you say that Christ may be receaued of the euel man to his condemnation is this the glory that you geue vnto Christ that his whole presence in a man both with flesh bloud soule and spirite shall make him neuer the better and that Christ shal be in him that is a member of the deuell And if an euill man haue Christ in him for a tyme why may he not then haue him still dwelling in him For if he may be in him a quarter of an houre he may be also an whole houre and so a whole day and an whole yeare and so shall God and the diuell dwell together in one house And this is the croppe that groweth of your sowing if Christ fall in euell men as good seed falleth in euell ground And where you say that all that euer I bring to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ may be shortly aunswered truth it is as you sayd in one place of me that all that I haue brought may be shortly aunswered if a man care not what he aunswer as it seemeth you pas not much what you aunswer so that you may lay on lode of wordes For where as I haue fully proued as well by authoritie of scripture as by the testimony of many olde writers that although euell men eate the sacramentall bread and drincke the wine which haue the names of his flesh and bloud yet they eate not Christes very flesh nor drincke his bloud Your short and whole aunswer is this that euell men may be sayd not to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud bycause they do it not frutefully as they ought to do And that may be called a not eating as they may be sayd not to heare godes word that heare it not profitably and a thing not well done may be in speach called not done in the respect of the good effect I graunt such speaches be sometyme vsed but very rarely and when the very truth commeth in discussion then such Paradoxes are not to be vsed As if it come in question whether a house be builded that is not well builded then the diffinition of the matter must not be that it is not builded although the carpenters and other workemen haue fayled in theyr couenaunt and bargayne and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to haue done So our sauiour Christ teacheth that all heard the word whether the seed fell in the high way or vpon the stones or among the thornes or in the good groūd Wherfore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers whether euell menne eate Christes body or no if the truth had bene that euill men eate it the olde writers would not so precisely haue defined the contrary that they eate not but would haue sayd they eate it but not effectually not frutefully not profitably But now the authors which I haue alleaged define playnly and absolutely that euell men eate not Christes body without any other addition But after this sort that you do vse it shall be an easy matter for euery man to say what liketh him and to defend it well inough if he may adde to the scriptures and doctours wordes at his pleasure and make the sense after his owne phantasye The scriptures and Doctoures which I alleadge do say in playne wordes as I do say that euell menne do not eate the body of Christ nor drincke his bloud but onely they that haue life therby Now come you in with your addition and glose made of your owne head putting therto this word effectually Yf I should say that Christ was neuer conceaued nor borne could not I auoyd all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary by adding this word apparantly and defend my saying stoutly And might not the Ualentinians Marcianistes and other that sayd that Christ dyed not for vs defend their errour with addition as they did of this word putatiue to all the scriptures that were brought agaynst them And wat herisie can be reproued if the heretikes may haue the liberty that you do vse to adde of their owne heades to the wordes of scripture contrary vnto Godes word directly who cōmaundeth vs to adde nothing to his word nor to take any thing away And yet more ouer the authorities which I haue brought to approue my doctrine do clerely cast away your addition adding the cause why euell men can not eate Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud And you haue taught almost in the beginning of your booke that Christes body is but a spirituall body and after a spirituall manner eaten by fayth And now you haue confessed that who so fedeth vpon Christ spiritually must nedes be a good man How can you than defend now that euell men eat the body of Christ except you will now deny that which you graunted in the beginning and now haue forgotten it that Christes body cannot be eaten but after a spirituall maner by fayth Wherin it is meruayle that you hauing so good a memory should forgette the common prouerbe Mendacem memorem esse oportet And it had ben more conuenient for you to haue answered fully to Cyprian Athanasius Basyll Hierom and Ambrose then when you cannot answer to wipe your handes of them with this slender answer saying that you haue answered And whether you haue or no I refer to the iudgement of the reader And as concerning S. Augustine De ciuitate Dei he sayth that euell men receaue the sacrament of Christes body although it auayleth them not But yet he sayth in playne wordes that we ought not to say that any man eateth the body of Christ that is not in the body And if the reader euer saw any meare cauilation in all his lyfe tyme let him read the chapter of S. Augustine and compare it to your answer and I dare say he neuer sawe the like And as for the other places of S. Augustine by me alleadged with Origen and Cirill for the more ease you passe them ouer with silence and dare eate no such meate it is so hard for you to digest And thus haue you with post hast runne ouer all my scriptures and doctours as it were playing at the post with still passing and geuing ouer euery game And yet shal you
neuer be able for your part to bring any scripture that serueth for your purpose except you may be suffered to adde therto such wordes as you please Than come you to my questions wherin I write thus And now for corroboration of Cyrils saying I would thus reason with the Papistes and demaund of them Whan an vnrepentant sinner receaueth the sacrament whether he haue Christes body within him or no If they say no than haue I my purpose that euell men although they receaue the sacrament of Christes body yet receaue they not his very body If they say yea Than I would aske them further Whether they haue Christes spirite within them or no If they say nay than do they separate Christes body from his spirite and his humanitie from his diuinitie and be condemned by the Scripture as very Antichristes that diuide Christ. And if they say yea that a wicked man hath Christes spirit in him then the scripture also condemneth them saying that as he which hath not the spirite of Christ is none of his so he that hath Christ in him lyueth bycause he is iustified And if his spirite that raysed Iesus from death dwell in you he that raysed Iesus from death shall geue life to your mortall bodies for his spirites sake which dwelleth in you Thus on euery side the scripture condemneth the aduersaries of gods word And this wickednes of the Papistes is to be wondred at that they affirme Christes flesh bloud soule holy spirite and his deitie to be in a man that is subiect to sinne and a lim of the deuill They be wonderful iuglers and coniurers that with certayne wordes can make God and the diuell to dwell together in one man and make him both the temple of God and the temple of the Deuill It appeareth that they be so blind that they cānot see the light from darknes Beliall from Christ nor the table of the Lord from the table of diuels Thus is cōfuted this third intolerable error heresie of the Papists That they which be the limmes of the dyuell do eate the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud manifestly and directly contrary to the wordes of Christ him selfe who sayth Who soeuer eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe Winchester But to encounter directly with this author where he opposeth by interogation and would be answered whether an vnrepentant sinner that receaueth the sacrament hath Christes body within him or no. Marke reader this question which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament not as him selfe teacheth but as the true teaching is although he meane otherwise for els how could an vnrepentant sinner receaue Christes body but onely in the sacrament vnworthely and how could he receaue it vnworthely and it were not there but to answer to this question I answer no for it foloweth not he receaued him ergo he hath him in him for the vessel being not meet he departed from him because he was a sinner in whom he dwelleth not And where this author now become a questionist maketh two questions of Christes body and his spirite as though Christes body myght be deuided from his spirite he supposeth other to be as ignoraunt as him selfe For the learned man will aunswere that an euell man by force of Gods ordinance in the substance of the sacrament receaued in deed Christes very body there present whole Christ God and man but he taried not nor dwelled not nor fructified not in him nor Christes spirite entered not into that mannes soule bycause of the malice and vnworthines of him that receaued For Christ will not dwell with Beliall nor abide with sinners And what hath this author won now by his forked question wherin he seemeth to glory as though he had imbrased an absurditie that he hunted for wherin he sheweth onely his ignoraunce who putteth no difference betwene the entring of Christ into an euell man by Gods ordinance in the sacrament and the dwelling of Christes spirite in an euell man which by scripture can not be ne is by any catholike man affirmed For S. Paule sayth In him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation And yet S. Paules wordes playnly import that those dyd eate the very body of Christ which dyd eate vnworthely and therfore were gilty of the body and bloud of Christ. Now reader consider what is before written and thou shalt easely see what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the xcvii leafe as though the teaching were that the same man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell with other termes wherewith it liketh this author to refresh himselfe and fayneth an aduersary such as he would haue but hath none for no catholike man teacheth so nor it is not all one to receaue Christ to haue Christ dwelling in him And a figure therof was in Christes conuersation vppon earth who tarieth not with all that receaued him in outward apparaunce and there is noted a difference that some beleued in Christ and yet Christ committed not him selfe to them And the gospell prayseth them that heare the word of God and keep it signifiing many to haue the word of god and not to keep it as they that receaue Christ by his ordinaunce in the sacrament and yet bycause they receaue him not according to the entent of his ordinance worthely they are so much the worse therby through theyr owne malice And therfore to conclude this place with the author who soeuer eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud hath euerlasting lyfe with S. Paules exposition if he doth it worthely or els by the same S. Paule he hath condemnation Caunterbury HEre the reader shall euidently see your accustomed maner that whē you be destitute of answer and haue none other shyft then fall you to scoffing and scolding out the matter as Sophisters sometymes do at theyr problemes But as ignorant as I am you shall not so escape me First you byd the reader marke that I talke of the sacrament not as I teach my selfe But I would haue the reader here marke that you report my wordes as you list your selfe not as I speake them For you report my question as I should say that an vnrepentant sinner should receaue Christes body where as I speake of the receauing of the sacrament of the body and not of the very body it selfe Moreouer I make my question of the being of Christes body in an vnpenitent sinner and you turne being into abiding because being biteth you so sore Fyrst you confes that an vnrepentaunt sinner receauing the sacrament hath not Christes body within him and then may I say that he eateth not Christes body except he eate it without him And although it followeth not he receaued Christ eego he hath him in him yet it followeth necessarily he receaueth him ergo he hath him within him for the tyme of the receipt As a bottomleffe vessell although it keepe no licour
our Lordes body to proue the presence of Christes body there who compareth such an offender to the Iewes that did shed Christes bloud maliciously as those do prophane it vnprofitably in which sense the Grke commentaries do also expound it And where this author bringeth in the wordes of S. Paule as it were to poynt out the matter Let a man examine him selfe and so eate of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth vnworthely c. these wordes of examining and so eatyng declare the thing to be ordered to be eaten and all the care to be vsed on our side to eate worthely or els S. Paule had not sayd and so eat And when S. Paule sayth Eate iudgement and this Author well remember him selfe he must call Iudgement the effect of that is eaten and not the thing eaten for iudgment is neyther spirituall meat nor corporall but the effect of the eating of Christ in euyll men who is saluation to good and iudgement to euell And therfore as good men eating Christ haue saluation so euill men eating Christ haue condemnation and so for the diuersite of the eaters of Christes body followeth as they be worthy and vnworthy the effect of condemnation or lyfe Christes sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that sacrament bring alwayes one And what so euer this author talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles Caunterbury AS touching myne aunswere here to the wordes of S. Paule you would fayne haue them hid with darkenesse of speach that no man should see what I meane For as Christ sayd Qui male agit odit lucem and therfore that which I haue spoken in playne speach you darken so with your obscure termes that my meaning can not be vnderstand For I speake in such playne termes as all men vnderstand that when S. Paule sayd he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh his owne damnation in that place he spake of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not of the corporall eating and drincking of Christes flesh and bloud These my playne wordes you do wrape vp in these darke termes that I would distinct the vnworthy eating in the substaunce of the Sacrament receaued Which your wordes vary so farre from myne that no man can vnderstand by them my meaning except you put a large comment therto For I distinct the vnworthy eating none otherwise then that I say that when S. Paule speaketh of vnworthy eating he maketh mencion of the vnworthy eating of the bread and not of the body of Christ. And where you aske me this question why it should be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when it is not there at all There is in my booke a full and playne answere vnto your question alredy made as there is also to your whole booke So that in making of my booke I did foresee all things that you could obiect agaynst it In so much that here is not one thing in all your book but I can shew you a sufficient answer therto in one place or other of my former booke And in this your question here moued I referre the reader to the wordes of my booke in the same place And where you say that if the bread be but a figure it is lyke Manna as concerning the materiall bread truely it is like Manna but as concerning Christ him selfe he sayd of him selfe Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer And as concerning Erasmus and the greke commentaries neyther of them sayth vppon the place of S. Paule as you alleage them to say And what soeuer it pleaseth you to gather of these wordes examining and so eating yet S. Paules wordes be very playne that he spake not of the eating of the very body of Christ but of the eating of the materiall bread in the sacrament which is all one whether the good or euyll eate of it And all the care is on our syde to take heede that we eate not that bread vnworthely For as the eating of the bread vnworthely not of Christ him selfe who can not be eaten vnworthely hath the effect of iudgemēt and damnacion so eating of the same bread worthely hath the effect of Christes death and saluation And as he that eateth the bread worthely may be well sayd to eate Christ and life So he that eateth it vnworthely may be sayd to eate the diuell and death as Iudas did into whom with the bread entred Satan For vnto such it may be called mensa daemoni orum non mensa Domini not Gods bourd but the diuels And so in the eaters of the bread worthely or vnworthely followeth the effect of euerlasting lyfe or euerlasting death But in the eating of Christ himselfe is no diuersite but whosoeuer eateth him hath euerlasting lyfe For asmuch as the eating of him can be to none dampnation but saluation because he is lyfe it selfe And what so euer you bable to the contrary is but meare fables deuised without goddes word or any sufficient ground Now foloweth myne aunswer vnto such authors as the Papistes wrast to theyr purpose But here may not be passed ouer the answer vnto certayne places of auncient authors which at the first shew seeme to make for the Papistes purpose that euill men do eate and drincke the very flesh and bloud of Christ. But if those places be truely and throughely wayed it shall appeare that not one of them maketh for theyr errour that euill men do eat Christes very body The first place is of S. Augustine Contra Cresconium Grammaticum where he sayth that although Christ him selfe say He that eateth not my flesh and drinketh not my bloud shall not haue life in him yet doth not his Apostels teach that the same is pernicious to them which vse it not well for he sayth Whosoeuer eateth the bread and drincketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. In which wordes S. Augustine semeth to conclude that aswel the euill as the good doe eate the body and bloud of Christ although the euill haue no benefite but hurt therby But consider the place of S. Augustine diligently and then it shall euidently appeare that he ment not of the eating of Christes body but of the Sacrament therof For the intēt of S. Augustine there is to proue that good thinges auayle not to such persons as do euill vse them and that many thinges which of them selues be good and be good to some yet to other some they be not good As that light is good for whole eyes and hurteth sore eyes that meate which is good for some is euill for other some One medecine healeth some and maketh other sicke One harnes doth arme one and combreth another one coate is meete for one and to straight for an other And after other examples
wherin it entreth with the visible element and yet as S. Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth bycause the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receaueth by such a maner of eating as wicked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effect to ensue of the diuersitie of the eating and not of any diuersitie of that which is eaten whether the good man or euill man receaue the sacrament If I would here encombre the reader I could bring forth many mo places of S. Augustine to the confusion and reprofe of this Authors purpose and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me that I way not S. Augustine I thinke good to alleadge and bring forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touching S. Augustine who vnderstandeth S. Augustine clere contrary to this author as may playnly appeare by that the sayd Bucer writeth in few wordes in his epistle dedicatory of the great worke he sent abroad of his enarrarations of the gospelles where his iudgement of S. Augustine in this poynt he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem domini sumsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse The sense in English is this How often writeth he speaking of S. Augustine Iudas also to haue receaued the selfe body and bloud of our Lord No man thefore by the authoritie of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue before alleadged him and gathereth therof a conclusion that no man can by the fathers sayinges proue Christ to be absent in the holy supper And therfore by Bucers iudgement the doctrine of this Author can be in no wise catholique as dissenting from that hath ben before taught and beleued whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world and by me here alleadged I cannot tell and whether he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hath taught in his latter iudgement with a great protestation that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth wherin because he semed to dissent from his frendes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes haue an imitation of an elder saying and be thus much to say Socrates is my frend truth is my best beloued and the church most regarded And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament after he knew al that Zuinglius Decolampadius could say in the matter And here I will leaue to speake of Bucer and bring forth Theodoretus a man most extolled by this author who sayth playnly in his commentaries vpon S. Paule how Christ deliuered to Iudas his precious body and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrament to be the truth So as this author can haue no foundatiō vpon eyther to maintayne his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke which his wordes playnly impugn S. Hierom in his commentaries vpon the prophet Malachie hath first this sentence Polluimus panem id est corpus Christi quando indigne accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we com vnworthy to the aulter and being filthy drincke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth men filthy drincke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same S. Hierom sayth Polluit Christi misteria indigne accipiens Corpus eius sanguinem He that vnworthely receaueth the body and bloud of Christ defileth the misteries Can any wordes be more manifest and euident to declare S. Hieroms mind how in the visible sacrament men receaue vnworthely which be euell men the body and bloud of Christ Caunterbury IN this poynt I will ioyne a playne issue with you that I neyther willingly goe about to deceaue the reader in the serching of S. Augustine as you vse to do in euery place nor I haue not trusted my man or frende herein as it semeth you haue done ouermuch but I haue diligently expended and wayed the matter my selfe For although in such waightie matters of scripture and aunciēt authors you must nedes trust your men without whom I know you can doe very litle being brought vp from your tender age in other kindes of study yet I hauing exercised my selfe in the study of scripture and diuinitye from my youth wherof I geue most harty laudes and thankes to God haue learned now to goe alone and do examine iudge and write all such waighty matters my selfe although I thanke God I am neyther so arrogant nor so wilfull that I will refuse the good aduise counsailie and admonition of any man be he man or master frende or foe But as concerning the place alleadged by you out of S. Augustine let the reader diligently expend myne whole aunswer to S. Augustine and he shall I trust be fully satisfied For S. Augustine in his booke De baptismo contra Donatistas as I haue declared in my booke speaketh of the morsell of bread and sacrament which Iudas also dyd eate as S. Augustine sayth And in this speach he considered as he writeth Contra Maximinū not what it is but what it signifieth and therfore he expresseth the matter by Iudas more playnly in an other place saying that he did eate the bread of the Lord not the bread being the Lord as the other Apostles dyd signifying therby that the euell eate the bread but not the Lord himselfe As S. Paule sayth that they eate and drincke Panem calicem Domini the bread and the cup of the Lord and not that they eate the Lord himselfe And S. Augustine sayth not as you faine of him that the substaunce of this sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ but the substaunce of this sacrament is bread and wine as water is in the sacramēt of Baptisme and the same be all one not altered by the vnworthines of the receauors And although S. Augustine in the wordes by you recited call the sacrament of Christes body and bloud his body and bloud yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament therof and yet is it called the body and bloud of Christ as sacraments haue the names of the thinges wherof they be sacraments as the same S. Augustine teacheth most playnly ad Bonifacium And I haue not so far ouershot my selfe or bene ouersene that I would haue atempted to publish this matter if I had not before hand excussed the whole truth therin from the botome But bicause I my selfe am certayne of the truth which hath bene hid these many yeares and persecuted by the Papistes with fyer and fagot and should be so yet still if you might haue your owne will and bicause also I am desirous that all my contrey men of England vnto whome I haue no smale cure and charge to
tell the truth should no longer be kept from the same truth therfore haue I published the truth which I know in the English tongue to the entent that I may edefy all by that tongue which all do perfectly know and vnderstand Which my doing it semeth you take in very euell part and be not a litle greued therat bycause you would rather haue the light of truth hid still vnder the bushell then openlye to be set abroad that all men may see it And I thinke that it so little greueth M. Peter Martyre that his booke is in english that he would wish it to be traÌ„slated likewise into all other languages Now where you gather of the wordes of S. Augustine De verbis Domini that both the euill and good eat one body of Christ the selfesame in substance excluding all difference that deuise of fygure might imagine to this I aunswere that although you expresse the bodye of Christ with what tearmes you can deuise calling it as you do in deed the flesh that was borne of the virgine Mary the same flesh the flesh it selfe yet I confesse that it is eaten in the sacrament And to expresse it yet more playnely then paraduenture you would haue me I say that the same visible palpable flesh that was for vs crucified and appeared after his resurrection and was seene felt and groped and ascended into heauen and there sitteth at his fathers right hand and at the last day shall come to iudge the quick the dead that selfe same body hauing all the partes of a mans body in good order and proportion and being visible and tangible I say is eaten of christen people at his holy supper what will you now require more of me concerning the truth of the body I suppose you be sory that I graunt you so much and yet what doth this helpe you For the diuersitie is not in the body but in the eating therof no man eating it carnally but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually and the euill onely sacramentally that is to say figuratiuely And therfore hath S. Augustine these wordes Certo quodam modo after a certayne manner bicause that the euill eate the sacrament which after a certayne manner is called the very body of Christ which maner S. Augustine himselfe declareth most truely and playnly in a pistle ad Bonifacium saying If sacramentes had not some similitude or likenes of those thinges wherof they be sacraments they could in no wise be sacramentes And for theyr similitude and likenes they haue commonly the name of the thinges wherof they be sacraments Therfore after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is Christes body the sacrament of Christes bloud is Christes bloud This epistle is set out in my booke the 64. leafe which I pray the reader to looke vpon for a more full answer vnto this place And after that maner Iudas and such like did eat the morsell of the lordes bread but not the bread that is the Lord but a sacrament therof which is called the Lord as S. Augustine sayth So that with the bread entred not Christ with his spirit into Iudas as you say he doth into the wicked but Sathan entred into him as the gospell testifieth And if Christ entred than into Iudas with the bread as you write then the deuill and Christ entred into Iudas both at once As concerning M. Bucer what meane you to vse his authoritie whose authoritie you neuer estemed heretofore And yet Bucer varieth much from your errour for he denieth vtterly that Christ is really and substancially present in the bread either by conuersion or inclusion but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present and so do I also but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the deuill whome Christ neyther fedeth nor hath any communioÌ„ with them And to conclude in few wordes the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by you alleadged he diâ—â—enteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zuinglius Wherfore it semeth to me somwhat strange that you should alleadge him for the confirmation of your vntrue doctrine being so clerely repugnant vnto his doctrine The wordes of Theodoretus if they were his be so far from your report that you be ashamed to reherse his wordes as they be writteÌ„ which when you shall do you shall be answered But in his dialogs he declareth in playne termes not onely the figuratiue speach of Christ in this matter but also wherfore Christ vsed those figuratiue speaches as the reader may find in my booke the 67 68. 69. and 70. leaues By which maner of speach it may be sayd that Christ deliuered to Iudas his body and bloud when he deliuered it him in a figure therof And as concerning S. Hierome he calleth the misteries or misticall bread and wine Christes flesh and bloud as Christ called them him selfe and the eating of them he calleth the eating of Christes flesh and bloud bicause they be sacraments and figures which represent vnto vs his very flesh and bloud And all that do eate the sayd sacraments be sayd to eate the body of Christ bicause they eate the thing which is a representacion therof But S. Hierom ment not that euell men do indede eate the very body of Christ for then he would not haue written vpon Esaie Hieremie and Osee the contrary saying that heretikes and euill men neither eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which whosoeuer eateth and drincketh hath euerlasting lyfe Non comedunt carnem Iesu sayth he vpon Esai neque bibunt sanguinem eius de quo ipse loquitur Qui comedit carnem meam bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aternam And yet he that cometh defiled vnto the visible sacraments defileth not onely the sacraments but the contumely therof pertayneth also vnto Christ him selfe who is the author of the sacraments And as the same S. Hierom sayth Dum sacramenta violantur ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur When the sacramentes sayth he be violated then is he violated also to whom the sacraments apertayne Now heare what followeth in the order of my booke And as before is at length declared a figure hath the name of the thing that is signified therby As a mans image is called a man a Lyons image a Lion a byrdes image a byrd and an image of a tree and herbe is called a tree or herbe So were we wont to say Our lady of Walsingham Our Lady of Ipswich Our Lady of Grace Our Lady of pity S. Peter of Millan S. Ihon of Amyas and such like not meaning the things them selues but calling their images by the name of the things by them represented And likewise we were wont to say Great S. Christopher of Yorke or Lyncoln Our Lady smileth or rocketh her child Let vs goe in pylgrimage to S. Peter at Rome and S. Iames in Compostella And a thousand
like speaches which were not vnderstande of the very things but only of the images of them So doth S. Ihon Chrisostom say that we see Christ with our eyes touch hym feele him and grope him with our handes fixe our teeth in his flesh taste it breake it eate it and digest it make redde our tongues and dye them with his bloud and swallow it and drincke it And in a Catechisme by me translated and set forth I vsed like maner of speach saying that with our bodily mouthes we receaue the body and bloud of Christ. Which my saying diuers ignorant persons not vsed to reade olde auncient authors nor acquanted with theyr phraâ—â— and manner of speach dyd carpe and reprehend for lacke of good vnderstanding For this speach and other before rehersed of Chrisostom and all other like be not vnderstaÌ„d of the very flesh and bloud of our sauiour Christ which in very deede we neither feele nor see but that which we doe to the bread and wine by a figuratiue speach is spoken to be done to the flesh and bloud bicause they be the very signes figures and tokens instituted of Christ to represent vnto vs his very flesh and bloud And yet as with our corporall eyes corporall handes and mouthes we do corporally see feele tast and eate the bread and drincke the wine being the signe and sacrameÌ„ts of Christes body euen so with our spirituall eyes handes and mouthes we do spiritually see feele taste and eate his very flesh and drincke his very bloud As Eusebus Emissenus sayth Whan thou comest to the reuerend aulter to be filled with spiritual meates with thy fayth looke vpoÌ„ the body bloud of him that is thy God honor him touch him with thy mynd take him with the hand of thy hart and drincke him with the draught of thine inward man And these spirituall thinges require no corporall presence of Christ himselfe who sitteth continually in heauen at the right hand of his Father And as this is most true so is it full and sufficient to answere all thinges that the Papistes can bring in this matter that hath any apparaÌ„ce for their partie Winchester And yet these playne places of authority dissembled of purpose or by ignoraunce passed ouer this author as though all thinges were by him clerely discussed to his entent would by many conceptes furnish and further his matters and therfore playeth with our Ladyes smiling rocking her Child and many good mowes so vnsemely for his person as it maketh me almost forget him and my selfe also But with such matter he filleth his leaues and forgetting him selfe maketh mention of the Catechisme by him translate the originall wherof confuteth these two partes of this booke in few wordes being Printed in Germany wherin besides the matter written is set forth in picture the manner of the minestring of this sacrament where is the aulter with candle light set forth the priest apparaled after the old sort and the man to receaue kneling bare-head and holding vp his handes whiles the priest ministreth the host to his mouth a matter as cleare contrary to the matter of this Booke as is light and darkenesse which now this Author would colour with speaches of authors in a boke written to instruct rude children which is as sclender an excuse as euer was heard and none at all when the originall is loked one Emissene to stire vp mens deuotion comming to receaue this sacrament requireth the roote and foundation therof in the mynd of man as it ought to be and therfore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with the hand of the hart and drincke with the draught of the inward man which men needes do that will worthely repayre to this feast And as Emissen speaketh these deuout wordes of the inward office of the receiuer so doth he in declaration of the mistery shew how the inuisible priest with his secret power by his word doth conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud wherof I haue before intreated The author vpon these wordes deuoutly spoken by Emissen sayth there is required no corporall precense of Christes precious body in the sacrament continuing in his ignorance what the woord Corporall meaneth But to speake of Emissene if by his fayth the very body and bloud of Christ were not present vpon the aultar why doth he call it a reuerend aultar Why to be fed there with spirituall meat and why should fayth be required to looke vpon the body bloud of Christ that is not there on the aultar but as this Author teacheth onely in heauen And why should he that cometh to be fedde honor these misteries there And why should Emissene allude to the hand of the hart and draught of the inward man if the hand of the body and draught of the outward man had none office there All this were vaine eloquence and a mere abuse and illusion if the sacramental tokens were only a figure And if there were no presence but in figure why should not Emissen rather haue followed the playne speach of the angell to the women that sought Christ Iesum queritis non est hic Ye seeke Iesus he is not here and say as this author doeth this is onely a figure do no worship here goe vp to heauen and downe with the aulter for feare of illusion which Emissen did not but called it a reuerend alter and inuiteth him that should receiue to honour that foode with such good wordes as before so far discrepant from this authors teaching as may be yet froÌ„ him he taketh occasioÌ„ to speake agaynst adoratioÌ„ Caunterbury HErefor lacke of good matter to answere you fall agayne to your accustomed maner tryfling away the matter with mocking and mowing But if you thought your doctrine good and myne erronious and had a zeale to the truth and to quiet mens conciences you should haue made a substanciall and learned answere vnto my wordes For daliyng and playing scoulding and mowing make no quietnes in mens consciences And all men that know your conditions know right well that if you had good matter to answere you would not haue hid it and passed ouer the matter with such trifles as you vse in this place And S. Ihon Chrisostom you scip ouer eyther as you saw him not or as you cared not how sclenderly you left the matter And as coÌ„cerning the Catechisme I haue sufficiently answered in my former booke But in this place may apeare to them that haue any iudgement what pithy arguments you make and what dexteritie you haue in gathering of authors myndes that would gather my mynd and make an argument here of a picture neyther put in my booke nor by me deuised but inuented by some fond paynter or caruer which paynt and graue whatsoeuer theyr idle heades can fansy You should rather haue gathered your argument vpon the other side that I mislike the matter bycause I left out of my booke the
picture that was in the originall before And I meruayle you be not ashamed to alleadge so vayne a matter agaynst me which in dede is not in my booke and if it were yet were it nothing to the purpose And in that Catechisme I teach not as you do that the body and bloud of Christ is conteined in the sacrament being reserued but that in the ministration therof we receaue the body and bloud of Christ whervnto if it may please you to adde or vnderstand this word spiritually thē is the doctrine of my Catechisme sound and good in all mens eares which know the true doctrine of the sacraments As for Emissen you agree here with me that he speaketh not of any receauing of Christes body and bloud with our mouthes but only with our hartes And where you say that you haue entreated before how the inuisible priest with his secret power doth conuert the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud I haue in that same place made answere to those wordes of Emissene but most playnly of all in my former booke the xxv leafe And Emissene sayth not that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament and therof you be not ignoraunt although you doe pretend the contrary which is somewhat worse then ignoraunce And what this word corporall meaneth I am not ignorant Mary what you meane by corporall I know not and the opening therof shall discusse the whole matter Tell therfore playnly without dissimulation or colored wordes what manner of body it is that Christ hath in the Sacrament Whether it be a very and perfect mans body with all the members therof distinct one from an other or no For that vnderstand I to be a mans corporall body that hath all such partes without which may be a body but no perfect mans body So that the lacke of a finger maketh a lacke in the perfection of a mans body Mary if you will make Christ such a body as bread and cheese is wherin euery part is bread and cheese without forme and distinction of one part from an other I confesse myne ignoraunce that I know no such body to be a mans body Now haue I shewed myne ignoraunce declare now your wit and learning For sure I am that Christ hath all those partes in heauen and if he lacke them in the Sacramēt then lacketh he not a litle of his perfectiō And then it can not be one body that hath partes and hath no partes And as concerning the wordes of Emissen calling the aulter I reuerend aulter those wordes proue no more the reall presence of Christ in the aulter then the calling of the font of Baptisme A reuerend font or the calling of mariage Reuerend Matrimony should conclude that Christ were corporally present in the water of Baptisme or in the celebratiō of matrimony And yet is not Christ clearly absent in the godly administration of his holy supper nor present onely in a figure as euer you vntruely report me to say but by his omnipotent power he is effectually present by spirituall nourishment and feeding as in Baptisme he is likewise present by spirituall renuing and regenerating Therfore where you would proue the corporall presence of Christ by the reuerence that is to be vsed at the aulter as Emissene teacheth with no lesse reuerence ought he that is baptised to come to the font then he that receaueth the Cōmunion commeth to the aulter And yet is that no profe that Christ is corporally in the font And what so euer you haue here sayd of the comming to the aulter the like may be sayd of comming to the font For although Christ be not corporally there yet as S. Hierome sayth if the Sacraments be violated then is he violated whose Sacramētes they be Now followeth after in my booke the maner of adoration in the Sacranent Now it is requisite to speake some thing of the maner and forme of worshipping of Christ by them that receaue this sacramēt least that in the stede of Christ himselfe be worshipped the sacrament For as his humanity ioyned to his diuinity and exalted to the right hand of his father is to be worshipped of all creatures in heauen earth and vnder the earth euen so if in the stead therof we worship the signes and sacraments we commit as great idolatry as euer was or shall to the worldes ende And yet haue the very Antichristes the subtilest enemyes that Christ hath by theyr fine inuentions and crafty scolasticall diuinity deluded many simple soules and brought them to this horrible idolatry to worship thinges visible and made with theyr owne handes perswading them that creatures were their Creatour theyr God and theyr maker For els what made the people to runne from theyr seates to the aulter and from aulter to aulter and from sakering as they called it to sakering peeping tooting and gasing at that thing which the priest held vp in his handes if they thought not to honor that thing which they saw What moued the priestes to lift vp the sacrament so hye ouer theyr heades or the people to cry to the priest Hold vp hold vp and one man to say to an other Stoupe downe before or to say This day haue I seene my maker And I cannot be quiet except I see my maker once a day What was the cause of all these and that as well the priest as the people so deuoutly did knocke and kneele at euery sight of the sacrament but that they worshiped that visible thing which they saw with theyr eyes and tooke it for very God For if they worshiped in spirit onely Christ sitting in heauen with his father what neded they to remoue out of theyr seates to toote and gase as the Apostles did after Christ when he was gone vp into heauē If they worshiped nothing that they sawe why did they rise vp to see Doubtlesse many of the simple people worshiped that thing which they saw with theyr eyes And although the subtill Papistes do colour and cloke the matter neuer so finely saying that they worship not the sacraments which they see with theyr eyes but that thing which they beleue with their fayth to be really and corporally in the sacraments yet why do they then runne from place to place to gase at the things which they see if they worship them not giuing therby occasion to them that be ignorant to worship that which they see Why doe they not rather quietly sit still in their seates and moue the people to do the like worshiping God in hart and in spirite than to gadde about from place to place to see that thing which they confesse them selues is not to be worshipped And yet to eschew one inconuenience that is to say the worshipping of the sacrament they fall into an other as euell and worship nothing there at all For they worship that thing as they say which is really and corporally and yet inuisibly
present vnder the kindes of bread and wine which as before is expressed and proued is vtterly nothing And so they geue vnto the ignorant occasion to worship bread and wine and they them selues worship nothing there at all Winchester As touching the adoration of Christes flesh in the sacrament which adoration is a true confession of the whole man soule and body if there be oportunity of the truth of God in his worke is in my iudgement well set forth in the booke of Common prayer where the priest is ordered to knele and make a prayer in his owne and the name of all that shall communicate confessing therin that is prepared there at which tyme neuerthelesse that is not adored that the bodely eye séeth but that which fayth knoweth to be there inuisibly present which and there be nothing as this author now teacheth it were not well I will not aunswere this authors eloquence but his matter where it might hurt Caunterbury WHere as I haue shewed what idolatry was cōmitted by meanes of the Papisticall doctrine concerning adoration of the sacrament bicause that answere to my reasons you can not and confesse the truth you will not therfore you runne to your vsuall shift passing it ouer with a toy and scoffe saying that you will not answere myne eloquence but the matter and yet indede you answere neither of both but vnder pretence of myne eloquēce you shift of the matter also And yet other eloquence I vsed not but the accustomed speach of the homely people as such a matter requireth And where you say that it were not well to worship Christ in the Sacrament if nothing be there as you say I teach if you meane that Christ can not be worshipped but where he is corporally present as you must nedes meane if your reason should be to purpose then it followeth of your saying that we may not worship Christ in Baptisme in the fieldes in priuate houses nor in no place els where Christ is not corporally and naturally present But the true teaching of the holy catholike churche is that although Christ as concerning his corporall presence be continually resident in heauen yet he is to be worshiped not onely there but here in earth also of all faythfull people at all tymes in all places and in all theyr workes Heare now what followeth further in my Booke But the Papistes for theyr owne commodity to keepe the people still in idolatry do often alleadge a certayne place of S. Augustine vpon the Psalmes where he sayth that no man doth eate the flesh of Christ except he first worship it and that we do not offend in worshipping therof but we should offend if we should not worship it That is true which S. Augustine sayth in this place For who is he that professeth Christ and spiritually fedde and nourished with his flesh and bloud but he will honor and worship him sitting at the right hand of his father and render vnto him from the botome of his hart all laud prayse and thankes for his mercifull redemption And as this is most true which S. Augustine sayth so is that most false which the Papistes would perswade vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacramentall bread and wine or any visible thing is to be worshipped in the Sacrament For S. Augustines mynd was so farre from any such thought that he forbiddeth vtterly to worship Christes owne flesh and bloud alone but in consideration and as they be annexed and ioyned to his diuinity How much lesse then could he thinke or allow that we should worship the Sacramentall bread and wine or any outward or visible Sacrament which be shadowes figures and representations of Christes flesh and bloud And S. Augustine was afrayd least in worshiping Christes very body we should offend therfore he biddeth vs when we worship Christ that we should not tarry and fixe our myndes vpon his flesh which of it self auayleth nothing but that we should lift vp our myndes from the flesh to the spirite which geueth lyfe and yet the Papistes be not afrayd by crafty meanes to induce vs to worship those thinges which be signes and sacraments of Christes body But what will not the shamelesse Papistes alleadge for theyr purpose when they be not ashamed to mayntayne the adoration of the Sacrament by these wordes of S. Augustine Wherin he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament but onely of Christ him selfe And although he say that Christ gaue his flesh to be eaten of vs yet he ment not that his flesh is here corporally present and corporally eaten but onely spiritually As his word declare playnly which follow in the same place where S. Augustine as it were in the person of Christ speaketh these wordes It is the spirite that giueth lyfe but the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken vnto you be spirite and life That which I haue spoken vnderstand you spiritually You shall not eate this body which you see and drincke that bloud which they shall shed that shall crucify me I haue commended vnto you a sacramēt vnderstand it spiritually and it shall geue you lyfe And although it must be visibly ministred yet it must be inuisibly vnderstand These wordes of S. Augustine with the other before recited do expresse his mynd playnly that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten than spiritually which spirituall eating requireth no corporal presence and that he entended not to teach here any adoration eyther of the visible sacramentes or of any thing that is corporally in them For in dede there is nothing really and corporally in the bread to be worshipped although the Papistes say that Christ is in euery consecrated bread Winchester As in the wrong report of S Augustine who speaking of the adoration of Christes flesh geuen to be eaten doth so fashion his speach as it can not with any violence be drawen to such an vnderstanding as though S. Augustine should meane of the adoring of Christes flesh in heauen as this author would haue it S. Augustine speaketh of the giuing of Christes flesh to vs to eate and declareth after that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament which must be inuisibly vnderstanded spiritually not as the Capernaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cut in peces and therfore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christes body after the manner he walked here nor drincke his bloud as it was shedde vpon the Crosse but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of godes worke supernaturall aboue mans vnderstanding and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall geue life which life carnall vnderstanding must nedes exclude And by these my wordes I thincke I declare truely S. Augustines meaning of the truth of this sacrament wherin Christ giueth truly his flesh to be eaten the flesh he spake of before taken of the virgine For the spirituall vnderstanding that S. Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truth of
Gods worke in the sacrament but to exclude carnall imagination from musing of the manner of the worke which is in mistery such as a carnall man can not comprehend In which matter if S. Augustine had had such a fayth of the visible sacrament as the author sayth him selfe hath now of late and calleth it catholicke S. Augustine would haue vttered it as an expositor playnly in this place and sayd there is but a figure of Christes body Christes body and flesh is in heauen and not in this visible sacrament Christes speach that was estemed so hard was but a figuratiue speach And where Christ sayd This is my body he ment onely of the figure of his body which manner of saying S. Augustine vseth not in this place and yet he could speake playnly and so doth he declaring vs first the truth of the flesh that Christ geueth to be eaten that is to say the same flesh that he tooke of the virgine And yet bicause Christ giueth it not in a visible manner nor such a maner as the Capernaites thought on nor such a maner as any carnall man can conceaue being also the flesh in the sacrament giuen not a common flesh but a liuely godly and spirituall flesh Therfore S. Augustine vseth wordes and speach wherby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ which we did see and of the bloud that was shed so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen and the same not to be giuen the mistery should be thus farre opened that for the truth of the thing giuen it is the same and touching the manner of the giuing and the quality of the flesh giuen it is not the same And bicause it is the same S. Augustine sayth before we must worship it and yet bicause it is now an hidden godly mistery we may not haue carnall imaginations of the same but godly spiritually and inuisibly vnderstand it Caunterbury AS concerning the wordes of S. Augustine which you say I do wrong report let euery indeferēt reader iudge who maketh a wrong report of S. Augustine you or I. For I haue reported his wordes as they be and so haue not you For S. Augustine sayth not that Christes body is eaten in the visible sacrament as you report but that Christ hath giuen vs a sacrament of the eating of his body which must be vnderstand inuisibly and spiritually as you say truly in that poynt But to the spirituall eating is not required any locall or corporall presence in the sacrament nor S. Augustine sayth not so as you in that poynt vniustly report him And although the worke of God in his sacraments be effectuall and true yet the working of God in the sacraments is not his working by grace in the water bread and wine but in them that duely receaue the same which worke is such as no carnall man can comprehend And where you say that if S. Augustine had ment as I do he would in this place haue declared a figure and haue sayd that here is but a figure and we eate onely a figure but Christ himselfe is gone vp into heauen and is not here it is to much arrogancy of you to appoynt S. Augustin his wordes what he should say in this place as you would lead an hound in a line where you list or draw a beare to the stake And here still you cease not vntruly to report me For I say not that in the Lordes supper is but a figure or that Christ is eaten only figuratiuely but I say that there is a figure and figuratiue eating And doth not S. Augustine sufficiently declare a figure in Christes wordes when he sayth that they must be vnderstād spiritually And what man can deuise to expresse more playnly both that in Christes speach is a figure and that his body is not corporally present and corporally eaten then S. Augustine doth in a thousand places but specially in his epistle ad Bonifacium ad Dardanum ad Ianuarium De doctrina Christiana De catechisandis rudibus in quest super leuit De ciuitate Dei Contra Adamatium contra aduersarium legis prophetarum In epistolam Euangelium Iohannis In sermone ad infantes De verbis apostoli The flesh of Christ is a true flesh and was borne of a woman dyed rose agayne ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father but yet is he eaten of vs spiritually and in the maner of the eating there is the mistery and secret and yet the true worke of God And where you vnderstand the inuisible mistery which S. Augustin speaketh of to be in the diuersity of the body of Christ seene or not seene you be farre deceaued For S. Augustine speaketh of the mistery that is in the eating of the body and not in the diuersity of the body which in substaūce is euer one without diuersity The meaning therfore of S. Augustine was this that when Christ sayd Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in you he ment of spirituall and not carnall eating of his body For if he had entended to haue described the diuersity of the maner of Christes body visible and inuisible he would not haue sayd this body which you see but this body in such maner as you see it or in such like termes you shall not eate But to eate Christes flesh sayth S. Augustine is fructifully to remember that the same flesh was crucified for vs. And this is spiritually to eate his flesh and drincke his bloud Winchester And bicause S. Hierome who was of S. Augustines tyme writeth in his commentaries vpon S. Paule ad Ephesios that may serue for the better opening hereof I will write it in here The wordes be these The bloud and flesh of Christ is two wayes vnderstanded either the spirituall and godly of which him selfe sayd My flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drincke And vnles ye eate my flesh drincke my bloud ye shall not haue euerlasting lyfe Or the flesh which was crucified and the bloud which was shed with the spere According to this diuision the diuersity of flesh and bloud is taken in Christes sayntes that there is one flesh that shall see the saluation of God an other flesh and bloud that cannot possese the kingdome of heauen There be S. Hieromes wordes In which thou reader seest a deniall of that flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten that was crucified but the flesh geuen to be eaten to be a godly and spirituall flesh and a distinction made betwen them as is in our flesh of which it may be sayd that the flesh we walke in here shall not see God that is to say as it is corruptible according to the text of S. Paule flesh and bloud shall not possesse heauen and yet we must beleue and hope with Iobe truly that the same our flesh shall see God
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
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
the matter of the clay remayned in Adam and yet the materiall clay remayned not for it was altered into an other substance which I speake not to compare equally the forming of Adam to the Sacrament but to shew it not to be all one to say the materiall bread and the matter of bread For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread but not the materiall bread as I haue sumwhat spoken therof before but such shiftes be vsed in this matter notwithstanding the importunance of it Caunterbury WHat should I tarry much in Origene seeing that you confesse that he sayth the matter of bread remayneth and Origene sayth that the meate which is sanctified iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit that is to say as concerning the materiall parte therof goeth into the belly So that by Origens teaching both the bread and the materiall part of bread remayne So that your example of cley releueth you nothing in this your aunswer vnto Origene But when you see that this shift will not serue then you flie to an other and say that the accidentes of bread be called the matter of bread which is so shamefull a shift as all that haue any manner of knowledge may playnly see your manifest impudency But many such shiftes you vse in this matter not withstanding the importaunce of it Now let vs come to Ciprian of whome I write in this manner After Origene came Ciprian the holy martir about the yeare of our Lord 250. who writeth agaynst them that ministred this Sacrament with water onely and without wine For as much sayth he as Christ sayd I am a true vine therfore the bloud of Christ is not water but wine nor it can not be thought that his bloud wherby we be redemed and haue life is in the cup when wine is not in the cup wherby the bloud of Christ is shewed What wordes could Ciprian haue spoken more playnly to shew that the wine doth remayne than to say thus If there be no wine there is no bloud of Christ And yet he speaketh shortly after as playnly in the same Epistle Christ sayth he taking the cup blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saying Drincke you all of this for this is the bloud of the newe testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes I say vnto you that from hence forth I will not drincke of this creature of the vine vntil I shal drincke with you newe wine in the kingdome of my father By these wordes of Christ sayth S. Ciprian we perceaue that the cuppe which the Lord offered was not onely water but also wine And that it was wine that Christ called his bloud wherby it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wine in the Chalice And after it followeth How shal we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine In these wordes of S. Ciprian appeareth most manifestly that in this sacrament is not onely offered very wine that is made of grapes that come of the vine but also that we drincke the same And yet the same giueth vs to vnderstand that if we drincke that wine worthely we drincke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ which was shed for our sinnes Winchester S. Ciprians wordes do not impugne Transubstantiation for they tend onely to shew that wine is the creature appoynted to the celebration of this mistery and therfore water onely is no due matter according to Christes institution And as the name wine must be vsed before the consecration to shew the truth of it then so it may also be vsed for a name of it after to shew what it was which is often vsed And in one place of Ciprian by this author here alleadged it appeareth S. Ciprian by the word wine signifieth the heauenly wine of the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaâ—th calling it new wine and alluding therin to Dauid And this doth Cyprian shew in these wordes How shall we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice to God the father and Christ we do not offer wine Is not here mention of new wine of the creature of the vine what new wine can be but the bloud of Christ the very wine consecrate by Gods omnipotency of the creature of the vine offered And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Ciprian that as he vseth the word wine to signifie the heauenly drincke of the bloud of Christ made by consecration of the creature of wine so when he nameth the bread consecrate bread he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ who is the bread of life And so Ciprian can make nothing by those wordes agaynst Transubstantiation who writeth playnly of the change of the bread by Gods omnipotency into the flesh of Christ as shall after appeare where this author goeth about to answere to him Caunterbury CIprians wordes tend not onely to shew that wine is the creature appoynted to the celebration of the mistery but that it is also there present and dronken in the mistery For these be his wordes It cannot be thought that Christes bloud is in the cup when wine is not in the cup wherby the bloud of Christ is shewed And agayne he sayth It was wine that Christ called his bloud and that it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wine in the chalice And further he sayth How shall we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine In these wordes Ciprian sayth not that Christ is the wine which we drincke but that with Christ we drincke wine that commeth of the vine tree and that Christes bloud is not there wheÌ„ wine is not there And where is now your Transubstantiation that taketh away the wine For take away the wine and take away by Ciprians mind the blood of Christ also But least any man should stomble at Ciprians wordes where he seemeth to say that the bloud of Christ should be really in the cup he sayth nor meaneth no such thing but that it is there sacramentally or figuratiuely And his meaning needeth none other gathering but of his owne wordes that follow next after in the same sentence that by the wine the bloud of Christ is shewed And shortly after he sayth that the cup which the Lord offered was wine and that it was wine that Christ called his bloud Now come we to Emissen your principall stay in whome is your chiefe glory Of him thus I write Eusebius Emissenus a man of singuler fame in learning about CCC yeares after Christes ascention did in few wordes set out this matter so playnly both how the bread and wine be conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ and yet
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
so the Sacrament consisteth of to natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament These be this authors owne wordes who trauayling to confound Transubstantiation confoundeth euidently himselfe by his owne wordes touching the reall present For he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ must remayne in the sacrament and as truely as the natures of the manhod and Godhead were in Christ for therupon he argueth And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures the manhode or the godhead were but figuratiuely in Christ which and he do then may be the better say for the agrement of his doctrine The nature of the body and bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the Sacrament And if he say as he must nedes say that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament and therby call backe all that he hath written agaynst the real presence of Christes body in the sacrament and abandon his deuise of a presence by significatiō which is in truth a playne absēce as himselfe also speaketh openly which open speach can not stand and is improued by this open speach of his owne Likewise where he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the Sacrament the word remayne being of such signification as it betokeneth not onely to be there but to tary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church which mistery of sacrifice is perfited before the perception and so it must be euident how the body of Christ is there that is to say on the alter before we receaue it to which aulter S. Augustine sayth we come to receaue it There was neuer man ouerturned his own assertions more euidently then this author doth herein this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haue written agaynst this Sacrament who haue by he way sayd somewhat for it or they haue brought their treatise to an end It will be sayd here how soeuer this author doth ouerthrow him selfe in the reall presence of Christes very body yet he hath pulled downe Transubstantiation and done as crafty wrastlers do falling themselues on theire backe to throw there fellowe ouer them But it is not like for as long as the true fayth of the reall presence standeth so longe Transubstantiation standeth not by authority of determination but by a necessary consequence of the truth as I sayd before and as Zuinglius defendeth playnly and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered vnto for they speake of the visible nature and element which remayne truely in the propriety of their nature for so much as remayneth so as there is true reall and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine not in fantasy or imagination wherby there should be illution in the sences but so in deede as the experience doth shew and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance should not impayre the truth of that remayneth but that remayneth doth in deede remayne with the same naturall effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one maruaile in this mistery as there were diuerse more in Manna the figure of it And then a miracle in gods working doth not empayre the truth of the worke And therfore I noted before how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truely and yet it was by miracle as S. Gregory writeth And further we may say touching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made of the Sacrament to Christes person or contrariwise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality in consideration of each part by it selfe but onely haue respect to the ende wherfore the resemblance is made In the person of Christ be ioyned two whole perfite natures inseperably vnite which fayth the Nestorians impugned and yet vnite without confusion of them which confussion the Eutichians in consequence of their error affirmed and so arguments be brought of the sacrament wherewith to conuince both as I shall shew answering to Gelasius But in this place S. Augustine vseth the truth most certayne of the two natures in Christes person wherby to declare his beleefe in the Sacrament which beleefe as Hilary before is by this author alleadged to say is of that is inwardly For that is outwardly of the visible creature we see he sayth with our bodely eye and therfore therin is no poynt of fayth that should neede such a declaration as S. Augustine maketh And yet making the comparison he reherseth both the truthes on both sides saying As the person of Christ cōsisteth of God man so the sacrifice of the church cōsisteth of two thinges the visible kind of the element the inuisible flesh bloud finishing the conclusiō of the similitude that therfore There is in the Sacrifice of the church both the Sacramēt and the thing of the Sacramēt Christes body that which is inuisible therfore required declaratiō that is by S. Augustine opened in the cōparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely and therwith that needed no declaration that is to say the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true but not as a thing which was intended to be proued for it neded not any proofe as the other part did And therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblance so as bicause in the nature of Christs humanity there was no substance conuerted in Christ which had bene contrary to the order of that mistery which was to ioyne the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ that therfore in this mistery of the Sacrament in which by the rules of our fayth Christes body is not Impanate the conuersion of the substance of the visible elements should not therfore be If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mistery that is sufficient For els the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasy in the mistery of the Sacrament as there be in Christes person and the flesh of man in Christ by vnion of the diuinity is a diuine spirituall flesh and is called and is a liuely flesh and yet the author of this booke is not afrayd to teach the bread in the Sacrament to haue no participation of holines wherein I agree not with him but reason agaynst him with his owne doctrine and much I could say more but this shall suffice The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be such as no man can wrest or wreth to an other sence and with their force haue made this author to ouerthrow
if you deny you know whose spirite yon haue But your trust is altogither in obscure speaches wherwith you trust so to darken the matter that no man shall vnderstand it least that if they vnderstand it they must needes perceaue your ignorance and error But when you promise to come to the purpose as to say the truth all that you sayd before is clearly without purpose but when you promise I say now at length to come to the purpose your answere is nothing to the purpose of S. Chrisostoms mynd for he made not his resemblance as you say he did onely to shew the remayning of the accidents which you call the properties but to shew the remayning of the substances with all the naturall properties therof That as Christ had here in earth his diuinity and humanity remayning euery of them with his naturall properties the substance of his godhead being a nature single without composition without conuersion inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible and such like for these be Chrisostomes owne wordes and the substance of his humanity being a feble nature subiect to hunger thyrst weeping feare sweating and such passions so is it in the bread and Christes body that the bread after sanctification or consecration as you call it remayneth in his substance that it had before and likewise doth the body of Christ remayne still in heauen in his very true substance wherof the bread is a Sacrament and figure For els if the substance of the bread remayned not how could Chrisostome bring it for a resemblance to proue that the substance of Christes humanity remayneth with his diuinity Mary this that you say had bene a gay lesson for the Manichees to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents therof and yet is none in deede that then by this similitude they might say likewise that Christ appeared a man by all the accidences and properties of a man and yet he was none in deede And to make an ende of this author your vayne comment will not serue you to call the accidents of bread the nature of bread except you will alow the same in the Manichees that the nature of Christes body is nothing els but the accidences therof Now followeth Gelasius of the same matter Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius writing agaynst Eutiches and Nestorius of whome the one sayd that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other affirmed cleane contrary that he was very God but not man But agaynst these two heinous heresies Gelasius proueth by most manifest scriptures that Christ is both God and man and that after his Incarnation remayneth in him as well the nature of his Godhead as the nature of his manhod so that he hath in him two natures with their naturall properties and yet is he but one Christ. And for the more euident declaration hereof he bringeth two examples the one is of man who being but one yet he is made of two partes hath in him two natures remayning both togither in him that is to say the body the soule with their naturall properties The other example is of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which sayth he is a godly thing and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be there still Note well these wordes agaynst all the Papistes of our tyme that Gelasius which was Bishop of Rome more then a thousand yeares passed writeth of this Sacrament that the bread and wine cease not to be there still as Christ ceased not to be God after his incarnation but remayned still perfect god as he was before Winchester Now followeth to answere to Gelasius who abhorring both the hereses of Eutiches and Nestorius in his treatise agaynst the Eutichians forgetteth not to compare with theyr errour in extremity in the one side the extreame errour of the Nestorians on the other side but yet principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians with whome he was specially troubled These two heresies were not so grosse as the author of this booke reporteth them wherin I will write what Uigilius sayth Inter Nestorij ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non testoris se dissipatoris non pastoris sed praedatoris sacrilegum dogma Eutichetis ne foriam detestabilem sectam ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit vt vtrumque sine vtriusque periculo plerique vitare non possint dum si quis Nestorij per fidiam damnat Eutichetis puratur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietatem destruit Nestorij arguitur dogma erigere These be Uigilius wordes in his first booke which be thus much in English Betwene the abominable teaching of Nestorius sometyme not ruler but waster not pastor but pray searcher of the church of Constantinople and the wicked and detestable sect of Eutiches the craft of the deuils spoyling so facioned it selfe that men could not auoyd any of the secrets without danger of the other So as whiles any man condemneth the falsenes of Nestorian he may be thought fallen to the errour of the Eutichian and whiles he destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichian and whiles be destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichians heresie he may be challenged to releeue the teaching of the Nestorian This is the sentence of Uigilius by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtill conueyed without so playne contradiction as this author eyther by ignorāce or of purpose fayneth as though the Nestorian should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the Eutichian cleane contrary very God but not man For if the heresies had bene such Uigilius had had no cause to speake of any such ambiguity as he noteth that a man should hardly speake agaynst the one but he might be suspected to fauor the other And yet I graunt that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God bicause they would two distinct different natures to make also two distinct persons and so as it were two Christs the one onely man and the other onely God so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate nor as Gregory Nazianzene sayth man deitate for so he is termed to say The Eutichians as S. Augustine sayth reasoning agaynst the Nestorians became heretiques themselues and bicause we confesse truely by fayth but one Christ the sonne of God very God The Eutichians say although there were in the virgins wombe before the adunation two natures yet after the adunation in that mistery of Christes incarnation there is but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fansye transfused and so confounded wherupon by implication a man might gather the nature of humanity not to remayne in Christ after the adunation in the virgins wombe Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in his proces vttereth a catholike meaning against them both but he directeth speciall arguments of the two natures in man
the two natures in the Sacramēt chiefly agaynst the Eutichians to proue that nature of man to cōtinue in Christ after the adunatiō being no absurdity for two differēt natures to cōstitute one person the same two natures remayning in theyr property and that natures to be aliud aliud which signifieth differēt and yet in that not to be alius alius in person which alius and alius in person the Eutichians abhorred and catholiquely for so much agaynst the Nestorians who by reason of two natures would haue two persons and bicause those Nestorians fansied the person of Christ patible to suffer all apart therfore they denied Christ conceyued God or borne God for the abolition of which part of their heresy and to set forth the vnity of Christes person the blessed virgine was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara gods mother which the Nestorians deluded by an exposition graunting she might so be called bicause her sonne they sayd was afterward God and so she might be called gods mother as an other woman may be called a bishops mother if her sonne be made a bishop afterward although he departed no bishop from her And hereof I write thus much bicause it should appeare that Gelasius by his arguments of the Sacrament and of the two natures in man went not about to proue that the godhead remayned in Christ after his incarnation as the author of this booke would haue it for the Nestorian sayd the godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merite and therfore with them there was no talke of remayning when they estemed Christes nature in his conception singuler and onely by gods power conceyued but onely man And agayne the Eutichian so affirmed the continuance of the diuine nature in Christ after the adunation as Gelasius had no cause to proue that was graunted that is to say the remayne of the diuine nature but on the other side to proue the remayne of the humayne nature in Christ which by the Eutichians was by implication rather denyed Nestorius deuided God and man and graunted alwayes both to be in Christ continually but as two persons and the person of Christ being God dwelling within the person of Christ being man and as Christ man encreased so Christ God dignified him and so diuided one Christ into two persons bicause of the two natures so different which was agaynst the rules of our fayth and destroyed therby the mistery of our redemption And the Eutichians affirming catholiquely to be but one person in Christ did perniciously say there was but one nature in Christ accompting by implication the humayne nature transfused into the diuine nature and so confounded And to shew the narrow passage Uigilius spake of Cirillus a catholike author bicause writing of the vnity of Christes person he expressed his meaning by the word nature signifiing the whole of any one constitution which more properly the word person doth expresse The Eutichians would by that word after gather that he fauored their part so taking the word at a vantage And bicause the same Cyrillus vsed the word subsistence to signifie substance and therfore sayd in Christ there were two subsistences meaning the diuine substance and humayne substāce forasmuch as the word subsistence is vsed to expresse the person that as to say hipostasie There were that of that word frowardly vnderstanded would gather hee should say that there were two persons in Christ which was the Nestorians heresie that he impugned Such captiousnes was there in wordes when arrogant men cared not by what meane to mayntayne their errour These were both pernitious heresies and yet subtill and each had a meruailous pretence of the defence of the glory of God euen as is now pretended agaynst the Sacrament And either part abused many scriptures and had notable apparances for that they sayd so as he that were not well exercised in scriptures and the rules of our fayth might be easely circumuented Nestorius was the greate Archebishop of Constantinople vnto whome Cirill that condemneth his heresy writeth that seing he sclandereth the whole Church with his heresie he must resist him although he be a father bicause Christ sayth he that loueth his father aboue me is not worthy me But Nestorius as appeareth although he vsed it ilfauordly had much learning and cloked his heresy craftely denying the grosse matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christes and other specialities layd to his charge and yet condemning the doctrine of Cyrill and professing his owne fayth in his owne termes could not hide his heresie so but it appeareth to bee and contayne in effect that he was charged with and therfore an admonishing was geuen by a catholike writer Beleue not Nestorius though he say he teach but one Christ. If one should heare aske what is this to the purpose to talke so much of these sectes I Answere this knowledge shall generally serue to note the manner of them that goe about to deceaue the world with false doctrine which is good to learne An other speciall seruice is to declare how the author of this booke eyther doth not know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of or els misreporteth them of purpose And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened shall geue light of the truth of the mistery of the Sacrament who agaynst the Eutichians vseth two arguments of examples one of the two different natures to remayne in one person of man and yet the Eutichians defamed that coniunction with remayne of two different natures and called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double nature and Gelasius to enconter that terme sayth they will with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature reserue not one Christ and whole Christ. And if two different natures that is to say soule and body make but one man why not so in Christ For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man that is to shew Gelasius sayth two diuers qualities in the same man not to deuide the same into two men and so intendeth to shew there ought to be no scruple to graunt two different natures to remayne in their propriety for feare that euery diuers nature should make a diuers person and so in Christ diuide the vnity concluding that the integritie of Christ can not be but both the natures different remayning in their property Carnall imagination troubled the Eutichians to haue one person of two such differente natures remayning in their property which the Nestorians releued with deuise of two persons and the Eutichians by confusion of the humayne nature Then commeth Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ and noteth the person of Christ to be a principall mistery and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mistery which sence his wordes must needes haue bicause he calleth Christ the principall mistery and as in one place he sayth the image and
similitude of the body and bloud of Christ so by and by he calleth the Sacrament the image of Christ. And here the wordes image and similitude expresse the manner of presence of the truth of the thinges represented to be vnderstanded onely by fayth as inuisibly present And S. Ambrose by this word image signifieth the exhibition of truth to man in this life And to shew the Sacrament to be such an image as contayneth the very truth of the thing wherof it is the image Gelasius declareth in framing his argument in these wordes As bread and wine go into the diuine substance the holy ghost bringing it to passe and yet remayne in the property of their nature so that principall mistery those natures remayning wherof it is declare vnto vs true and whole Christ to continue In these wordes of Gelasius where hee sayth the bread and wine goe into the diuine substaunce is playnly declared the presence of the diuine substaunce and this diuine substaunce can signifie none other substaunce but of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche heauenly nature and earthly nature of the bread and wine consisteth this Sacrament the Image of the principall mistery of Christes person And therefore as in the Image bee two diuers natures and different remayning in their property So likewise in the person of Christ whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argument should remayne two natures And here were a great daunger if we should say that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacrament were there present but in a figure for it should then imply that in Christes person the principall mistery it were also but in a figure And therefore as in the mistery of Christes person ordayned to redeeme vs beyng the principall mistery there is no figure but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures whereof Christ is So in the Sacrament being a mistery ordered to feede vs and the image of that principall mistery there is not an onely figure but truth of the presence of the natures earthly and celestiall I speake of the truth of the presence and meane such an integrity of the natures present as by the rules of our fayth is consonant and agreable to that mistery that is to say in the person of Christ perfect God and perfect man perfect God to be incarnate and perfect man to be deitate as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it In the Sacrament the visible matter of the earthly creature in his propriety of nature for the vse of signification is necessarily required and also according to the truth of Christ his wordes his very body and bloud to be inuisibly with integrity present which Gelasius calleth the diuine substance And I thinke it worthy to be noted that Gelasius speaking of the bread and wine reciteth not precisely the substance to remayne but sayth the substance or nature which nature he calleth after the propriety and the disiunctiue may be verified in the last And it is not necessary the examples to be in all partes equall as Rusticus Diaconus handleth it very learnedly ConiraAcephalos And Gelasius in opening the mistery of the Sacrament speaketh of transition of the bread and wine into the godly substance which word transition is meete to expresse Transubstantiation and therfore S. Thomas expressed Transubstantiation with the same word transire writing Dogma datur Christianis quod in carnem transit panis venū in sanguinem But in the mistery of Christes person there is no trāsition of the Deitie into the humanitie or humanitie into the Deitie but onely Assumptiō of the humanity with the adunation of those two perfect natures so different one person one Christ who is God incarnate and man Deitate as Gregory Nazianzene sayth without mutation cōuersion transition transelementation or transubstātiation which wordes be proper and speciall to expresse how Eucharistia is constitute of two different natures an heauenly and earthly nature a mystery institute after the exāple of the principall mystery wherwith to féede vs with the substaūce of the same glorious body that hath redéemed vs. And bicause in the constitution of this mystery of the Sacrament there is a transition of the earthly creature into the diuine substaunce as Gelasius and S. Thomas terme it and mutation as Cypriā and Ambrose teach it which Theophilactus expresseth by the word transelementation Emissen by the word conuersion and all their wordes reduced into their owne proper sence expressed in one word of transubstantiation it can not be conuenient where the maner of constitution of the two mysteries be so different there to require a lyke remainyng of the two natures wherof the mysteries be In the mystery of Christes person bycause there was not of any of the two different natures either mutation transition conuersion or transelementation but onely assumption of the humanitie and adunation in the virgins wombe we can not say the Godhead to haue suffered in that mystery which were an absurditie but to haue wrought the assumption and adunation of mans nature with it nor mans nature by that assumption and adunation diminished and therfore professe truly Christ to be whole God and whole man and God in that mystery to be made man and man God where as in the Sacrament bicause of trāsition mutation and conuersion of their earthly creatures wrought by the holy ghost which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conuersion mutation and transition we knowledge no assumptiō of those creatures or adunation with the heauenly nature and therfore say not as we do in the principall mystery that ech nature is wholly the other and as we professe God incarnate so the body of Christ breaded and as man is Deitate so the bread is corporate which we should say if the rules of our faith could permit the constitution of ech mystery to be taught a lyke whiche the truth of Gods word doth not suffer Wherfore although Gelasius and other argue from the Sacrament to declare the mystery of Christes person yet we may not presse the Argument to destroy or confounde the propertie of ech mystery and so violate the rules of our fayth and in the authors not presse the wordes otherwise then they may agrée with the Catholique teachyng as those did in the wordes of Cyrill when he spake of nature and subsistence wherof I made mētion before to be remembred here in Gelasius that we presse not the word substaunce and nature in him but as may agree with the transition he speaketh of by which word other expresse transubstantiation And agaynst the Eutichians for to improue their confusion it suffiseth to shew two different natures to be in the Sacrament and to remaine in their proprietie and the diuine nature not to confound the earthly nature nor as it were to swalow it which was the dreame of the Eutichiās And we must forbeare to presse all partes of the example in the other Argument from the person of man beyng
wheras gods worke is in an instant and for that respect neuer shedding But this author had a fansie to vse the sound of the word powring to serue in freede of an argumēt to improue Transubstantiation meaning the hearer or reader in the conceauing of the sence of Ciprian thus termed should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament to be like a soppe wherupon liquor were powred which is a kind of deprauation as thou reader by consideration of Ciprians wordes and meaning mayst perceaue which Ciprian hauing shewed how the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of gods word and made by change Then bicause this mistery of the Sacrament in consideration of the two natures celestiall and earthly resembleth the principall mistery of Christes person S. Ciprian sayth in sence that as in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden so likewise in this Sacrament visible is also the diuine nature hidden This is the sence where for declaration of the worke of God presenting his diuine nature there is vsed the verbe Infundit in Latine by which word the motion of the diuine nature is spoken of in scriptures not bicause it is a liquidde substance to bee poured as the author of this booke englisheth it signifying a successiue operation but rather as a word if we should scan it as this author would signifying the continuance of the terme from whence to the terme wherunto without leauing the one by motion to the other for there is in the godly nature no locall motion and therfore we say Christ not leauing his father descended from heauen and being in earth was also in heauen which infution in some parte resembleth but mans wordes can not expresse Gods diuine operations To the purpose the first wordes of Ciprian shew the maner of the constitution of this Sacrament to be by mutation of the earthly creatures into the body and bloud of Christ. And than by the wordes following sheweth the truth of the substance of the Sacrament to the intent we might vse our repayre to it and frame our deuotion according to the dignitie of it esteeming as S. Paule sayth our Lordes body For the more euident declaration wherof S. Ciprian by example of the mistery in Christes person sheweth Christes humanity and diuinity present in the visible Sacrament of which diuinity there is speciall mention agaynst such which fansied the flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten as diuided from the diuine nature which was the heresy of the Nestorians and such other denying therby the persite vnity of the two natures in Christ which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially condemne as other fathers in their writings old specially preuēt with distinct writing agaynst that errour And therfore S. Ciprian not content to shew the presence of Christes flesh by mutation of the bread doth after make speciall mention of Christes diuinity not concerning that he had sayd before but further opening it And so vtterly condemneth the teaching of the author of this booke touching the presence of Christ to be onely figuratiuely Ciprian sayth that in the Sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true flesh of Christ and the Godhead truely which deuotion should knowledge And as for Transubstantiation according to the first wordes of S. Ciprian the bread is changed not in forme but in nature which is not in the properties of nature nor in the operation of nature neither in quantity or quality of nature and therfore in the inward nature which is properly substance This is the playne direct vnderstanding not by way of addition as this author of his imagination deuiseth who vseth the word Spirituall as a stop and opposition to the catholique teaching which is not so and clearly without learning compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptisme of which we reade not written that it is changed as we reade of the bread and therfore the resemblance of water in Baptisme is vsed onely to blynde the rude reader and serueth for a shift of talke to winde out of that matter that can not be answered and as euill debters shake of their creditours with a bye communication so this author conueyeth himselfe away at a backe dore by water not doing first as he promised to answer so as he would auoyd Ciprian directly by land Caunterbury WHere in my former booke I found a fault in the allegation of Ciprian it was in deede no little fault to alleadge those wordes that speake of the change of bread and to leaue out the example most necessary to be rehersed which should declare how it was changed which change is not by Transubstantiation as the example sheweth but as it is in the person of Christ whose humanity was not transubstantiate although it was inseparabely annexed vnto the deity And the wordes following do not once touch the reall and corporall presence of Christes flesh in the bread so farre it is from the ouerthrowing of the true catholike fayth by me taught But Ciprian in that place quite and cleane ouerthroweth as well your reall presence as your imagined transubstantiation as hereafter by Gods grace shall be declared But first it semeth to me a strange thing that such a learned man as you take your selfe to be in the tongues can not English this verbe Infundo where as euery Gramarian can tell the signification of Fundo Effundo and Infundo But it semeth you haue so deinty a stomacke that you can brooke no meat but of your owne dressing though it be neuer so well dressed of other yea you had rather eate it rawe then to take it of an other mans dressing And so much misliketh you all thinges that other men doe that you be ready to vomite at it No English can please you to this word Infundo but Latine English as you call it and that is such English as no English man can vnderstand nor Latine man neither but onely in that sense that I haue englished it And I pray thee gentill reader consider the great weighty cause why no English can please in this place and thou shalt finde it nothing els but ignorance eyther of the speach or of God Powring sayth he maketh a successiue working So doth infusion say I and therfore in that respect as vnfitte a terme as Powring But Gods worke sayth he is in an instant So is his powring say I and all that he doth euen aswell as his infusion All mans workes be done in succession of tyme for a carpenter can not build a house in a day but God in one moment could make both heauen and earth So that God worketh without delay of tyme such thinges as in vs require leasure and tyme. And yet God hath tempered his speach so to vs in holy scripture that he speaketh of himselfe in such wordes as be vsuall to vs or els could we speake here and learne nothing of God And therfore whether we say infusion or pouring
all is one thing and one reason For in vs they be done by little and little but God worketh the same sodenly in one moment And yet if you had well considered the matter you should not haue found the sacraments of God likesoppes wherin licour is poured but you should haue found pouring an apt word to expresse the abundance of gods working by his grace in the ministration of his holy sacraments For when there cometh a small rayne then we say it droppeth or there is a few droppes but when there cometh a great multitude of rayne togither for the great abundance of it we vse in common speach to say it poureth downe So that this word pouring is a very apt word to expresse the multitude of Gods mercies and the plentifulnes of his grace poured into them whome he loued declared and exhibited by his wordes and sacraments And howsoeuer you be disposed by iesting and scoffing to mocke out all thinges as your disposition hath bene euer giuen to reprehend thinges that were well yet the indifferent reader may iudge by this one place among many other that you seeke rather an occasion to brable without cause and with idle wordes to draw your booke out at length then to seeke or teach any truth And if I should play and scoffe in such a matter as you doe I might dally with the word of Infusion as you do with the word powring For as you reiect my word of powring bicause some fond reader might fantasy that bread in the sacrament to be like a soppe wherin licour were powred by like reason may I reiect your English Latin of infuding bicause such a reader might fantasy therby the bread to be like water wherin the diuinity is stieped or infuded As infused rubarbe is called when it is stieped certayne houres in stilled water or wine without seething and so be roses and violets likewise infused when they be stieped in warme water to make inlep therof But as poticaries phisitions surgions and Alcumists vse wordes of Greeke Arabike and other strange langwages purposely therby to hide their sciences from the knowledge of others so farre as they can so do you in many partes of your booke deuise many strange termes and strange phrases of speach to obscure and darken therby the matter of the sacrament and to make the same meete for the capacities of very few which Christ ordayned to be vnderstanded and exercised of all men At the last as you say you come to your purpose not to open the truth but to hide it as much as you may and to gather of Ciprians wordes your owne faining and not his meaning who ment nothing lesse then eyther of any Transubstantiation or of the corporall presence of Christ in the bread and wine And to set out Ciprians mynde in few wordes he speaketh of the eating and not of the keeping of the bread which when it is vsed in the Lordes holy supper it is not onely a corporall meate to norish the body but an heauenly meate to nourish the soules of the worthy receauors the diuine maiesty inuisibly being present and by a spirituall transition and change vniting vs vnto Christ feeding vs spiritually with his flesh and bloud vnto eternall life as the bread being conuerted into the nature of our bodies fedeth the same in this mortall life And that this is the mynd of S. Ciprian is euident aswell by the wordes that go before as by the wordes following the sentence by you alleadged For a little before Ciprian writeth thus There is geuen to vs the foode of immortall life differing from common meates which reteineth the forme of corporall substance and yet proueth Gods power to be present by inuisible effect And agayne after he sayth This common bread after it is changed into flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodyes And therfore the weakenes of our fayth being holped by the customable effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the invisible sacraments is the effect of euerlasting life and that we be made one by a Transition or change not so much corporall as spirituall For he is made both bread flesh and bloud meate substance and life to his church which he calleth his body making it to be partaker of him Note well these wordes good reader and thou shalt well perceaue that Ciprian speaketh not of the bread kept and reserued but as it is a spirituall nourishment receaued in the Lordes supper and as it is frutefully broken and eaten in the remembrance of Christes death and to them that so eate it Ciprian calleth it the foode of immortall life And therfore when he sayth that in the inuisible sacrament is the effect of euerlasting life he vnderstandeth of them that worthely receaue the sacrament for to the bread and wine pertayneth not eternall life Neuertheles the visible sacrament teacheth vs that by a spirituall change we be vnited to Christes flesh and bloud who is the meate and sustenance of his church and that we be made partakers of the life euerlasting by the power of God who by his effectuall working is present with vs and worketh with his Sacraments And here is agayn to be noted that Ciprian in this place speaketh of no reall presence of Christes humanitie but of an effectuall presence of his diuine maiestie and yet the breade sayth he is a foode and nourishment of the body And thus Ciprian proueth nothing agaynst my sayinges neither of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud nor of Transubstantiation of bread and wine And where you be offended with this word spirituall it is not my deuise but vsed of S. Ciprian him selfe not past .vi. or vii lines before the wordes by you cited where he declareth the spirituall mutation or transition in the Sacraments And of the change in the sacrament of baptisme as well as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ speaketh not onely this author but also Nazianzen Emissene Chrisostome Ambrose with all the famous auncient ecclesiasticall authors And this water doth well to delay your hotte wine wherof you haue drunken so much out of the cuppe of the great whore of Babilon that the true wine representing to vs our whole redemption by the true bloud of Christ you haue clearly transubstantiate and taken away Now followeth my answere vnto Chrisostome An other authority they haue of S. Ihon Chrisostome which they boast also to be inuincible Chrisostome say they writeth thus in a certayne homily De Eucharistia Doest thou see bread Doest thou see wine Do they auoyde beneth as other meates do God forbid thinke not so For as waxe if it be put into the fire it is made like the fire no substāce remayneth nothing is lefte here so also thinke thou that the misteries be consumed by the substance of the body At these wordes of Chrisostome the Papists do triumph as though they had won the field Loe
though men had inuented and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must beleeue that is to say the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament according to the wordes of Christ This is my body which exclude the substance of bread declaring the substance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the Sacrament by the true fayth of a christen man Compare with this what this author writeth in hys ninth difference in the 47. leafe of his boke and so consider the truth of this report and how this author agreeth with himselfe Caunterbury I Suspect not the iudgement of the indifferent reader so much but that he can perceaue how vndirectly you answere to this third absurdity and be loth as it seemeth to answere any thing at all But it is no little confirmation of the catholike fayth to see you Papists vary so much among your selues and you alone to diuise so many thinges contrary to all the rest and yet you be vncertayne your selfe what you may say They say also with one accord sauing onely Smith you that in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christes body For he is not there visible and sensible with his voyce to be heard his colours to be seene his softnes to be felt his quantities to be extended and to be locall in place with his other accidents so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament Smith sayth that he is there not naturally as you say but against nature with all his qualities and accidents You dare neither adde them nor drawe them away being vncertayue whether they be there or no and being also vncertayne whether in the sacrament he haue distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but iesting and rayling to you which for lacke of answer be glad to shift of the truth as a matter of iesting And it is not my terming without the booke and at my pleasure to speake of substances without accidents and accidents without substances For I speake none otherwise therein then as it hath pleased the Papistes before to terme the same in all their bookes of that matter but I termed this matter so vppon the papisticall bookes as they at their pleasure deuised or dreamed without all manner of bookes written before their tyme. And the force of scripture constrayneth no man to the beleefe of Transubstantiation although the body of Christ were really corporally and carnally present who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances as with the accidents of bread and wine as fully is declared before And where you alleadge the disagreing of me with my selfe if you would haue taken the payne to reade some of the schole authors you should haue learned that there is no disagrement in my sayings at all For they say that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper formes and quantities as I sayd in the 47. leafe But yet those accidents say they be in heauen and not in the sacrament as I say in this place not varying one mite from myne other saying But ignorance in you thinketh a difference where none is at all Now followeth the fourth absurdity Fourthly they say that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be hath no substance there to fill that place and so must they needes graunt vacuum which nature vtterly abhorreth Winchester This author goeth about to finde so many absurdities that he speaketh he wotteth not what and where he seeth and feeleth quantity accompteth the place voyd for want of substance as though in consideration of common naturall thinges seuerally as they be in nature it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantity although in the naturall order of thinges there is no quantity without substance and is in this Sacrament onely by miracle There wanted a substance in consideration of this absurdity and was such a vacuum as nature playnly endureth Caunterbury A Lithe authors that write what vacuum is account a place that is not filled with a substaunce which hath quantity in it to be void and emty So that my saying is not grounded vpon ignoraunce but vpon the mind of all that write in that matter Where as your saying that quantity alone filleth place without substaunce hath no ground at all but the Papistes bare imagination And if quantity in the sacrament be without substaunce by miracle it is maruaile that no auncient writer in no place of their bookes made any mention of such a miracle But your selfe graunt inough for my purpose in this place that it is an absurdity in nature and wrought onely by miracle that quantity occupieth a place alone without substaunce Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right fayth but onely of your errour of transubstantiation Now to the fift absurdity Fiftly they are not ashamed to say that substaunce is made of accidentes when the bread mouleth or is turned into wormes or when the wine sowreth Winchester True beleuing men are not ashamed to confes the trueth of theyr fayth whatsoeuer arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary For Christes workes we know to be true by a most certayne fayth what mouldeth in bread or sowreth in wine we be not so assured or wheron worms ingēder it is not so fully agréed on amōg men The learned lawyer Vlpian writeth as I haue before alleadged that wine and vineger haue in manner one substaunce so as when wine sowreth and is vineger in manner the same substaunce remayneth in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that meanes that the accidents onely sower And if we agrée with the Phylosophers that there is Materia prima which in all thinges is one and altereth not but as a newe forme commeth taketh a new name fansying that as one waue in the water thrusteth away an other so doth one forme an other It should séeme by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents and the corruption of accidentes to be the generation of new accidentes the same Materia prima being as it were substantia that altereth not And this I write that may be sayd as it were to make a title to this authors certainety which is not so sure as he maketh it Amonges men haue bene maruailous fansies in consideration of naturall thinges and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret and therfore to our certaine fayth But to come nerer to the purpose it is wrong borne in hand that we affirme wormes to be engendred of accidentes but when the wormes be ingendred we graunt the wormes to be and will rather say whereof they be we cannot tell then to say that substaunce is made of accidents and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation and such as intreat those chaunces and accidentes doe not induce that
were the figure of the body of Christ in the Sacrament that processe declareth the mynde of the author to be that in the Sacrament is present the very truth of Christes body not in a figure agayne to ioyne one shadow to an other but euen the very truth to aunswere the figure and therfore no particular wordes in S. Hierome can haue any vnderstādyng contrary to his mynde declared in this processe Caunterbury TO S. Hierome I haue aunswered sufficiently before to your confutation of my third booke almost in the end which should be in vayne to repeate her agayne therfore I will go to your last marke Winchester Fourthly an other certaine marke is where the old authors write of the adoration of this Sacrament which can not be but to the thynges godly really present And therfore Saint Augustine writyng in his booke De Catechisandis rudibus how the inuisible thynges be honoured in this Sacrament meanyng the body and bloud of Christ and in the 98. Psalme speaketh of adoration Theodoretus also speakyng specially of adoration of this Sacrament These authors by this marke that is most certaine take away all such ambiguitie as men might by suspicious diuination gather sometyme of their seuerall wordes and declare by this marke of adoration playnly their fayth to haue bene and also their doctrine vnderstanded as they ment of the reall presence of Christes very body and bloud in the Sacrament and Christ him selfe God and mā to be there present to whose diuine nature and the humanitie vnite thereunto adoration may onely be directed of vs. And so to conclude vp this matter for as much as one of these foure markes and notes maybe founde testified and apparaunt in the auncient writers with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same this should suffice to exclude all argumentes of any by sentences and ambiguous speaches and to vphold the certaintie of the true Catholicke fayth in déede which this author by a wrong name of the Catholicke fayth impugneth to the great slaunder of the truth and his owne reproch Caunterbury YOur fourth marke also of adoratiō proueth no more that Christ is present in the Lordes Supper then that he is present in Baptisme For no lesse is Christ to be honored of him that is Baptised thē of him that receaueth the holy Communiō And no lesse ought he that is Baptised to beleue that in Baptisme he doth presently in deede and in truth put Christ vpon him and apparell him with Christ then he that receaueth the holy Communion ought to beleue that he doth presently feede vpon Christ eatyng his flesh and drinkyng his bloud which thyng the Scripture doth playnly declare and the old authours in many places do teach And moreouer the forme of Baptisme doth so manifestly declare Christ to be honored that it cōmaundeth the Deuill therein to honour him by these wordes Da honorem Deo Da gloriam Iesu Christo. With many other wordes declaryng Christ to bee honored in Baptisme And although our Sauiour Christ is specially to be adored and honored when he by his holy word and Sacramentes doth assure vs of his present grace benefites yet not onely then but alway in all our actes and deedes we should lift vp our hartes to heauen and ther glorifie Christ with his celestiall father and coeternall spirit So vntrue it is that you say that adoration can not be done to Christ but if he be really present The Papistes teach vs to haue in honour and reuerence the formes and accidentes of bread and wyne if they be vomited vp after the body and bloud of Christ be gone away and say that they must be had in great reuerence bicause the body and bloud of Christ had bene there And not onely the formes of bread and wyne say they must be kept with great reuerence but also the ashes of them for they commaund them to be burned into ashes must be kept with like reuerence And shall you than forbid any man to worshyp Christ him selfe when he doth spiritually and effectually eate his very flesh and drinke his very bloud when you will haue such honour and reuerēce done to the ashes which come not of the body and bloud of Christ but onely as you teach of the accidents of bread and wyne Thus haue I confuted your confutation of my second book concernyng Transubstātiation wherin you be so far from the cōfutation of my booke as you promised that you haue done nothyng els but confounded your selfe studying to seeke out such shiftes and cauillations as before your tyme were neuer deuised yet constrayned to graunt such errours and monstrous speaches as to Christen eares be intollerable So that my former booke aswell cōcernyng the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud as the eatyng and drinkyng of the same and also transubstantiation standeth fast and sure not once moued or shaken with all your ordinaunce shot agaynst it But is now much stronger then it was before beyng so mured and bulwarked that it neuer neede hereafter to feare any assault of the enemies And now let vs examine your confutation of the last part of my booke conteinyng the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiuiour Christ. ¶ The end of the second booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE FIFTE BOOKE AS touchyng the fift booke the title wherof is of the oblatiō and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ somewhat is by me spoken before which although it be sufficient to the matter yet some what more must also be now sayd wherewith to encounter the authours imaginations and surmises with the wrong construyng of the Scriptures and authours to wreast them besides the truth of the matter and their meanyng This is agréed and by the Scriptures playnly taught that the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ was and is a perfect worke once consummate in perfection with out necessitie of reiteration as it was neuer taught to be reiterate but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it It is also in the Catholicke teachyng grounded vpon the Scripture agrèed that the same sacrifice ones consummate was ordeined by Christes institution in his most holy Supper to be in the Church often remembred and shewed forth in such sort of shewyng as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ vnder the formes of bread and wyne which body and bloud the faythfull Church of Christen people graunt and confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue bene betrayed and shed for the sinnes of the world and so in the same Supper represented and deliuered vnto them to eate and fèede of it accordyng to Christes commaundement as of a most precious and acceptable sacrifice acknowledgyng the same precious body and bloud to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world whereunto they onely resort and onely accompt that their very perfect oblation and sacrifice of Christen people through which all other sacrifices necessarie on our part be
could deuise to deliuer some from Purgatory and some from hell if they were not there finally by God determined to abyde as they termed the matter to make rayne or faire wether to put away the plague and other sicknesses both from man and beast to halow and preserue them that went to Ierusalem to Rome to S. Iames in Compostella and other places in pilgrimage for a preseruatiue agaynst tempest and thunder agaynst perils and daungers of the Sea for a remedy agaynst moraine of cattell agaynst pensiuenesse of the hart agaynst all maner affliction and tribulations And finally they extoll their Masses far aboue Christes passion promising many thynges thereby which were neuer promised vs by Christes passion As that if a man heare Masse hee shall lacke no bodily sustenaunce that day nor nothyng necessary for him nor shal be letted in his iourney he shall not lose his sight that day nor dye no sodaine death he shall not waxe old in that time that he heareth Masse nor no wicked spirites shall haue power of him be he neuer so wicked a man so long as he looketh vpon the Sacrament All these foolish and deuilish superstitions the Papistes of their owne idle brayne haue deuised of late yeares which deuises were neuer knowen in the old Church And yet they cry out agaynst them that professe the Gospell and say that they dissent from the Church and would haue them to folow the example of their Church And so would they gladly do if the Papistes would folow the first Church of the Apostles which was most pure and incorrupt but the Papistes haue clearely varied frō the vsage and exāples of that Church and haue inuented new deuises of their own braynes and will in no wise cōsent to folow the primitiue Church and yet they would haue other to folow their Church vtterly variyng and dissentyng from the first most godly Church But thankes be to the eternall God the maner of the holy Communion which is now set forth within this Realme is agreable with the institution of Christ with Saint Paule and the old primitiue and Apostolicke Church with the right fayth of the Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse for our redemption and with the true doctrine of our saluation iustification and remission of all our sinnes by that onely sacrifice Now resteth nothyng but that all faithfull subiectes will gladly receiue and embrace the same beyng sory for their former ignoraunce and euery man repentyng him selfe of his offences agaynst God and amendyng the same may yeld him selfe wholly to God to serue and obey him all the dayes of his lyfe and often to come to the holy Supper whiche our Lord and Sauiour Christ hath prepared And as he there corporally eateth the very bread and drinketh the very wine so spiritually he may feede of the very fleshe and bloud of Iesu Christ his Sauiour and redeemer remembryng his death thankyng him for his benefites and lookyng for none other sacrifice at no priestes handes for remission of his sinnes but onely trustyng to his sacrifice which beyng both the high priest and also the Lambe of God prepared from the begynnyng to take away the sinnes of the world offered vp him selfe once for euer in a sacrifice of sweete smell vnto his Father and by the same payd the raunsome for the sinnes of the whole worlde Who is before vs entred into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his Father as a patron mediatour and intercessour for vs. And there hath prepared places for all them that be lyuely members of his body to reigne with him for euer in the glory of his father to whom with him and the holy Ghost be glory honour and prayse for euer and euer Amen Thus hauing rehearsed the whole wordes of my last booke I shall returne to your issue and make a ioynder or demurre with you therein And if you can not proue your propitiatory Sacrifice of the Priestes by Petrus Lombardus and Nicene Councell then must you confesse by your owne Issue that the Uerdite must iustly passe agaynst you and that you haue a fall in your own suite As for the sacrifice of laudes and thakesgeuyng I haue set it forth playnly in my booke but the sacrifice propitiatory deuised to be made by the priest in the Masse onely is a great abhominatiō before God how glorious soeuer it appeare befor◠men And it is set vp onely by Antichrist and therefore worthy to be abhorred of all that truely professe Christ. And first as concerning Nicene counsell because you begin with that first I will rehearse your wordes Winchester Fyrst to begin with the counsell of Nice the same hath opened the mistery of the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ in this wise that christen men beleue the Lamb that taketh away the sinnes of the world to be situate vpon Gods woorde and to be sacrificed of the priestes not after the manner of other sacrifices This is the doctrine of the counsell of Nice and must then be called an holy doctrine and thereby a true doctrine consonant to the scriptures the foundation of all trueth If the author will deny this to haue bene the teaching of the counsell of Nice I shal alleadge therefore the allegation of the same by Decolampadius who being an aduersary to the truth was yet by Gods prouidence ordered to beare testimony to the truth in this poynt and by his meane is published to the world in greeke as followeth which neuerthelesse may otherwise appeare to be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum pannem poculum sed mente exaltata fide intilligamus situm esse in sacra illa mensa illum Dei agnum qui tollit peccata mundi sacrificatum à sacerdotibus non victimarum more mos preciosum illius corpus sanguinem verè sumentes credere haec esse resurrectionis nostrae Symbola Ideo enim non multum accipimus sed parum vt cognoscamus quoniam non in satietatem sed sanctificationem These wordes may be englished thus Agayne in this godly table we should not in base and low consideration direct our vnderstanding to the bread and cup set forth but hauing our mind exalted we should vnderstand by fayth to be situate in that table the Lamb of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world sacrificed of the priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices and we receiuing truely the precious body and bloud of the same Lamb to beleue these to be the tokens of our resurrection And for that we receiue not much but a litle because we should know that not for saturity and filling but for sanctification This holy counsel of Niece hath bene beleued vniuersally in declaration of the mistery of the Trinity and the Sacramentes also And to them that confesse that counsell to be holy as the author here doth and
iteration of the once perfited sacrifice on the crosse but a representation thereof shewing it before the faith full eies and refreshing our memory therewith so that we may see with the eie of faith the very body and bloud of Christ by gods mighty power exhibite vnto vs the same body and bloud that suffered and was shed for vs This is a godly and catholicke doctrine but of the cokcle which you cast in by the way of distinction without diuision I cannot tell what you meane except you speak out your dreames more playnely And that it is the same body in substaunce that is dayly as it were offered by remembraunce which was once offered in the Crosse for sinne we learne not so playnly by these wordes This is my body Hoc est corpus meum as we do by these Hic Iesus assumptus est in coelum and Qui descendit ipse est qui ascendit suprae omnes coelos This Iesus was taken vp into heauen and he that descended was the same Iesus that ascended aboue all the heauens And where you say that by vertue of Christes sacrifice such as fal be releued in the Sacrament of penaunce the truth is that such as do fall be releued by Christ when so euer they returne to him vnfaynedly with hart and mynde And as for your wordes concernyng the Sacrament of penaunce may haue a Popishe vnderstandyng in it But at length you returne to your former errour and goe about to reuoke or at the least euill fauoredly to expounde that which you haue before well spoken Your wordes be these Winchester The dayly offeryng is propitiatory also but not in that degrée of propitiation As for redemption regeneration or remission of deadly sinne which was once purchased by force therof 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. All good workes good thoughtes and good meditations may be called sacrifices and the same be called sacrifices propitiatorie also for so much as in their degrée God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christes death which is the reconciliation betwene God and maÌ„ ministred dispensed particularly as God hath appointed in such measure as he knoweth But S. Paule to the Hebrues exhortyng men to charitable déedes sayth with such sacrifices God is made fauorable or God is propitiate if we shall make new Englishe Whereupon it foloweth bycause the Priest in the dayly sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for she wyng forth and remembraunce of Christes death that act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must néedes be propitiatory and prouoke Gods fauour and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect with God to the members of Christes body particularly beyng the same done for the whole body in such wise as God knoweth the dispeÌ„sation to be méete conuenient accordyng to which measure God worketh most iustly and most mercyfully otherwise then man can by his iudgement discusse determine To call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstandyng that signifieth not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christes most precious body and bloud the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered beyng propitiatorie and satisfactorie for all the world or els the worde satisfactorie must haue a signification and meanyng as it hath sometyme that declareth the acceptation of the thyng done and not the propre contreuaile of the action after which sort man may satisfie God that is so mercyfull as he will take in good worth for Christes sake maÌ„s imperfect endeuour and so the dayly offering may be called a sacrifice satisfactory bicause God is pleased with it beyng a maner of worshyppyng of Christes passion accordyng to his institution But otherwise the dayly sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest called satisfactorie and it is a word in déede that soundeth not well so placed although it might be saued by a signification and therfore thinke that word rather to be well expounded then by captious vnderstandyng brought in slaunder when it is vsed and this speach to be frequented that the onely immolatâ—on of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God And I haue read the dayly sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a Sacrifice satisfactorie but this speach hath in déede bene vsed that the Priest should sing satisfactorie which they vnderstode in the satisfaction of the Priestes duety to attend he prayer the was required to make and for a distinction therof they had prayer sometyme required without speciall limitation and that was called to pray not satisfactorie Finally in man by any his action to presume to satisfie God by way of counteruaile is a very mad and furious blasphemy Caunterbury TO defend the Papisticall errour that the dayly offering of the Priest in the Masse is propitiatory you extend the word Propitiation other wise then the Apostles do speakyng of that matter I speake playnly accordyng to S. Paule and S. Iohn that onely Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes by his death You speake accordyng to the Papistes that the Priestes in their Masses make a sacrifice propitiatory I call a sacrifice propitiatory accordyng to the Scripture such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods indignation agaynst vs obteineth mercy and forgiuenes of all our sinnes and is our raunsome and redemption from euerlastyng damnation And on the other side I call a sacrifice gratificatory of the sacrifice of the Church such a sacrifice as doth not reconcile vs to God but is made of them that be reconciled to testifie their dueties and to shewe them selues thankefull vnto him And these sacrifices in Scripture be not called propitiatory but sacrifices of Iustice of laude prayse and thankes geuyng But you confounde the wordes and call one by an others name callyng that propitiatory whiche the Scripture calleth but of Iustice laude and thankyng And all is nothyng els but to defend your propitiatory sacrifice of the Priestes in their Masses whereby they may remit sinne and redeeme soules out of Purgatory And yet all your wyles and shiftes will not serue you for by extendyng the name of a propitiatory sacrifice vnto so large a signification as you do you make all maner of Sacrifices propitiatory leauyng no place for any other sacrifice For say you all good deedes and good thoughtes be Sacrifices propitiatorie and then be the good workes of the lay people Sacrifices propitiatorie as well as those of the Priest And to what purpose then made you in the begynnyng of this booke a distinction betwene sacrifices propitiatorie and other Thus for desire you haue to defend the Papisticall errours you haue not fallen
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
is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do when he sayth it is vinificum which can be onely sayd of the very body and bloud of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of laudes and thankesgeuing cannot be sayd a pure and cleane Sacrifice whereby to fulfill the prophecy of Malachy and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church vnderstanded to be spoken of the dayly offering of the body and bloud of Christ for the memory of Christes death according to Christes ordinaunce in his supper as may at more length be opened and declared Thinking to the effect of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chiefe poyntes of the authors doctrine with such contradiction to thē as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessity require the more particuler confutation of that is vntrue on the aduersary part and confirmation of that is true in the Catholique doctrine requiring more tyme and leysure then I haue now and therefore offering my selfe ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shal be required I shall here end for this time with prayer to almighty God to graunt his truth to be acknowledged and confessed and vniformely to be preached and beleued of al so as all contention for vnderstanding of religion auoyded which hindereth Charity we may geue suche light abroad as men may see our good workes and glorify our father who is in heauen with the sonne and holy ghost in one vnity of godhead reigning without end Amen Caunterbury HIpinus sayth that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not beleue that Hipinus so sayd vntill you appoint me both the booke and place where he so sayth For the effect of his booke is cleane contrary which he wrote to reproue the propitiatory sacrifice which the Papistes fayne to be in the Masse Thus in deede Hipinus writeth in one place Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis sanguinis Christipraesentiam primo vocauerunt sacrificium deinde propter oblationes munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur conferebantur ad sacraministeria ad necessitatem credentium In which wordes Hipinus declareth that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two consideratiōs one was for the present of Christes flesh and bloud the other was for the offerynges which the people gaue there of their deuotion to the holy ministratiō and reliefe of the poore But Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporall presence nor of propitiatory Sacrifice but generally of presence and sacrifice which maketh nothyng for your purpose nor agaynst me that graunt both a presence and a sacrifice But when you shall shew me the place where Hipinus sayth that the old Fathers called the Lordes Supper a propitiatory sacrifice I shall trust you the better and him the worse And as for Cyrill if you will say of his head that the Sacrifice of the Church giueth life how agreeth this with your late saying that the sacrifice of the Church increaseth lyfe as the sacrifice on the Crosse giueth lyfe And if the Sacrifice made by the Priest both geue lyfe and encrease lyfe then is the Priest both the mother and nurse and Christ hath nothyng to do with vs at all but as a straunger And the sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is the sacrifice laud and thankes which all deuoute Christian people geue vnto God whether it be in the Lordes Supper in their priuate Prayers or in any worke they do at any tyme or place to the glory of God all which Sacrifices not of the Priestes onely but of all faythfull people be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ by whose bloud all their filthy and vnpurenes is cleane sponged away But in this last booke it seemeth you were so astonied and amased that you were at your wits end wist not where to become For now the Priest maketh a Sacrifice propitiatory now he doth not now he giueth lyfe now he giueth none now is Christ the full Sauiour and satisfaction now the Priest hath halfe part with him now the Priest doth all And thus you are so inconstant in your selfe as one that had bene netteled and could rest in no place or rather as one that had receaued such a stroke vpon his head that hee staggered with all and reeled here and there and could not tell where to become And your doctrine hath such ambiguities such perplexities such absurdities and such impieties in it and is so vncertaine so vncomfortable so contrary to Gods word and the old Catholicke Church so contrary to it selfe that it declareth from whose spirite it commeth which can be none other but Antichrist him selfe Where as on the other side the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure Church from the begynnyng is playne certaine without wrynkels without any inconuenience or absurditie so chearefull and comfortable to all Christen people that it must needes come from the spirite of God the spirite of truth and all consolation For what ought to be more certaine and knowen to all Christen people then that Christ dyed once and but once for the redemption of the world And what can be more true then that his onely death is our lyfe And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner that is sory for his sinne and returneth to God in his hart and whole mynde then to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heauy lode of his sinne and taketh the burden vpon his owne backe And if we shall ioyne the Priest herein to Christ in any part and giue a portion hereof to his sacrifice as you in your doctrine giue to the priest the one halfe at the least what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner that he may not hang wholly vpon Christ what perplexities and doubtes rise hereof in the sinners conscience And what an obscuryng and darkenyng is this of the benefite of Christ Yea what iniury and contumely is it to him And furthermore when we heare Christ speake vnto vs with his own mouth and shew him selfe to be seen with our eyes in such sorte as is conuenient for him of vs in this mortall lyfe to be heard and sene what comfort can we haue more The Minister of the Churche speaketh vnto vs Gods owne wordes whiche we must take as spoken from Gods owne mouth because that from his mouth it came and his word it is and not the Ministers Likewise when he ministreth to our sightes Christes holy Sacramentes we must thinke Christ crucified and presented before our eyes because the Sacraments so represent him and be his Sacraments and not the Priestes As in Baptisme we must thinke that as the Priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly and washeth him with water so must we thinke that God putteth to his hand inwardly and washeth the infant with his holy spirite and
body that shal be giuen for you I answer according to Cirils mynd vpon the same place that Christ alone suffered for vs all and by his woundes were we healed he bearing our sinnes in his body vpon a tree and being crucified for vs that by his death we might liue But what need I M. Smith to labor in answering to your question of the tyme when your question in it selfe contayneth the aunswere appoynteth the tyme of Christ giuing himselfe for the life of the world when you say that he gaue himselfe for vs to death which as you confes skant three lines before was not at his supper but vpon the crosse And if you will haue none other giuing of Christ for vs but at his supper as your reason pretendeth or els it is vtterly naught then surely Christ is much bound vnto you that haue deliuered him from all his mocking whipping scourging crucifying and all other paynes of death which he suffered for vs vpon the crosse and bring to passe that he was giuen onely at his supper without bloud or payne for the life of the world But then is all the world litle beholding vnto you that by deliuering of Christ from death will suffer all the world to remayne in death which can haue no life but by his death AFter the gospell of S. Ihon M. Smith aleadgeth for his purpose S. Paule to the corinthians who biddeth euery man to examine him selfe before he receaue this sacrament for he that eateth and drinketh it vnworthely is gilty of the body and bloud of Christ eating and drinking his owne damnation bicause he discerneth not our lordes body Here by the way it is to be noted that D. Smith in reciting the words of S. Paule doth alter them purposely commonly putting this word sacrament in the steede of these wordes bread and wine which wordes he semeth so much to abhorre as if they were toades or serpents bicause they make agaynst his Transubstantiation where as S. Paule euer vseth those wordes and neuer nameth this word Sacrament But to the matter What need we to examine our selues sayth D. Smith when we shall eate but common bread and drincke wine of the grape Is a man gilty of the body and bloud of Christ which eateth and drinketh nothing els but onely bare bread made of corne and meare wine of the grape Who sayth so good syr Do I say in my booke that those which come to the Lordes table do eate nothing els but bare bread made of corne nor drinke nothing but meare wine made of grapes How often do I teach and repeate agayne and agayne that as corporally with our mouthes we eate and drincke the sacramentall bread and wine so spiritually with our hartes by fayth do we eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud and do both feed and liue spiritually by him although corporally he be absent from vs and sitteth in heauē at his fathers right hand And as in baptisme we come not vnto the water as we come to other common waters when we washe our handes or bath our bodies but we know that it is a misticall water admonishing vs of the great and manifold mercies of God towards vs of the league and promise made betwene him and vs and of his wonderfull working and operation in vs. Wherfore we come to that water with such feare reuerence and humility as we would come to the presence of the father the sonne and the holy ghost and of Iesus Christ himselfe both God and man although he be not corporally in the water but in heauen aboue And who soeuer cōmeth to that water beyng of the age of discretiō must examine himselfe duely least if hee come vnworthely none otherwise then hee would come vnto other commō waters he be not renewed in Christ but in steede of saluation receaue his damnation Euen so it is of the bread and wine in the Lordes holy supper Wherfore euery man as S. Paule sayth must examine himselfe when he shall aproche to that holy table and not come to gods borde as he would do to common feastes and bankets but must consider that it is a misticall table where the bread is misticall and the wine also misticall wherin we be taught that we spiritually feed vpon Christ eating him and drincking him and as it were sucking out of his side the bloud of our redemption foode of eternall saluation although he be in heauen at his fathers right hand And whosoeuer cōmeth vnto this heauenly table not hauing regarde to Christes flesh bloud who should be there our spirituall foode but commeth therto without fayth feare humility reuerence as it were but to carnall feeding he doth not there feed vpon Christ but the deuill doth feede vpon him and deuoureth him as he did Iudas And now may euery man perceaue how fondly and falsly M. Smith concludeth of these wordes of S. Paule that our Sauiour Christes body and bloud is really and corporally in the sacrament AFter this he falleth to rayling lying and sclaundering of M. Peter Martir a man of that excellent learning and godly liuing that hee passeth D. Smith as farre as the sunne in his cleare light passeth the moone being in the Eclipse Peter Martyr sayth he at his first coming to Oxford when he was but a Lutherian in this matter taught as D. Smith now doth But when he came once to the Court saw that doctrine misliked them that might do him hurt in his liuing he anone after turned his tippet and sang an other song Of M. Peter Martyr his opinion and iudgement in this matter no man can better testify than I. For as much as hee lodged within my house long before he came to Oxford and I had with him many conferences in that matter and know that he was then of the same mynd that he is now and as hee defended after openly in Oxford and hath written in his booke And if D. Smith vnderstode him otherwise in his Lectures at the beginning it was for lacke of knowledge for that then D. Smith vnderstoode not the matter nor yet doth not as it appeareth by this folish and vnlearned booke which he hath now set out No more than he vnderstood my booke of the Cathechisme and therfore reporteth vntruly of me that I in that booke did set forth the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament Unto which false report I haue aunswered in my fourth booke the eight chapiter But this I confesse of my selfe that not long before I wrot the sayd Cathechisme I was in that error of the real presence as I was many yeares past in diuers other errors as of Transubstantiation of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priestes in the Masse of pilgrimages purgatory pardons and many other superstitions and errors that came from Rome being brought vp from youth in them and nouseled therin for lacke of good instruction from my youth the outragious fluds of Papisticall errors at
or contrary to the Scripture or direct not the forme of life accordyng to the same then it is not the piller of truth nor the Church of Christ but the sinagogue of Sathan and the temple of Antichrist which both erreth it selfe and bringeth into errour as many as do folow it And the holy Church of Christ is but a small herd or flocke in comparison to the great multitude of them that folow Sathan and Antichrist as Christ him selfe sayth and the word of God and the course of the world from the begynnyng vntill this day hath declared For from the creation of the world vntill Noes floud what was then the open face of the Church How many godly men were in those thousand and sixe hundred yeares and moe Dyd not iniquitie begyn at Cain to rule the worlde and so encreased more and more that at the length God could no lenger suffer but drowned all the world for sinne except viij persons which onely were left vpon the whole earth And after the world was purged by the floud fell it not by and by to the former iniquitie agayne so that within few yeares after Abraham could find no place where he might be suffered to worshyp the true liuyng God but that God appointed him a straunge countrey almost clearely desolate and vnhabited where hee and a fewe other contrary to the vsage of the world honored one God And after the great benefites of God shewed vnto his people of Israell and the law also geuen vnto them wherby they were taught to know him and honor him yet how many tymes did they fal from him Did they not from tyme to tyme make them new Gods worshyp them Was not the open face of the Church so miserably deformed not onely in the wildernesse and in the tyme of the Iudges but also in tyme of the kynges that after the diuision of the kyngdome amongest all the kyngs of Iuda there was but onely three in whose tymes the true Religion was restored among all the kynges of Israell not somuch as one Were not all that tyme the true Priestes of God a few in number Did not all the rest maintaine Idolatry and all abhominatiōs in groues and mountaines worshippyng Baal and other false Gods And did they not murther and slea all the true Prophetes that taught them to worshyp the true God In so much that Helias the Prophet knowyng no mo of all the whole people that folowed the right trade but him selfe alone made his complaint vnto almightie God saying O Lord they haue slayne thy Prophetes and ouerthrowen thine aultars there is no mo left but I alone and yet they lye in wayte to flea me also So that although almighty God suffered thē in their captiuitie at Babylon no more but lxx yeares yet he suffered them in their Idolatry folowyng their owne wayes and inuentions many hundred yeares the mercy of God beyng so great that their punishment was short and small in respect of their long and greeuous offences And at the tyme of Christes cōmyng the hygh Priests came to their offices by such fraude simony murther and poysonyng that the like hath not bene often read nor heard of except onely at Rome And when Christ was come what godly religion found he What Annasses and Cayphasses what hypocrisie superstition and abhomination before God although to mens eyes thyngs appeared holy and godly Was not then Christ alone his Apostles with other that beleued his doctrine the holy true Church Although they were not so takē but for heretickes seditious persons blasphemers of God were extremely persecuted and put to vilanous death by such as accompted them selues were taken for the Church which fulfilled the measure of their fathers that persecuted the Prophets Upon whō came al the righteous bloud that was shed vpon the earth from the bloud of iust Abell vnto the bloud of Zachary the sonne of Barachie whom they slew betwene the Temple and the aultar And how many persons remayned constantly in the true liuely fayth at the tyme of Christes passion I thinke M. Smith will say but a very fewe seyng that Peter denyed Christ his Maister three tymes and all his Apostles fled away and one for hast without his clothes What wonder is it then that the open church is now of late yeares fallen into many errours and corruption and the holy church of Christ is secret and vnknowne seing that Sathan these 500. yeares hath beene let lose and Antichrist raigneth spoyling and deuouring the simple flocke of Christ. But as almighty God sayd vnto Helias I haue reserued and kept for mine ownne selfe seuen thousand which neuer bowed their knee to Baall so it is at this present For although almighty God hath suffered these foure or fiue hundred yeares the open face of his church to be vggely deformed and shamefullye defiled by the sects of the Papistes which is so manifest that now all the world knoweth it yet hath God of his manifold mercy euer preserued a good number secret to himselfe in his true religion although Antichrist hath bathed himselfe in the bloud of no small number of them And although the Papistes haue ledde innumerable people out of the right way yet the church is to be folowed but the Church of Christ not of Antichrist the church that concerning the fayth contayneth it selfe with in gods word not that deuiseth daily new artcles contrary to gods word The church that by the true interpretation of scripture and good example gathereth people vnto Christ not that by wrasting of the scripture and euill example of corrupt liuing draweth them away from Christ. And now forasmuch as the wicked church of Rome counterfayting the church of Christ hath in this matter of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and bloud of our sauior Christ varied from the pure and holy Church in the Apostles tyme and many hundred yeares after as in my booke I haue plainely declared manifestly proued it is an easy matter to discerne which church is to be folowed And I cannot but maruaile that Smith alleadgeth for for him Vincentius Lirenensis who contrary to D. Smith teacheth playnly that the canon of the Bible is perfect and fufficient of it selfe for the truth of the Catholicke fayth and that the whole church cannot make one article of the fayth although it may be taken as a necessary witnes for the receiuing and establishing of the same with these three conditions that the thing which we would establish thereby hath bene beleued in all places euer and of al men Which the Papistical doctrine in this matter hath not bene but came from Rome sins Beringarius time by Nicolas the ii Innocentius the third and other of their sort where as the doctrine which I haue set forth came from Christ and his Apostles and was of all men euery where with one consent taught and beleued as my book sheweth plainly
is it to offer Christes body and bloud at Masse to purchase thereby euerlastyng lyfe if it be not the Masse to be a Sacrifice to pacifie Gods wrath for sinne and to obtaine his mercy Smith fol. 24. 148. and .164 Priestes doe offer for our saluation to get Heauen to auoyde Hell fol. eodem ¶ Matters wherein the Byshop varied from him selfe THe body of Christ in the Sacramēt is not made of bread but is made present of bread pag. 79. lin 6. c. and pag. 202. lin 40. c. Of bread is made the body of Christ pag. 344. lin 8. The Catholicke fayth hath frō the beginnyng confessed truely Christes intent to make bread his body pag. 26. lin 40. Christ gaue that he made of bread pag. 257. lin 50. And of many breads is made one body of Christ pag. 144. lin 23. And fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ that is to say made the body of Christ pag. 295. lin 30. Christ spake playnly This is my body makyng demonstration of the bread when he sayd This is my body in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. I will passe ouer the phantasies of them who wrote the principall chief text This is my body from consecration of the Sacrament to the demonstration of Christes body c in the deuilish deuils Sophistry fol. 70. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 42. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine pag. 251. lin 8. Illis verbis hoc est Corpus meum substantia corporis significatur nec de pane quic quam intelligitur quum corpus de substantia sua nō aliena predicetur fol. 24. fa. 2. Mar Ant. Constant. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the litterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. What can be more euidently spoken of the presence of Christes naturall body and bloud in the most blessed Sacrament of the aultar than is in these wordes This is my body in the deuils Sophistry fol. 5. Where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quātitie pag. 71. lin 47. And he is present in the Sacrament as he is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. c. We beleue simply the substaunce of Christes body to be in the Sacrament without drawyng away of accidentes or adding pag. 353. lin 1. Christ is not present in the Sacrament after the maner of quantitie but vnder the forme and quantitie of bread and wine pag. 71. lin 50. pag. 90. lin 43. In such as receiue the Sacrament worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally and naturally and carnally pag. 166. lin 19. and pag. 173. lin 54. and pag. 191. lin 47. The maner of Christes beyng in the Sacrament is not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall pag. 159. lin 17. and pag. 197. lin 32. We receiue Christ in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receiue him worthely pag. 167. lin 9. and pag. 174. lin 1. When an vnrepentaunt sinner receiueth the Sacrament hee hath not Christes body within him pag. 225. lin 43. He that eateth verely the flesh of Christ is by nature in Christ Christ is naturally in him pag. 17. lin 38. c. An euill man in the Sacrament receiueth indeede Christes very body pag. eadem lin 7. Euill men eate verely the flesh of Christ pag. 225. lin 47. Christ geueth vs to be eaten the same flesh that hee tooke of the virgin pag. 241. lin 27. We receiue not in the Sacrament Christes body that was Crucified pag. 243. lin 16. Saint Augustines rule De doctrina Christiana pertaineth not to Christes Supper pag. 117. lin 21. The sixt of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made to the eatyng of a token of Christes flesh pag. 4. lin 40. S. Augustin meaneth of the sacrament pag. 119. lin 24. The sixt of Iohn must needes be vnderstand of corporall and sacramētall eatyng pag. 17. lin 48. Reason in place of seruice as beyng inferiour to fayth will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough pag. 265. lin 1. And as reason receiued into faithes seruice doth not striue with Transubstantiation but agreeth well with it so mans sences be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation as a matter whereof they can no skill for the sences can no skill of substaunces pag. 271. lin 24. c. Thine eyes say there is but bread and wyne Thy tast sayth the same Thy feelyng and smellyng agree fully with them Hereunto is added the carnall mans vnderstandyng which bycause it taketh the begynning of the senses proceedeth in reasonyng sensually in the deuils sophistry fol. 6. The Church hath not forborne to preache the truth to the confusion of mans senses and vnderstandyng fol. 15. It is called bread bycause of the outward visible matter pag. When it is called bread it is meant Christ the spirituall bread pag. 284. lin 25. The fraction is in the outward signe not in the body of Christ pag. 144. lin 39. and pag. 348. lin 21. And in the deuils sophistry fol. 17. That which is broken is the body of Christ pag. 348. lin 18. The inward nature of the bread is the substaunce pag. 286. lin 23. Substaunce signifieth the outward nature pag. 359. lin 22. The substaunces of bread and wine be visible creatures pag. 285. lin 48. and pag. 286. lin 44. Accidents be the visible natures and visible elementes pag. 363. lin 39. Christ is our satisfaction holy and fully and hath payde our whole debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his wrath agaynst vs pag. 81. lin 39. The act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must needes be propitiatory and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect pag. 437. lin 13. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wyne pag. 251. lin 8. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the literal sense hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. And it is a singular miracle of Christ vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their propre sense ibidem lin 21. The sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was neuer reiterate pag. 368. lin 46. Priestes do sacrifice Christ pag. 381. lin 42. c. And the Catholicke doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to bee the same in essence that was offered on the Crosse pag. 436. lin 11. The Nestorians graunted both the Godhead manhode alwayes to be in Christ continually pag. 309. lin 18. The Nestorians denyed Christ conceyued God or borne God but that he was afterward God as a mā that is not borne a Byshop is after made a Byshop So the Nestorians sayd that the Godhead was
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
we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie pag. 181. lin 8. Christes body and fleshe is a spirituall body and flesh and is present in the Sacrament after a spirituall maner and is spiritually receiued pag. eadem lin 26. 351. lin 19. In this Sacrament Christes humanitie and Godhead is really present and in Baptisme his Godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in whiche we be washed not requiryng any reall presence therof pag. 191. lin 35. Spirite and lyfe may fall vpon naughtie men although for their malice it taryeth not pag. 211. lin 17. Christes woordes were not figuratiue but true and proper when he sayd this is my body pag. 9. lin 1. pag. 257. lin 1. and. 14. Marcus Antonius fol. 24. fa. 1. All the namyng of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other must be vnderstand before sanctification and not after pag. 258. lin 15. When S. Paule sayd we be partakers of one bread he speaketh not of materiall bread pag. 258. lin 7. No mā knoweth the difference betwene the substaūce of bread cheese and ale pag. 271. lin 39. pag. 272. lin 23. pag. 339. lin 33. The accidentes of bread may be called the visible part of bread the outward kynde and forme of bread the appearaunce of bread a true sensible part of bread bread the nature of bread the matter of bread the visible matter of bread not that it is property bread but after the common speach and capacitie of men pag. 272. lin 16. and pag. 273. lin 25. pag. 283. lin 11. and pag. 289. lin 31. and. 290. lin 7. and. 292. lin 16. and pag. 396. lin 43. c. and. 305. lin 44. c. and pag .243 lin 45. pag. 359. lin 22. The accidentes of bread do corrupt putrifie and nourish pag. 273. lin 30. pag. 290. lin 7. and pag. 296. lin 48. and pag. 358. lin 28. The glorified body of Christ is of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable pag. 273. lin 40. In Baptisme the whole man is not regenerated but the soule pag. 286. lin 10. The soule onely of man is the substaunce of man Ibidem The soule onely is made the sonne of God pag. 286. lin 23. It is called meate bycause of the outward visible matter pag. 290. lin 9. As really and as truly as the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the sacrament pag. 296. lin 5. and pag. 396. lin 15. The sacrifice of the Churche is perfected before the perception pag. 396. lin 32. In the Sacrament beyng a mystery ordered to feede vs is the truth of the presence of the natures earthly and celestiall The visible matter of the earthly creature in his propertie and nature for the vse of signification is necessaryly required pag. 310. lin 44.48 This saying of Gelasius The substaunce or nature of bread and wyne cease not to be there still may be verified in the last and nature he taketh for the proprietie pag. 310. lin 50. Theodorets saying that the substaunce of bread remayneth seemeth to speak of substaunce after the common capacitie and not as it is truely in learnyng vnderstanded an inward inuisible and not palpable nature pag. 321. lin 2. Christ in his Supper fulfilled this promise Panis quem ego dabo c. pag. 329. lin 25. Accidentes in common vnderstandyng bee called substaunces pag. 339. lin 31. In common bread the substaunce is not broken at all Ibidem lin 39. Accidentes be broken without substaunce pag. 339. lin 6. c. All alteration is in accidentes and the corruption of accidentes in the generation of new accidentes pag. 355. lin 4. Substaunce in Theodorete signifieth the outward visible nature that is to say accidentes pag. 359. lin 20. One thyng is but one substaunce sauyng onely in the person of Christ. pag. 359. lin 41. Baptisme is not wondred at how the holy Ghost is there but the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures how they bee chaunged into the body and bloud of Christ whiche is wrought before we receiue the Sacrament pag. 366. lin 45. Priestes do offer dayly Christes flesh and bloud pag. 384. lin 26. Christ offered him selfe in his Supper pag. eadem lin 27. Otherwise then Christ did can not be now done pag. 384. lin 28. The dayly offeryng by the Priest is dayly offered for sinne bycause we dayly fall pag. eadem lin 30. That is done in the aultar is a sacrifice and the same that is offered once and dayly to be the same Uisible Priestes Ministers to our inuisible Priest offer the dayly sacrifice in Christes Church pag. 392. lin 46. The body and bloud of Christ is properly sacrificed by the Priestes and is there offered for the effect of increase of lyfe in vs as it was offered vpon the Crosse to atcheue lyfe vnto vs. pag. 390. lin 46. c. The same body is offered dayly vpon 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. 391. lin 7. c. The sacrifice of the Church is propitiatory pag. 391. lin 8. The sacrifice of the Church is a sacrifice geuyng lyfe Ibidem lin 8. Our sacrifice of laude and thankes geuyng can not be sayd a pure and cleane sacrifice to fulfill the Prophecie of Malachie Ibidem lin 10. Certayne godly and fruitfull Letters of D. Cranmer late Archbishop of Caunterbury ¶ A Letter to Queene Mary IT may please your Maiesty to pardon my presumption that I dare be so bold to write to your highnes but very necessity constrayneth me that your Maiesty may know my minde rather by mine owne writing then by other mens reportes So it is that vpon Saturday being the 7. day of this moneth I was cited to appeare at Rome the lxxx day after there to make aunswere to such matters as should be obiected agaynst me vpon the behalfe of the King and your most excellent Maiesty which matters the Thursday following were obiected agaynst me by Doctor Martin and Doctor Story your maiesties Proctors before the Bishop of Bloucester sitting in iudgement by commission from Rome But alas it can not but greue the hart of any naturall subiect to be accused of the King and Queene of his owne Realme and specially before an outward iudge or by authority comming from any person out of this Realme where the king and Queene as if they were subiectes within theyr owne Realme shall complayne and require iustice at a straungers handes agaynst theyr owne subiect being already condemned to death by their owne lawes as though the King and Queene could not do nor haue iustice within their owne Realme agaynst their owne
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the
AN AVNSVVERE BY THE REVEREND FATHER in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitane Vnto a craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour IESV CHRIST Wherein is also as occasion serueth aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng Here is also the true Copy of the booke written and in open Court deliuered by D. Stephen Gardiner not one word added or diminished but faythfully in all pointes agreeyng with the Originall Reuised and corrected by the sayd Archbyshop at Oxford before his Martyrdome Wherein hee hath beautified Gardiners doynges with asmuch diligence as might be by applying Notes in the Margent and markes to the Doctours saying which before wanted in the first Impression Hereunto is prefixed the discourse of the sayd Archbyshops lyfe and Martyrdome briefly collected out of his Hystory of the Actes and Monumentes and in the end is added certaine Notes wherein Gardiner varied both from him selfe and other Papistes gathered by the sayd Archbyshop Read with Iudgement and conferre with diligence laying aside all affection on either partie and thou shalt easely perceaue good Reader how slender and weake the allegations and perswasions of the Papistes are wherewith they goe about to defende their erroneous and false doctrine and to impugne the truth Anno. M. D. LI. AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Daye dwellyng ouer Aldersgate beneath S. Martines Anno. 1580. Cum gratia Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis A PREFACE TO THE READER I Thinke it good gentle Reader here in the begynnyng to admonish thee of certaine wordes kyndes of speaches which I do vse sometyme in this myne aunswere to the late Byshop of Winchesters book least in mistakyng thou doe as it were stumble at them First this word Sacrament I doe sometymes vse as it is many tymes taken among writers and holy Doctours for the Sacramentall bread water or wine as when they say that Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum a Sacrament is the signe of an holy thyng But where I vse to speake sometymes as the old Authors do that Christ is in the Sacramentes I mean the same as they did vnderstand the matter that is to say not of Christes carnall presence in the outward Sacrament but sometymes of his Sacramentall presence And sometyme by this word Sacrament I meane the whole ministration and receiuyng of the Sacramētes either of Baptisme or of the Lordes Supper and so the old writers many tymes doe say that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the Sacramentes not meanyng by that maner of speach that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the water bread or wine which be onely the outward visible Sacramentes but that in the due ministration of the Sacramentes accordyng to Christes ordinaunce and institution Christ and his holy spirite be truely and in deede present by their mightie and sanctifiyng power vertue and grace in all them that worthely receiue the same Moreouer when I say and repeat many tymes in my book that the body of Christ is present in them that worthely receaue the Sacrament least any man should mystake my woordes and thinke that I meane that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signes yet hee is corporally in the persons that duely receiue them this is to aduertise the Reader that I meane no such thyng but my meanyng is that the force the grace the vertue and benefite of Christes body that was Crucified for vs and of his bloud that was shed for vs be really and effectually present with all them that duely receaue the Sacramentes but all this I vnderstand of his spirituall presence of the which he sayth I will be with you vntill the worldes ende And wheresoeuer two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the myddest of them And hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Nor no more truely is he corporally or really present in the due ministration of the Lordes Supper than hee is in the due ministration of Baptisme That is to say in both spiritually by grace And wheresoeuer in the Scripture it is sayd that Christ God or the holy Ghost is in any man the same is vnderstand spiritually by grace The thyrd thyng to admonish the Reader of is this that when I name Doctour Stephen Gardiner Byshop of Winchester I meane not that he is so now but forasmuch as he was Byshop of Winchester at the tyme when he wrote his booke agaynst me therfore I aunswere his booke as written by the Byshop of Winchester whiche els needed greatly none aunswere for any great learnyng or substaunce of matter that is in it The last admonition to the Reader is this where the sayd late Byshop thinketh that he hath sufficiently proued Transubstantiation that is to say that the substaunce of bread and wine can not be in the Sacrament if the body and bloud of Christ were there bycause two bodyes can not be togethers in one place although the truth be that in the Sacrament of Christes bodye there is corporallye but the substaunce of bread onelye and in the Sacrament of the bloud the substaunce of wine onelye yet how farre hee is deceiued and doth vary from the doctrine of other Papistes and also from the principles of Philosophy whiche he taketh for the foundation of his doctrine in this point the Reader hereby may easely perceiue For if we speake of Gods power the Papistes affirme that by Gods power two bodyes may be together in one place and then why may not Christes bloud be with the wyne in the cup and his fleshe in the same place where the substaunce of the bread is And if we consider the cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place by the rules of nature it shall euidently appeare that the body of Christ may rather be in one place with the substaunce of the bread thē with the accidents therof and so likewise his bloud with the wine For the naturall cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place as the Philosophers say is their accidentes their bignes and thicknes and not their substaunces And then by the very order of nature it repugneth more that the body of Christ should be present with the accidentes of bread and his bloud with the accidentes of wyne then with the substaunces either of bread or wyne This shall suffice for the admonition to the Reader ioynyng thereto the Preface in my first booke whiche is this A PREFACE TO THE READER OVr Sauiour Christ Iesus according to the will of his eternall Father when the time thereto was fully complished taking our nature vpon him came into this world from the high throne of hys Father
to declare vnto miserable sinners good newes to heale them that were sicke to make the blinde to see the deafe to heare and the dumbe to speake to set prisoners at liberty to shew that the time of grace and mercy was come to giue light to them that were in darknes and in the shadow of death and to preach and geue pardon and full remission of sinne to all his elected And to performe the same he made a sacrifice and oblation of his owne body vpon the crosse which was a full redemption satisfaction and propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world And to commend this his sacrifice vnto all his faythfull people and to confirme their fayth and hope of eternall saluation in the same he hath ordayned a perpetuall memory of his sayd sacrifice dayly to be vsed in the Church to his perpetuall laud and prayse and to our synguler comfort and consolation That is to say the celebration of his holy supper wherein he doth not cease to geue himselfe with all his benefites to all those that duely receiue the same supper according to his blessed ordinaunce But the Romish Antichrist to deface this great benefite of Christ hatht that his sacrifice vpon the crosse is not sufficient hereunto without any other sacrifice deuised by him and made by the priest or els without Indulgences Beades Pardons Pilgrimages and such other Pelfray to to supply Christes imperfection And that Christen people cannot applye to themselues the benefytes of Christes passion but that the same is in the distribution of the Byshop of Rome or els that by Christ we haue no full remission but be deliuered onely from sinne and yet remaineth temporall payne in Purgatory due for the same to be remitted after this life by the Romish Antichrist and his ministers who take vpon them to do for vs that thing which Christ either would not or could not do O haynous blasphemy most detestable iniury against Christ. O wicked abhomination in the temple of God O pride intollerable of Antechrist and most manifest token of the sonne of perdition extolling himselfe aboue God and with Lucifer exalting his seat and power aboue the throne of God For he that taketh vpon him to supply that thing which he pretendeth to be vnperfect in Christ must nedes make himself aboue Christ so very Antichrist For what is this els but to be agaynst Christ and to bring him in contempt as one that either for lack of charity would not or for lack of power he could not with all his bloudshedding and death cleerely deliuer his faythfull and geue them full remission of their sinnes but that the full perfection thereof must be had at the handes of Antichrist of Rome and his ministers What man of knowledge and zeale to Gods honour can with dry eyes see this iniury to Christ and look vpon the estate of religion brought in by the Papists perceiuing the true sence of Gods wordes subuerted by false gloses of mans deuising the true christen religion turned into certayne hypocriticall and superstitious sectes the people praying with their mouthes and hearing with theyr eares they wist not what and so ignoraunt in Gods word that they could not discerne hypocrisy and superstition from true and sincere religion This was of late yeares the face of religion within this realme of England and yet remayneth in diuers realmes But thankes be to almighty God and to the Kinges Maiesty with his father a Prince of most famous memory the superstitious sectes of Monks and fryers that were in this realme be cleane taken away the scripture is restored vnto the proper and true vnderstanding the people may daylye read and heare Gods heauenly word and pray in their owne language which they vnderstand so that their hartes and mouthes may goe together and be none of those people whome Christ complayned saying These people honour me with their lips but their hartes be farre from me Thankes be to God many corrupt weedes be plucked vp which were wont to rot the flock of Christ and to let the growing of the Lords haruest But what auayleth it to take away beades pardons pilgremages and such other like Popery so long as two chiefe rootes remayne vnpulled vp whereof so long as they remayne will spring agayne all former impediments of the Lords haruest and corruption of his flocke The rest is but braunches and leaues the cutting away wherof is but like topping loppyng of a tree or cutting downe of weedes leauing the body standing and the rootes in the ground but the very body of the tree or rather the rootes of the weedes is the Popish doctrine of Transubstātiation of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the sacrament of the aulter as they call it and of the sacrifice and oblation of Chryste made by the priest for the saluation of the quicke and the dead Which rootes if they be suffered to grow in the Lordes vineyard they will ouerspread all the ground agayne with the old errors and superstitions These iniuries to Chryst be so intollerable that no christen hart can willingly beare them Wherfore seing that many haue set to their hands whetted their tooles to plucke vp the weedes and to cut down the tree of error I not knowing otherwise how to excuse my selfe at the last day haue in this booke set to my hand and axe with the rest to cut downe this tree and to pluck vp the weedes and plants by the roots which our heauenly father neuer planted but were grafted and sowen in his vineyard by his aduersary the deuil Antichrist his minister The lord graūt that this my trauaile and labour in his vineyard be not in vayn but that it may prosper and bring forth good fruites to his honor and glory For when I see his vineyard ouergrowen with thornes brambles aud weedes I know that euerlasting woe appertayneth vnto me if I hold my peace and put not to my handes and tounge to labour in purging his vineyard God I take to witnes who seeth the hartes of all men thorowly vnto the bottome that I take this labour for none other consideration but for the glory of hys name and the discharge of my duty and the zeale that I beare toward the flocke of Christ. I know in what office God hath placed me and to what purpose that is to say to set forth hys word truely vnto his people to the vttermost of my power without respect of person or regard of thing in the world but of him alone I know what account I shall make to him here of at the last day when euery man shall aunswere for his vocation and receiue for the same good or ill according as he hath done I know how Antichrist hath obscured the glory of god the true knowledge of his word ouercasting the same with mistes and cloudes of errour and ignoraunce through false gloses and interpretations It pittieth me
with whose burnyng and bloud his handes had bene before any thyng polluted But especially he had to reioyce that dying in such a cause hee was to be numbred amongest Christes Martyrs much more worthy the name of S. Thomas of Caunterbury then he whom the Pope falsely before did Canonise The end of Cranmers lyfe Archb. of Cant. The burnyng of the Archbyshop of Canterbury Doct. Cranmer in the Townedich at Oxford thrustyng his hand first into the fire flame wherewith he had subscribed A craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by M. Steuen Gardiner Doctor of Law late Bishop of Winchester against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ called by him An explication assertion therof with an aunswer vnto the same made by the most reuerend father in God Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitane The title of the booke of Steuen Gardiner late Bishop of Winchester ¶ An Explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth touching the most blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutation of a booke written against the same ¶ The aunswer of Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury c. HERE before the beginning of your booke you haue prefixed a goodly title but it agreeth with the argument and matter therof as water agreeth with the fire For your booke is so farre from an explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth in the matter of the sacrament that it is but a crafty cauillation and subtile sophisticatiō to obscure the truth therof and to hyde the same that it should not appeare And in your whole booke the reader if he marke it wel shal easily perceiue how little learning is shewed therin and how few authors you haue alleadged other then such as I brought forth in my booke and made aunswer vnto but there is shewed what may be done by fine wit and new deuises to deceiue the reader and by false interpretations to auoyde the plain wordes of scripture and of the old authors Wherfore in as much as I purpose God willing in this defēce of my former book not only to aunswer you but by the way also to touch D. Smith two things I would wish in you both The one is truth with simplicitie the other is that either of you both had so much learning as you think you haue or els that you thought of your selfe no more then you haue in dede but to aūswer both your bokes in few words that one sheweth nothing els but what rayling without reason or learning the other what frowardnes armed with wit and eloquence be able to do against the truth And Smith because he would be vehement and shew his heat in the maner of speach where the matter is cold hath framed in a maner all his sentēces through out his whole booke by interrogations But if the reader of both your bookes do no more but diligently read ouer my booke once agayn he shal fynde the same not so slenderly made but that I haue foreseene all that could be sayd to the contrary and that I haue fully aunswered before hand all that you both haue sayd or is able to say Winchester FOrasmuch as amonge other myne allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued against me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kinges most excellent maiestie touching partly the catholike fayth of the most precious sacrament of the aulter which I see now impugned by a booke set forth vnder the name of my lord of Canterburies grace I haue thought expedient for the better opening of the matter and considering I am by name touched in the sayd booke the rather to vtter partly that I haue to say by confutation of that booke wherin I thinke neuerthelesse not requisite to direct any speach by speciall name to the person of him that is entituled author because it may possible he that his name is abused wherwith to set forth the matter beyng himselfe of such dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which consideration I shal in my speach of such reproofe as the vntruth of the matter necessarily requireth omitting the speciall title of the author of the booke speake onely of the author in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be meruayled at that such matter should now be published out of my lord of Canterburies pen but because he is a man I will not wonder and because he is such a man I will reuerently vse him and forbearing further to name him talke only of the author by that general name Caunterbury THe first entrie of your booke sheweth to them that be wise what they may looke for in the rest of the same except the beginning vary from all that followeth Now the beginning is framed with such sleight subtletie that it may deceiue the reader notably in two thinges The one that he should thinke you were called into iudgement before the kinges maiesties commissioners at Lamhith for your catholike faith in the Sacrament The other that you made your booke for your defence therein which be both vtterly vntrue For your booke was made or euer ye were called before the said commissioners and after you were called then you altered only two lines in the beginning of your booke and made that beginning which it hath now This am I able to proue as well otherwise as by a booke which I haue of your owne hand writing wherin appeareth plainly the alteration of the beginning And as concerning the cause wherfore ye were called before the Commissioners whereas by your owne importune sute and procurement and as it were enforcing the matter you were called to iustice for your manifest contempt and continuall disobedience from tyme to tyme or rather rebellion against the kinges maiestie and were iustly depriued of your estate for the same you would turne it now to a matter of the sacrament that the world should thinke your trouble rose for your fayth in the sacrament which was no matter nor occasion therof nor no such matter was obiected against you wherfore you nede to make any such defence And where you would make that matter the occasion of your worthy depriuation and punishment which was no cause therof and cloke your wilfull obstinacie and disobedience which was the onely cause therof all mē of iudgement may well perceiue that you could meane no goodnes therby neither to the kinges maiestie nor to his realme But as touching the matter now in controuersie I impugn not the true catholike faith which was taught by Christ and his Apostles as you say I do but I impugne the false Papisticall faith inuented deuised and imagined by Antichrist and his ministers And as for further forbearing of my name and talking of the Author in generall after that you haue named me once and your whole booke is directed against my booke openly set out in my
name all men may iudge that your doing herein is not for reuerence to be vsed vnto me but that by suppressing of my name you may the more vnreuerently and vnseemely vse your scoffing taunting rayling and defaming of the author in generall and yet shall euery man vnderstand that your speach is directed to me in especiall as wel as if you had appointed me with your finger And your reuerent vsing of your selfe before the kings highnes commissioners of late doth plainly declare what reuerent respect you haue to them that be in dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth Winchester THis author denieth the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament This author denieth Transubstantiation This author denieth euill men to eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne and tend to destroy that faith which this author fermeth the Popish to erre in calling now all popish that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth wherof shall hereafter be opened Now because faith affirmeth some certaintie if we aske this author what is his saith which he calleth true and catholike it is onely this as we may learne by his booke that in our Lordes supper be consecrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens only to signifie Christes body and bloud he calleth them holy tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he sayth neuerthelesse they be not bare tokens and yet coÌ„cludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but only as a thyng is present in that which signifieth it which is the nature of a bare token saying in an other place there is nothing to be worshipped for there is nothyng present but in figure in a signe which who so euer saith calleth the thyng in deede absent And yet the author sayth Christ is in the man that worthely receiueth spiritually present who eateth of Christes flesh and his bloud reigning in heauen whether the good beleuing man ascendeth by his faith And as our body is nourished with the bread and wyne receyued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fed with the body and bloud of Christ. And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the true catholike fayth Caunterbury I Desire the Reader to iudge my faith not by this short enuious and vntrue collection and reporte but by mine owne booke as it is at length set out in the first part from the 8. vnto the 16. chapter And as concerning holynes of bread and wine wherunto I may adde the water into baptisme how can a dombe or an insensible and liuelesse creature receiue into it selfe any foode and feede thereupon No more is it possible that a spiritlesse creature should receiue any spirituall sanctification or holynes And yet do I not vtterly depriue the outward sacrameÌ„ts of the name of holy thinges because of the holy vse wherunto they serue not because of any holynesse that lyeth hid in the insensible creature Which although they haue no holynes in them yet they be signes and tokens of the meruailous workes and holy effects which god worketh in vs by his omnipotent power And they be no vayne or bare tokens as you would perswade for a bare token is that which betokeneth only and geneth nothing as a painted fire which geueth neither light nor heate but in the due ministration of the Sacramentes God is present working with his worde and Sacramentes And although to speake properly in the bread and wine be nothing in dede to be worshipped yet in them that duely receiue the sacramentes is Christ himself inhabiting and is of all creatures to be worshipped And therfore you gather of my sayings vniustly that Christ is in deede absent for I say according to Gods worde and the doctrine of the olde writers that Christ is present in his sacramentes as they teach also that he is present in his worde when he worketh mightely by the same in the hartes of the hearers By which maner of speach it is not ment that Christ is corporally present in the voyce or sound of the speaker which sound perisheth as soone as the wordes be spoken but this speach meaneth that he worketh with his word vsing the voyce of the speaker as his instrument to worke by as he vseth also his sacramentes wherby he worketh therfore is said to be present in them Winchester Now a catholike faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receiued and beleued agreable and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writinges geuen knowledge therof which be the tokens and markes of a true catholike faith whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth catholike First there is no scripture that in letter maynteineth the doctrine of this authors booke for Christ sayth not that the bread doth oâ—â—ly signifie his body absent nor S Paul saith not so in any place ne any other Canonicall Scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence and vnderstanding of Christes wordes there hath not bene in any age any one approued and knowen learned man that hath so declared and expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signifie Christes body and the wyne his bloud as thinges absent Caunterbury THe first part of your description of a catholike faith is crafty and full of subtletie for what you meane by all you do not expresse The secoÌ„d part is very true and agreeth fully with my doctrine in euery thing as wel in the matter of transubstantiation of the presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the eating and drinking of him as in the sacrifice propitiatory For as I haue taught in these 4. matters of controuersie so learned I the same of the holy scripture so is it testified by all olde writers learned men of all ages so was it vniuersally taught and preached receiued beleued vntill the sea of Rome the chiefe aduersary vnto Christ corrupted all together and by hypocrisie and simulation in the stede of Christ erected Autichrist who being the sonne of perdition hath extolled and aduanced himselfe and sitteth in the temple of God as he were God himselfe losing and bynding at his pleasure in heauen hell and earth condemning absoluing canonising damning as to his iudgement he thinketh good But as concerning your doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body in the bread and bloud in the wyne that ill men do eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that Christ is many tymes offred there is no scripture that in letter mainteyneth any of them as you require in a catholike faith but the scripture in the letter doth mainteine this my doctrine plainly that the bread remaineth Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio
corporis Christi est Is not the bread which we breake the communion of Christes body And that euill men do not eate Christe his fleshe nor drinke his bloud for the scripture saith expressely He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him which is not true of ill men And for the corporall absence of Christ what can be more plainly said in the letter then he sayd of himself that he forsoke the world besides other scriptures which I haue alleaged in my 3. booke the 4. chapter And the scripture speaketh plainly in the Epistle to the Hebrues that Christ was neuer more offred then once But here you take such a large scope that you flee from the foure proper matters that be in controuersie vnto a new scope deuised by you that I should absolutely deny the presence of Christ and say That the bread doth only signifie Christes body absent which thing I neuer said nor thought And as Christ sayth not so nor Paule sayth not so euen so like wise I say not so and my booke in diuers places saith cleane contrary that Christ is with vs spiritually present is eaten dronken of vs and dwelleth within vs although corporally he be departed out of this world and is ascended vp into heauen Winchester And to the entent euery notable disagréement from the truth may the more euidently appeare I will here in this place as I will hereafter likewyse when the case occurreth ioyne as it were an issue with this author that is to say to make a stay with him in this point triable as they say by euidence and soone tried For in this point the scriptures bee already by the author brought forth the letter wherof proueth not his fayth And albeit he trauaileth bringeth forth the saying of many approued writers yet is there no one of them that writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the faith catholike And to make the issue playne and to ioyne it directly thus I say No author known and approued that is to say Ignatius Polycarpe Iustine Irene Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome Hilary Gregory Nazianzene Basill Emissen Ambrose Cyrill Hierome Augustine Damascene Theophilast none of these hath this doctrine in playne termes that the bread onely signifieth Christes body absent nor this sentence that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer after consecration nor that Christes body is none otherwyse present in the Sacrament but in a signification nor this sentēce that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped because there is nothyng present but in a signe And herein what the truth is may soone appeare as it shall by their workes neuer appeare to haue ben taught and preached receiued and beleued vniuersally and therfore can be called no catholike faith that is to say allowed in the whole through and in outward teaching preached and beleued Caunterbury IN your issues you make me to say what you list and take your issue where you list and then if xii false varlets passe with you what wonder is it But I will ioyne with you this issue that neither scripture nor aūcient author writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of your faith And to make the issue plaine to ioyne directly with you therin thus I say That no auncient and catholike authour hath your doctrine in playne termes And because I will not take my issue in bye matters as you do I will make if in the foure principall pointes wherin we vary wherupon my booke resteth This therfore shal be mine issue That as no scripture so no auncient author known and approued hath in plaine termes your Transubstantiation nor that the body and bloud of Christ be really corporally naturally and carnally wider the formes of bread and wine nor that euil men do eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ nor that Christ is offered euery day by the priest a sacrifice propiciatorie for sinne Wherfore by your owne description and rule of a catholike faith your doctrine and teaching in these 4. articles cannot be good and catholike except you can finde it in plaine termes in the scripture and old catholike doctors which when you do I will hold vp my hand at the barre and say giltie And if you cannot then it is reason that you do the lyke per legem Talionis Winchester If this author setting apart the worde Catholike would of his owne wil go about to proue howsoeuer scripture hath bene vnderstanded hitherto yet it should be vnderstanded in dede as he now teacheth he hath herein diuers disaduantages and hindrances worthy consideration which I will particularly note First the preiudice and sentence geuen as it were by his own mouth against himself now in the booke called the Catechisme in his name set forth Secondly that about vij C. yere ago one Bertram if the booke set forth in hys name be his enterprised secretly the lyke as appereth by the said booke yet preuayled not Thirdly Berengarius beyng in dede but an Archdeacō about v. C. yeres past after he had openly attempted to set forth such like doctrine recanted so fayled in his purpose Fourthly Wickliffe not much aboue an C. yeares past enterprised the same whose teaching God prospered not Fiftly how Luther in his workes handled them that would haue in our tyme raised vp the same doctrine in Germany it is manifest by his their writings wherby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many ouerthrowes so many rebuts so oftē reproofes to be desperate and such as God hath not prospered and sauoured to be receyued at any tyme openly as his true teaching Herein whether I say true or no let the stories try me and it is matter worthy to bée noted because Gamaliels obseruation written in the Actes of the Apostles in allowed to marke how they prosper and go forward in their doctrine that be authors of any news teaching Caunterbury I Haue not proued in my booke my iiij assertions by mine owne wit but by the collation of holy scripture and the sayings of the old holy catholike authors And as for your v. notes you might haue noted thē against your selfe who by them haue much more disaduauntage and hinderance then I haue As concerning the Catechisme by me set forth I haue answered in my fourth booke the 8. chapter that ignorant men for lack of iudgement and exercise in olde authors mistake my said Catechisme And as for Bertrame he did nothing els but at the request of king Charles set out the true doctrine of the holy catholike church from Christ vnto his tyme concerning the sacrament And I neuer heard nor red any mā that condemned Bertrame before this tyme and therfore I can take no hinderance but a great aduantage at his handes For all men that hitherto haue written of Bertrame haue much commended him And
set together two contradictories For that the scholemen say God cannot do Winchester If this author without force of necessitie would induce it by the like speaches as whē Christ sayd I am the dore I am the vine he is Helias and such other and because it is a figuratiue speach in them it may be so here which maketh no kynd of proofe that it is so here But yet if by way of reasoning I would yeld to him therein and call it a figuratiue speach as he doth what other poynt of faith is there then in the matter but to beleue the story that Christ did institute such a supper wherin he gaue bread and wine for a token of his body and bloud which is now after this vnderstanding no secret mysterie at all or any ordinaunce aboue reason For commonly men vse to ordeyne in sensible thinges remembraunces of themselues when they dye or depart the countrey So as in the ordinaunce of this supper after this vnderstanding Christ shewed not his omnipotencie but onely beneuolence that he loued vs and would be remēbred of vs. For Christ did not say Whosoeuer eateth this token eateth my body or eateth my flesh or shall haue any profite of it in speciall but do this in remembraunce of me Caunterbury I Make no such vayne inductions as you imagine me to do but such as he established by scripture and the consent of all the olde writers And yet both you and Smith vse such fonde inductions for your proofe of Trāsubstantiation when you say God can do this thing and he cā make that thing wherof you would conclude that he doth clearely take away the substance of bread and wine and putteth his flesh and bloud in their places And that Christ maketh his body to be corporally in many places at one tyme of which doctrine you haue not one iote in all the whole scripture And as concerning your argument made vpon the history of the institution of Christes supper like fonde reasoning might vngodly men make of the sacrament of Baptisme and so scoffe out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when Christ said these wordes after his resurrection Goe into the whole world and preach vnto all people baptising them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Here might wicked blasphemers say What point of faith is in these wordes but to beleue the story that Christ did institute such a sacrament wherin he commaunded to geue water for a token which is now after this vnderstanding no secrete mysterie at all or any ordinaunce aboue reason so as in the ordinaunce of this sacrament after this vnderstanding Christ shewed not his omnipotency For he sayd not then Whosoeuer receiueth this token of water shall receuie remission of sinne or the holy ghost or shall haue any profite of it in especial but Do this Winchester And albeit this author would not haue them bare tokens yet and they be only tokēs they haue no warrāt signed by scripture for any apparell at all For the vi of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made to the eating of a token of Christes flesh but to the eating of Christes very flesh wherof the bread as this author would haue it is but a figure in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body And if it be but a figure in Christes wordes it is but a figure in S. Paules wordes whē he said The bread which we breake is it not the communication of Christes body that is to say a figure of the communication of Christes body if this authors doctrine be true and not the communication in dede Wherfore if the very body of Christ be not in the supper deliuered in déede the eatyng there hath no speciall promise but onely commaundement to do it in remembrance After which doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and special mysterie that hath nothing hidden in it but a playne open ordinaunce of a token for a remembraunce to the eating of which token is annered no promise expressely ne any holynes to be accompted to be in the bread or wyne as this author teacheth but to be called holy because they be deputed to an holy vse If I aske the vse he declareth to signifie If I should aske what to signifie There must be a sort of good wordes framed without scripture For scripture expresseth no matter of signification of speciall effect Caunterbury IF I graunted for your pleasure that the bare bread hauyng no further respect were but onely a bare figure of Christes body or a bare token because that terme liketh you better as it may be thought for this consideration that men should thinke that I take the bread in the holy mysterie to be but as it were a token of I recommend me vnto you but if I graunt I say that the bare bread is but a bare token of Christes body what haue you gayned therby Is therfore the whole vse of the bread in the whole action and ministration of the lordes holy supper but a naked or nude bare token Is not one lofe being broken and distributed among faithful people in the lordes supper taken and eaten of them a token that the body of Christ was broken and crucified for them and is to them spiritually and effectually geuen and of them spiritually and fruitfully taken and eaten to their spirituall and heauenly comfort sustentation nourishment of their soules as the bread is of their bodies And what would you require more Cā there be any greater comfort to a christian man then this Is here nothing els but bare tokens But yet importune aduersaries and such as be wilful and obstinate wil neuer be satisfied but quarell further saying What of all this Here be a great many of gay wordes framed together but to what purpose For all be but signes and tokens as concerning the bread But how can he be taken for a good christian man that thinketh that Christ did ordaine his sacramentall signes and tokens in vayne without effectuall grace and operation For so might we as well say that the water in baptisme is a bare token and hath no warrant signed by scripture for any apparell at all for the scripture speaketh not of any promise made to the receiuing of a token or figure onely And so may be concluded after your maner of reasoning that in baptisme is no spirituall operation in dede because that washing in water in it selfe is but a token But to expresse the true effect of the sacramentes As the washing outwardly in water is not a vayne token but teacheth such a washing as god worketh inwardly in them that duely receiue the same So likewise is not the bread a vayne token but sheweth and preacheth to the godly receyuer what God worketh in him by his almighty power secretely and inuisibly And therfore as the bread is outwardly eaten in deede in the lordes supper
body from his spirite affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite and in the communion but his flesh And that Christes spirit renueth our life but increaseth it not and that his flesh increceth our life but geueth it not And agaynst all nature reasō and truth you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christes body and bloud in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all And against scripture and all comformity of nature you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacrament that you leaue no distinction proportion nor fashion of mannes body at all And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother of the true doctrine of Christ that thus vnnaturally speaketh deuydeth and confoundeth Christes body If Salomon were aliue he would surely geue iudgement that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh so vnnaturally and so vnlike his mother and be geuen to the true church of the faithful that neuer digressed from the truth of Gods word nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body but speake according to the same that Christes body although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body occupying one place and being of a certayne height and measure hauing all members distinct and set in good order and proportion And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye is not only the beginning but also the contynuance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life By him we be regenerated by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature as Christ doth in his without mixtion or confusion This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother and like a true and right beleeuing christian man Marye of that doctrine which you teach I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof which in scripture is called Babilō because of commixtion or confusion Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth superstition with religiō godlines with hipocrisie scripture with traditions that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant to confound all the doctrine of Christ yea Christ him selfe shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother and the true naturall mother of Antichrist And for the conclusion of your matter here I doubt not but the indifferent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts sleightes shiftes obliquities manifest vntruthes it may be easely iudged that what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet nothing is lesse intended then that truth should ether haue victory or appeare and be seene at all Winchester And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes which this author is not afraid to vtter a matter wonderfull considering his dignity if he that is named be the author in déede which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth First I will note vnto the reader how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament to be the faith of the papistes which saying what foundacion it hath thou mayest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish defended stoutly the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in England in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gospels professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany where Hosiander is chiefe preacher in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the word truly is there and as Buter saith that is substancially Which Catechisme was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from the beginning alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene Ciprian Chrisostome Hillary Cirill Ambrose and Theophilacte which authors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to idle wittes with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estéemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is published abroad in printe wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse and that in it is dispensed the true body true bloud of Christ which is plainly the same in essence that is to say substāce and the same bloud in essence signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye taken for no papist among vs to much estéemed as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Ciprian Hilary Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basill Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iudgement he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words this is my body rehearsed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what
occasions men haue erred in reading the old fathers and wisheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error would also folow him in repentance I will not reader encombre thée with mo wordes of Erasmus Peter Martyr of Oxford taken for no Papist in a treatise he made of late of the Sacrament which is now translated into Englishe sheweth how as touching the real presence of Christes body it is not only the sentence of the papistes but of other also whom the sayd Peter neuerthelesse doth with as many shiftes and lyes as he may impugne for that point as well as he doth the Papistes for transubstantiation but yet he doth not as this author doth impute that fayth of the reall presence of Christs body and bloud to the only Papistes Wherupon Reader here I ioyne with the author an issue that the faith of the reall and substantiall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament is not the deuise of Papistes or their faith only as this author doth considerately slaunder it to be and desire therfore that according to Salamons iudgement this may serue for a note and marke to geue sentence for the true mother of the child For what should this mean so without shame openly and vntruely to call this fayth papishe but only with the enuious word of Papist to ouermatche the truth Caunterbury THis explication of the true catholicke fayth noteth to the Reader certayn euident manifest vntruthes vttered by me as he sayth which I also pray thee good reader to note for this intent that thou mayst take the rest of my sayinges for true which he noteth not for false doubtles they should not haue escaped noting as wel as the other if they had bin vntrue as he sayth the other be And if I can proue these thinges also true whichhe noteth for manyfest and euident vntruthes then mee thinketh it is reason that all my sayinges should be allowed for true if those be proued true which only be reiected as vntrue But this vntruth is to be noted in him generally that he either ignorantly mistaketh or willingly misreporteth almost all that I say But now note good Reader the euident and manyfest vntruthes which I vtter as he sayth The first is that the faith of the reall presence is the fayth of the papistes An other is that these wordâ—s my flesh is verely meate I doe translate thus My flesh is very meate An other is that I handle not sincerely the words of S. Augustine speaking of the eating of Christes body The fourth is that by these wordes this is my body Christ inteÌ„deth not to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receiue that worthely be members of Christes body These be the haynous and manifest errors which I haue vttered As touching the first that the faith of the real and substancial presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is the faith of the papistes this is no vntruth but a most certain truth For you confesse your selfe and defend in this booke that it is your faith and so do likewise all the papistes And here I will make an issue with you that the papistes beleeue the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament Aunswere me directly without colour whether it be so or not If they beleeue not so then they beleeue as I doe for I beleeue not so and then let them openly confesse that my belief is true And if they beleeue so then say I true when I say that it is the papistes faith And then is my saying no manifest vntruth but a meere truth so the verdict in the issue passeth vpon my side by your own confession And here the Reader may note well that once again you be faine to flye for succor vnto M. Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Aepinus whose names were wonte to be so hatefull vnto you that you coulde neuer with patience abide the hearing of them yet their sayinges helpe you nothing at all For although these men in this many other thinges haue in times past and yet peraduenture some doe the vayle of olde darcknes not cleerly in euery point remoued from their eyes agree with the papistes in part of this matter yet they agree not in the wholl and therfore it is true neuerthelesse that this fayth which you teache is the Papistes faith For if you would conclude that this is not the Papistes faith because Luther Bucer other beleue in many things as the papists do theÌ„ by the same reasoÌ„ you may conclude that the papists beleeue not that Christ was borne crucified dyed rose again ascended into heaueÌ„ which things Luther Bucer the other coÌ„stantly doth taught beleeued and yet the faith of the real preseÌ„ce may be called rather the fayth of the papists then of the other not only because the papists do so beleue but specially for that the papists were the first authors and inuentors of that faith and haue been the chief spreaders abroad of it and were the cause that other were blinded with the same error But here may the Reader note one thing by the way that it is a foule cloute that you would refuse to wipe your nose withal when you take such men to proue your matter whom you haue hetherto accounted moste vile and filthy heretickes And yet now you be glad to flye to them for succour whom you take for Gods enemyes and to whom you haue euer had a singular hatred You pretende that you stay your selfe vpon auncyent wryters And why runne you now to such men for ayde as be not onely new but also as you thinke be euill and corrupt in iudgement And to such as thinke you by your writinges and doinges as ranke a Papiste as is any at Rome And yet not one of these new men whom you alleadge doe throughlye agree with your doctrine either in transubstantiation or in carnall eating and drinking of Christes flesh and bloud or in the sacrifice of Christ in the masse nor yet throughlye in the reall presence For they affirme not suche a grosse presence of Christes body as expelleth the substance of bread and is made by conuersion therof into the substance of Christes body and is eaten with the mouth And yet if they did the auncyent authors that were next vnto Christs time whom I haue alleadged may not geue place vnto these new men in this matter although they were men of excellent learning and iudgement how so euer it liketh you to accept them But I may conclude that your faith in the Sacrament is popish vntill such time as you can proue that your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence was vniuersally receaued and beleeued before the bishops of Rome defined and determined the same And when you haue prooued that then will I graunt that in your first note you haue conuinced me of an euident
because they be spoken by Christ hym selfe the auctor of all truth and by hys holy Apostle S. Paule as he receaued them of Christ so all doctrines contrary to the same be moste certaynly false and vntrue and of al Christen men to be eschued because they be contrary to Gods word And all doctrine concerning this matter that is more then this which is not grounded vpon Gods word is of no necessity neither ought the peoples heads to be busied or their consciences troubled with the same So that thinges spoken and done by Christ and written by the holy Euangelists and S Paule ought to suffice the fayth of Christian people as touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper and holy communion or sacrament of his body and bloud Which thing being well considered and wayed shall be a iust occasion to pacifie and agree both parties as well them that hetherto haue contemned or lightly esteemed it as also them which haue hetherto for lacke of knowledge or otherwise vngodly abused it Christ ordeyned the Sacrament to moue and stirre all men to frendshippe loue and concord and to put away all hatred variance and discord and to testifie a brotherly and vnfained loue between all them that be the members of Christ But the deuil the enemy of Christ and of all his members hath so craftely iugled herein that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy Sacrament God graunt that al contention set aside both the parties may come to this holy communiō with such a liuely faith in Christ and such an vnfained loue to all Christes members that as they carnallye eate with their mouthes this Sacramentall bread and drink the wine so spiritually they may eate and drink the very flesh and bloud of Christ which is in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of his father And that finally by his meanes they may enioy with him the glory and kingdome of heauen Amen Winchester Now let vs consider the tertes of the Euangelistes and S. Paul which be brought in by the Author as followeth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cuppe and when he had geuen thanks he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and said Take eate this is my body And taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruite of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingedome of God When the houre was come he sate downe and the twelue Apostles with him and he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer for I say vnto you henceforth I wil not eate of it any more vntill it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you for I say vnto you I wil not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntil the kingdome of God come And he tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body whith is geuen for you this doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he tooke the cup saying This cuppe is the new testament in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup. That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cup when supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherefore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cup vnworthely shall be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine himselfe and so eate of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you and many doe sléepe After these tertes brought in the author doth in the 4. chap. begin to trauers Christes intent that he intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receaue that worthely be members of Christes body The catholick church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man hath from the beginning of these textes of scripture confessed truely Christes intent and effectuall miraculous worke to make the bread his body and the wine his bloud to be verely meate and verely drinke vsing therin his humanitie wherewith to féede vs as he vsed the same wherewith to redéeme vs and as he doth sanctifie vs by his holy spirite so to sanctifie vs by his holy diuine flesh and bloud and as life is renued in vs by the gift of Christes holy spirite so life to be increased in vs by the gift of his holy flesh So as he that beléeueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beliefe which is Baptisme receaueth really Christes spirite And likewise he that hauing Christes spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud Doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes very body and bloud And therfore Christ in the institution of this Sacrament sayd deliuering that he consecrated This is my body c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud c. And although to mannes reason it séemeth straunge that Christ standing or sitting at the table should deliuer them his body to be eaten Yet when we remember Christ to be very God we must graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in our thoughtes all imaginations how it might be and consider Christes
knew they it not Forsooth because their mindes were grosse as yet and had not receaued the fulnes of the Spirite And therfore our Sauyour Christ minding to draw them from this grossenes tolde them of an other kinde of meate then they fantasied as it were rebuking them for that they perceiued not that there was any other kinde of eating and drinking besides that eating and drinking which is with the mouth and throate Likewise when he said to the woman of Samaria Who soeuer shall drink of that water that I shal geue him shal neuer be thirsty again They that heard him speak those words might well perceiue that he went about to make them well acquainted with an other kinde of drinking then is the drinking with the mouth and throate For there is no such kinde of drinke that with once drinking can quench the thirst of a mans body for euer Wherefore in saying he shall neuer be thirsty agayn he did draw their mindes from drinking with the mouth vnto another kinde of drinking wherof they knew not and vnto another kinde of thirsting wherewith as yet they were not acquainted And also when our Sauyour Christ said he that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleeueth on me shall neuer be thirsty he gaue them a plain watcheworde that there was another kinde of meate and drinke then that wherwith he fed them at the other syde of the water and an other kynde of hungryng and thirstyng then was the hungryng and thyrstyng of the bodye By these wordes therfore he droue the people to vnderstand an other kynde of eatyng and drynking of hungring and thirsting then that whiche belongeth onely for the preseruation of temporall life Now then as the thing that comforteth the body is called meate and drink of a lyke sorte the scripture calleth the same thinge that comforteth the soule meate and drinke Wherfore as here before in the first note is declared the hunger drought of the soule so is it nowe secondly to be noted what is the meate drinke and foode of the soule The meate drinke foode and refreshing of the soule is our Sauiour Christ as he sayd himselfe Come vnto me all you that trauaile and be laden and I will refresh you And If any man be dry sayth he let him come to me and drinke He that beleueth in me floudes of water of life shall flowe out of hys bellye And I am the bread of life saith Christe he that commeth to me shall not be hungry and he that beleeueth in me shall neuer be dry For as meate and drinke do comfort the hungry body so doth the death of Christes body and the shedding of his bloud comforte the soule when she is after her sorte hungry What thinge is it that comforteth and nourisheth the body Forsooth meate and drinke By what names then shall we call the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ which do comfort and nourish the hungry soule but by the names of meate and drynke And this symilitude caused our Sauiour to say my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drinke For there is no kinde of meate that is comfortable to the soule but only the death of Christes blessed body Nor no kinde of drinke that can quench her thirst but only the bloudsheading of our Sauyour Christ which was shed for her offences For as there is a carnall generation and a carnall feeding and nourishment so is there also a spirituall generation and a spirituall feeding And as euery man by carnall generation of father and mother is carnally begotten and borne vnto this mortall life so is euery good christian spiritually borne by Christ vnto eternall life And as euery man is carnally fedde and nourished in his body by meat and drinke euen so is euery good christian man spiritually fed and nourished in his soule by the flesh and bloud of our Sauyour Christ. And this Christ hymselfe teacheth vs in thys syxt of Iohn saying Verely verely I say vnto you excepte ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drynke hys bloud you haue no life in you Who so eateth my flesh and drynketh my bloude hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the last daye For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drynke He that eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloude dwelleth in me and I in hym As the liuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall lyue by me And this S. Paul confessed him selfe saying That I haue life I haue it by faith in the Sonne of God And now it is not I that liue but Christ liueth in me The thyrd thyng to be noted is this that although our Sauiour Christ resembleth hys fleshe and bloud to meate and drynke yet he farre passeth and excelleth all corporall meates and drynkes For although eorporall meates and drynkes do nourish and continue our life here in this world yet they begin not our life For the beginning of our lyfe we haue of our fathers and mothers and the meate after we be begotten doth feede and nourish vs and so preserueth vs for a tyme. But our sauiour Christ is both the first beginner of our spirituall lyfe who first begetteth vs vnto God his father and also afterward he is our lyuely foode and nourishment Moreouer meate and drynke doe feede and nourishe onely our bodyes but CHRISTE is the true and perfect nourishment both of body and soule And besides that bodely foode preserueth the lyfe but for a tyme but Christ is such a spirituall and perfect foode that he preserueth both body and soule for euer as he sayde vnto Martha I am a resurrection and lyfe He that beleueth in me although he dye yet shall he lyue And hee that lyueth and beleeueth in me shal not dye for euer Fourthly it is to be noted that the true knowledge of these things is the true knowledge of Christ and to teache these thinges is to teache Christ. and the beleuing and feelyng of these thinges is the beleuyng and feelyng of Christ in our hartes And the more clearely we see vnderstand and beleue these thinges the more clearely we see and vnderstand Christ and haue more fully our fayth and comfort in hym And although our carnal generation and our carnal nourishment be known to all men by dayly experyence and by our common senses yet this our spirituall generation and our spirituall nutrition be so obscure and hyd vnto vs that we cannot attayne to the true and perfect knowledge and feelyng of them but onely by fayth which must be grounded vpon Goddes most holy worde and sacramentes And for this consideration our Sauiour Christ hath not only set forth these thyngs most playnly in his holy word that we may heare them with our eares but he hath also ordayned one visible sacrament of spirituall regeneration in water and an
other visible sacrament of spirituall nourishment in bread and wine to the intent that as much as is possible for man we may see Christ with our eyes smell hym at our nose taste hym with our mouthes grope hym with our handes and perceiue hym with all our senses For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into our eares so likewise these elementes of water bread and wyne ioyned to Gods word do after a sacramentall maner put Christ into our eyes mouthes handes and all our senses And for this cause Christ ordeyned baptisme in water that as surely as we se feele and touch water with our bodyes and be washed with water so assuredly ought we to beleue when we be baptised that Christ is veryly present with vs and that by him we be newly borne agayne spiritually and wafhed from our sinnes and grafted in the stocke of Christes owne body and be apparailed clothed and harnessed with hym in such wise that as the deuill hath no power agaynst Chryst so hath he none agaynst vs so long as we remayne grafted in that stocke and be clothed with that apparell and harnessed with that armour So that the washing in water of baptisme is as it were shewing of Christ before our eyes and a sensible touching feelyng and gropyng of hym to the confirmation of the inwarde fayth which we haue in hym And in like maner Christ ordeined the sacrament of hys bodye and bloud in bread and wine to preach vnto vs that as our bodyes be fed nourished and preserued with meate and drynke so as touching our spirituall life towardes God we be fed nourished and preserued by the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ and also that he is such a preseruation vnto vs that neither the deuils of hell nor eternall death nor sinne can be able to preuayle agaynst vs so long as by true and constant faith we be fed and nourished with that meate and drynk And for this cause Christ ordeined this sacrament in bread and wine whiche we eate and drynke and be chiefe nutrimentes of our body to thintent that as surely as we see the bread and wine with our eyes smell them with our noses touch them with our handes and taste them with our mouthes so assuredlye ought we to beleue that Christ is a spirituall lyfe and sustinaunce of our soules like as the sayd bread and wine is the foode and sustinance of our bodyes And no lesse ought we to doubt that our soules be fed and liue by Christ then that our bodies be fed and liue by meate and drinke Thus our sauiour Christ knowing vs to be in this world as it were but babes and weakelinges in fayth hath ordeyned sensible signes and tokens whereby to allure and drawe vs to more strength and more constant fayth in hym So that the eatyng and drynkyng of thys sacramentall bread and wine is as it were shewing of Christe before our eies a smellyng of hym with our noses felyng and gropyng of hym with our handes and an eatyng chawing digestyng and feedyng vpon hym to our spirituall strength and perfection Fiftely it is to be noted that although there be many kindes of meates and drinkes which feede the body yet our Sauiour Christ as many auncyent authors write ordayned this sacrament of our spiritual feding in bread and wine rather then in other meates and drynkes because that bread and wine doe most liuely represent vnto vs the spirituall vnion and knot of all faythful people as well vnto Christ as also amonges them selues For like as bread is made of a great number of grains of corne ground baken and so ioyned together that therof is made one lose And an infinite number of grapes be pressed togither in one vessell and thereof is made wine likewise the whole multitude of true christen people spiritually ioyned first to Christ and then among them selues togither in one fayth one baptisme one holy spirite one knot and bond of loue Sixtly it is to be noted that as the bread and wine whiche we doe eate be turned into our fleshe and bloud and be made our very fleshe and very bloud and so be ioyned and myxed with our fleshe and bloud that they be made one whole body togither euen so be all faythfull christians spiritually turned into the body of Christ and so be ioyned vnto Christe and also togither amonge them selues that they doe make but one misticall body of Christe as S. Paule sayth We be one bread and one body as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. And as one lofe is giuen among many men so that euery one is partaker of the same lofe and likewise one cup of wine is distributed vnto many persons wherof euery one is partaker euen so our Sauiour Christ whose flesh and bloud be represented by the misticall bread and wine in the Lords Supper doth geue him selfe vnto al his true members spiritually to feede them nourish them and to geue them continuall life by him And as the branches of a tree or member of a body if they be dead or cut of they neither liue nor receaue any nourishment or sustinance of the body or tree so likewise vngodly and wicked people which be cut of from Christes misticall body or be dead members of the same doe not spiritually feede vpon Christes body and bloud nor haue any life strength or sustentation thereby Seuenthly it is to be noted that where as nothing in this life is more acceptable before God or more pleasant vnto man thē christen people to liue together quietly in loue and peace vnity and concord this Sacrament doth most aptly and effectuously moue vs thereunto For when we be made all partakers of this one table what ought we to thinke but that we be all members of one spirituall body wherof Christ is the head that we be ioyned together in one Christ as a great number of graynes of corne be ioyned together in one loafe Surely they haue very hard and stony hartes which with these thinges be not moued and more cruell and vnreasonable be they then bruit beastes that cannot be perswaded to be good to their christen brethren and neighboures for whom Christ suffered death when in this Sacrament they be put in remēbrāce that the Sonne of God bestowed his life for his enemies For we see by daily experience that eating and drinking together maketh frendes and continueth frendshippe much more then ought the table of Christ to moue vs so to doe Wilde beastes and birdes be made gentile by geuing them meate and drinke why then should not christen men waxe meeke and gentle with this heauenly meate of Christ Hereunto we be stirred and moued as well by the bread and wine in this holy Supper as by the wordes of holy Scripture recited in the same Wherefore whose hart soeuer this holy Sacrament Communion and Supper of Christ wil not kindle with loue vnto his
in the second parte But what be you eased now by this We say as the scripture teacheth that Christ is corporally ascended in to heauen and neuerthelesse he is so in them that worthely eate the bread drinke the wine geuen and distributed at his holy Supper that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and bloud vnto eternal life But we say not as you doe cleerely without ground of Scripture that he is corporally vnder the formes of bread and wine where his presence should be without any profite or commoditie either to vs or to the bread and wine And here in this difference it seemeth that you haue either cleerely forgotten or negligently ouershotte yourselfe vttering that thing vnwares which is contrary is your wholl booke For the first parte which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramentall bread and wine is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued say you where it is true Christ to be present God and man the second part say you which is of the being of Christ in them that worthely eat and drink the bread and wine is of Christs spiritual presence Of your which words I se nothing to be gathered but that as concerning his substancial presence Christ is receaued into the Sacramental bread and wine and as for them that worthely receaue the Sacrament he is in them none otherwise then after a Spirituall presence For els why should ye say that the second parte is of Christes spirituall presence if it be as well of his corporall as of his spirituall presence Wherefore by your own words this difference should be vnderstanded of two different beings of Christ that in the Sacrament he is by his substance and in the worthy receauers spiritually and not by his substance for els the differences repugne not as you obiect against me Wherfore either you write one thing mean another or els as you write of other God so blindeth the aduersaries of the truth that in one place or other they confesse the truth vnwares Now follow my wordes in the second comparison They say that when any man eateth the bread and drinketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomacke with the bread and wine and no further But we say that Christ is in the wholl man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread drinketh the cup not in his mouth or stomack only Winchester In this comparison the Author termeth the true Catholick teaching at his pleasure to bring it in contempte Which doing in rude speach would be called otherwise then I will tearme it Truth it is as S. Augustine saith we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth and such speach other vse as a booke set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name called a Catechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ which I alleadge because it shall appeare it is a teaching set forth among vs of late as hath béene also and is by the booke of common prayer being the most true catholicke doctrine of the substance of the sacrament in that it is there so catholickly spoken of which booke this Author doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teaching doth improue it in that pointe So much is he contrary to him self in this worke and here in this place not caring what he saith reporteth such a teaching in the first parte of this difference as I haue not heard of before There wes neuer man of learning that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomack of the man that receaued and no further For that is written contra Stercoranistas is nothing to this teaching nor the speach of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholicke doctrine is that by the holy communion in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body which is a flesh geuing life And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in vs and attēpereth by heauēly nuriture our body and soule beyng partakers of his passion to be conformable to hys will and by such spirituall foode to be many more spirituall In the receauing of which foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duely communicate worke together in due order without other discussion of the mistery then God hath appointed that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to doe as God hath ordered knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer but to be most profitable vnto such as doe accustome worthely to receaue the same But to say that the church teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomacke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgement of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Now where this Author in the second parte by an aduersatiue with a But to make the comparison felleth what he and his say he telleth in effecte that which euery catholicke man must néedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christs most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthely they haue Christ dwelling in them who comforteth both body and soule which the church hath euer taught most plainly So as this comparison of difference in his two parties is made of one open vntruth and a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this Author and his which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is vsed in the matter Caunterbury IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to tearm the true catholicke faith for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papisticall faith which I haue tearmed none otherwise then I learned of their own tearming and therfore if my tearming please you not as in deede it ought to please no man yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inuentoures of that tearming and not in me that against them do vse their owne tearmes tearming the matter as they doe them selfe because they should not finde faulte with me as you doe that I tearme their teaching at my pleasure And as for receauing of the body of Christ with our mouthes truth it is that S. Augustine Ambros Chrysostome and other vse such speaches that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes see hym with our eyes feele hym with our handes breake hym teare hym with our teeth eate him and dygest him which speach I haue also vsed in my catechisme but yet these speeches must be vnderstand figuratiuely as I haue declared in my fourth booke the eyght chapiter and shall more fully declare hereafter for we doe not these thinges to
the very body of Christ but to the bread wherby hys body is represented And yet the booke of common prayer neyther vseth any such speach nor geueth any such doctrine nor I in no poynt improue that godly booke nor varye from it But yet glad I am to heare that the sayd booke lyketh you so well as noe man can mislike it that hath anye godlinesse in hym ioyned with knowledge But nowe to come to the very matter of this article it is maruell that you neuer redde that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke of that man that receaueth and no further being a lawyer and seing that it is written in the glose of the law De-consecrat dist 2. Tribus gradibus in these wordes It is certayne that assone as the formes be torne with the teeth so sone the body of Christ is gone vp into heauen And in the chapiter Non iste is an other glose to the same purpose And if you had redde Thomas de Aquino and Bonauenture great clearkes and holy Sainctes of the Popes own making and other schoole authors then should you haue knowne what the Papistee do say in this matter For some say that the body of Christ remayneth so long as the forme and fashion of bread remayneth although it be in a dog mouse or in the iakes And some say it is not in the mouse nor sakes but remayneth onely in the person that eateth it vntill it be digested in the stomacke and the fourme of bread be gone Some say it remayneth no longer then the Sacrament is in the eating and may be felt seene and tasted in the mouth And this besides Hugo sayth Pope Innocentius hym selfe who was the best learned and the chiefe doer in this matter of all the other Popes Red you neuer none of these authors and yet take vpō you the full knowledge of this matter Will you take vpon you to defend the Papistes and knowe not what they say Or do you know it and now be ashamed of it and for shame will deny it And seing that you teache that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes I pray you tell whether it go any further then the mouth or no and how farre it goeth that I may know your iudgement herein and so shall you be charged no further then with your own saying and the reader shall perceiue what excellent knowledge you haue in this matter And where you say that to teach that we receaue Christ at our mouth he goeth into our stomack and no further commeth out of the mouth of thē that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Here like vnto Caiphas you prophecy the truth vnwares For this doctrine commeth out of the mouth of none but of the Papistes which fight against the holy catholicke truth of the aūcient Fathers saying that Christ tarrieth no longer then the proper formes of bread and wine remaine which can not remain after perfect digestion in the stomacke And I say not that the Church teacheth so as you fayne me to say but that the Papistes say so Wherfore I should wish you to reporte my words as I say and not as you imagine me to say least you heare agayne as you haue heard heretofore of your wonderfull learning and practise in the Deuils Sophistrye Now as concerning the second parte of this comparison here you graūt that my saying therein is true and that euery Catholick man must needes and doth confesse the same By which your saying you must also condemne almost all the schoole authors and Lawiers that haue written of this matter with Innocent the third also as men not Catholick because they teach that Christ goeth no further nor taryeth no longer then the formes of bread and wine goe and remayn in their proper kinde And yet now your doctrine as farre as I can gather of your obscure wordes is this That Christ is receaued at the mouth with the formes of bread and wine and goeth with them into the stomack And although they goe no further in their proper kinds yet there Christ leaueth them and goeth him selfe further into euery parte of the mannes body and into his soule also which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange For I haue many times heard that a soule hath gone into a body but I neuer heard that a body went into a soule But I weene of all the Papistes you shal be alone in this matter and finde neuer a fellow to say as you doe And of these thinges which I haue here spoaken I may conclude that this comparison of difference is not made of an open vntruth and a truth disguised except you wil confesse the Papisticall doctrine to be an open vntruth Now the wordes of my third comparison be these They say that Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine We say that he is receaued in the hart and entreth in by faith Winchester Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on both sides and therfore here is by the Author in this comparison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauing of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is both with mouth and harte both in facte and faith After which sorte Saynte Peter in the laste Supper receaued Christes body where as in the same Iudas receaued it with mouth and in facte onely wherof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise Non dicuns ista nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt sicut Tetrus non iudicium sicut Indas tamē ipsa vtrique fuit vina sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi non erant vnum Which wordes be thus much to say That they say not so as was before intreated but such as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgement as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in them both bycause they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued which being receaued with the mouth only and Christ entring in mysterie onely doth not sanctifie vs but is the stone of stumbling and our iudgement and condemnation but if he be receaued with mouth and body with hart and fayth to such he bringeth lyfe and nourishment Wherfore in this comparison the author hath made no difference but with diuers tearmes the Catholicke teaching is deuided into two membres with a But fashioned neuertheles in another phrase of spéech then the church hath vsed which is so common in this Author that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte But let vs goe further Caunterbury THere is nothing in this comparyson worthy to be answered for if you can finde no difference therein yet euery indifferent Reader can For when I reporte the Papistes teaching that they
receauer vnto heauen so sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke this maner of speach implieth as though Christ leaft the seat of his maiestie in heauen to be present in the Sacrament which is most vntrue The Church acknowledgeth beleeueth and teacheth truly that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory frō whence he shall come to iudge the worlde and also teacheth Christs very body and bloud and Christ him selfe God and man to be present in the Sacrament not by shifting of place but by the determination of his will declared in Scriptures and beléeued of the Catholick church which articles be to reason impossible but possible to God omnipotent So as being taught of his will we should humbly submitte all our sēses and reason to the faith of his will and worke declared in his Scriptures In the beléefe of which misteries is great benefit and consolation and in the vnreuerēt search and curious discussion of thē presumptuous boldnes wicked temerity I know by faith Christ to be present but the particularity how he is present more then I am assured he is truely present and therfore in substance present I cannot tell but present he is and truely is and verely is and so in déede that is to say really is and vnfaynedly is and therfore in substance is and as we tearme it substancially is present For all these aduerbes really substancially with the rest be contayned in the one word is spoakē out of his mouth that speaketh as he meaneth truely and certainly as Christ did saying This is my body that shall be betrayed for you who then carryed him selfe in his hands after a certain manner as S. Augustine sayth which neuer man besides him could doe who in that his last Supper gaue him selfe to be eaten without consuming The wayes and meanes wherof no man can tell but humble spirites as they be taught must constātly beléeue it without thinking or talking of flying of stying of Christ again vnto heauē where Christ is in the glory of his Father continually and is neuerthelesse because he will so be present in the Sacrament wholl God and man dwelleth corporally in him that receaueth him worthely Wherfore Reader when thou shalt agayn well consider this comparison thou shalt finde true how the first parte is disguysed with vntrue report of the common teaching of the Church how so euer some glose or some priuat teacher might speak of it And the second part such as hath béen euer so taught One thing I think good to admonish the reader that what soeuer I affirme or precisely deny I meane within the compasse of my knowledge which I speak not because I am in any suspicion or doubt of that I affirme or deny but to auoyd the temerity of denying as neuer or affirming as euer which be extremityes And I mean also of publicke doctrine by consent receaued so taught and beléeued and not that ony one man might blindly write as vttering his fancy as this autor doth for his pleasure There followeth in the Author thus Caunterbury BEcause this comparison as you say is like the other therfore it is fully answered before in the other comparisons And here yet agayn it is to be noted that in all these 4. comparisons you approue and allow for truth the second parte of the comparison which we say And where you say that Christ vndoubtedly remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the sacrament so long as that man remaineth a member of Christ. How agreeth this with the common saying of all the Papistes that Christ is conteyned vnder the formes of bread and wine and remayneth there no longer then the formes of bread and wine remain Wherefore in this point all the wholl route of the Papistes will condemne for vntruth that which you so constantly affirme to be vndoubtedly true And when the Papistes teache that the body of Christ is really in the sacramēt vnder the forme of bread they speak not this geueng faith to Christ his words as you say they doe for Christ neuer spake any such words and as for this saying of Christ this is my body it is a figuratiue speach called Metonymia when one thing is called by the name of another which it signifieth and it hath no such sence as you pretend for these is a great diuersity betweene these two sayinges This is my body and the body of Christ is really in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread But the Papists haue set Christes wordes vpon the tenters and stretched them out so farre that they make his wordes to signifie as pleaseth them not as he meant And this is a marueilous doctrine of you to say that Christ was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and did exhibite and geue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promised in the Sacramentes of the olde law For he is the body of all the figures as well of the new law as of the olde and did exhibite and geue his promises in the Sacramentes of the olde law as he doth now in the Sacraments of the new law And we must vnderstand and the wordes spoaken in the institution of the Sacramentes in both the lawes Figuratiuely as concerning the Sacramentes and without figure as concerning the thinges by them promised signified and exhibited As in circumcision was geeuen the same thing to them that is geuen to vs in baptisme and the same by Manna that we haue at the Lords table Only this difference was betweene them and vs that our redemption by Christes death and passion was then onely promised and now it is perfourmed and past And as their Sacramentes were figures of his death to come so be our figures of the same now past and gon And yet it was all but one Christ to them and vs. Who gaue life comfort and strength to them by his death to come and geueth the same to vs by his death passed And he was in their Sacramentes spiritually and effectually present and for so much truely and really present that is to say in deede before he was born no lesse thē he is now in our Sacramēts present after his death and assention into heauen But as for carnall presence he was to them not yet come And to vs he is come and gone agayne vnto his Father from whom he came And as for the reseruation of the Sacrament neither Cyrill nor Hesychius speake any worde what ought to be done with the Sacrament when by negligence of the Minister it were reserued ouer long But Hesychius sheweth plainly that nothing ought to be reserued but to be burned what so euer remayned And as for the flying of Christ vp into heauen so soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or changed in the stomack I say not that the church teacheth so but that Papistes say so whith for as
condemnatiō only And the learned mē in Christes church say that the ignoraunce and want of obseruation of these thrée maner of eatinges causeth the errour in the vnderstanding of the scriptures and such fathers sayinges as haue written of the sacrament And when the Church speaketh of these thrée maner of eatinges what an impudency is it to say that the church teacheth good men only to eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud when they receaue the Sacrament being the truth otherwise yet a diuersity ther is of eatyng spiritually only eating spiritually and sacramētally because in that supper they receue his very flesh bloud in deed with the effects of al graces gifts to such as receue it spiritually worthely wher as out of the supper when we eat only spiritually by fayth God that worketh without his sacramentes as semeth to him doth releaue those that beleue and trust in him and suffereth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them whereof we may not presume contemning the sacrament but ordenaryly seke God where he hath ordred himself to be sought and there to assure our selfe of his couenaunts and promyses which be most certaynly annexed to his sacramentes whereunto we ought to geue most certayne trust and confidence wherfore to teach the spirituall manducation to be equall with the spirituall manducation and sacramentall also that is to diminish the effect of the institutiō of the Sacrament which no Christen man ought to doe Caunterbury WHo is so ignoraunt that hath red any thing at all but he knoweth that distinction of thre eatinges But no man that is of learning and iudgement vnderstandeth the 3. diuerse eatings in such sort as you doe but after this manner That some eat only the sacrament of Christs body but not the very body it selfe some eat his body and not the Sacrament and some eat the Sacrament and body both togither The Sacramēt that is to say the bread is corporally eaten and chawed with the teth in the mouth The very body is eaten and chawed with faith in the spirite Ungodly men whē they receaue the Sacramēt they chaw in their mouthes like vnto Iudas the Sacramētal bread but they eat not the celestial bread which is Christ. Faithful Christian people such as be Christs true disciples continually frō tyme to tyme record in theyr myndes the beneficiall death of our Sauiour Christ chawing it by fayth in the cud of their spirit and digesting it in their harts feding and comforting themselues with that heauēly meat although they dayly receaue not the Sacrament thereof and so they eat Christs body spiritually although not the sacrament thereof But when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of eternall lyfe geuen vnto them by Christes death come vnto the Lords holy Table then as before ehey fed spiritually vpon Christ so now they feed corporally also vpon the sacramental bread By which sacramētal feeding in Christes promises their former spirituall feding is increased and they grow and wax continually more strōg in Christ vntill at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. This is the teaching of the true Catholick Church as it is taught by Gods word And therefore S. Paule speaking of them that vnworthely eat sayth that they eat the bread but not that they eat the body of Christ but their own damnation And where you set out with your accustomed rethorical colours a great impudencie in me that would report of the Papistes that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud only when they receaue the Sacramēt seyng that I know that the Papistes make a distinction of 3. maner of eatinges of Christes body whereof one is without the sacrament I am not ignoraunt in deed that the Papists graunt a spiritual eating of Christs body without the sacrament but I mean of such an eating of his body as his presēce is in the Sacrament and as you say he is there eatē that is to say corporally Therefore to expresse my mind more plainely to you that list not vnderstand let this be the comparison They say that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacramēt and there eaten so good men eat his body and bloud only when they receaue the sacrament so doe they eat drink and feed vpon him continually so long as they be members of his body Now the Papists say that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament and is so eaten only when men receaue the sacrament But we say that the presence of Christ in his holy supper is a spirituall presence and as he is spiritually present so is he spiritually eaten of all faythfull christian men not only when they receaue the sacrament but continually so long as they be members spirituall of Christes misticall body And yet this is really also as you haue expounded the word that is to say in deed and effectually And as the holy ghost doth not only come to vs in Baptisme and Christ doth there eloth vs but they doe the same to vs continually so long as we dwell in Christ so likewise doth Christ feed vs so lōg as we dwell in him and he in vs and not only when we receaue the sacrament So that as touching Christ himself the presence is all one the clothing all one the feeding al one although the one for the more comfort and consolation haue the sacramēt added to it and the other be without the sacrament The rest that is here spoken is contentious wrangling to no purpose But now commeth in Smith with his 5. egs saying that I haue made hete 5. lyes in these comparisons The first lie is saith he that the Papists doe say that good men do eat and drink Christs body and bloud only when they receaue the sacrament which thing Smyth saith the Papists do not say but that they then onely do eat Christs body and drinke his bloud corporally which sufficeth for my purpose For I mean no other thing but that the Papistes teach such a corporall eating of Christes body as indureth not but vanisheth away and ceaseth at the furthest within few houres after the Sacramēt is receaued But for as much as Smith agreeth here with you the answere made before to you wil serue for him also And yet Smith here shall serue me in good stede against you who haue imputed vnto me so many impudent lyes made against the Papistes in the comparisons before rehearsed and Smith saith that this is the first lye which is in the 8. comparison And so shal Smith being mine aduersary and your frend be such a witnes for me as you cannot except against to prooue that those thinges which before you said were impudent lies be no lies at all For this is the first lye saith Smith and then my sayinges before must be all true and not impudent lies Now to the ninth
comparison They say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantitie We say that Christ is there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitye Winchester In this comparison is both sleight and crafte in the first parte of it which is that they say there is mention of the body of Christ which is proper of the humanity of Christ. In the second parte which is of we say there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body Now the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud and because the diuine nature in Christ continueth the vnity with the body of Christ we must néedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is wholl Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie and therefore such as confesse the true Catholick faith they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body which although it hath all those truthes of forme and quantity yet they say Christes body is not present after the manner of quantitie nor in a visible forme as it was conuersant in this present life but that there is truely in the Sacramēt the very true body of Christ which good men beléeue vpon the credit of Christ that sayd so and knowledge therwith the maner of that presente to be an high mistery and the maner so spirituall as the carnall man cannot by discourse of reason reach it but in his discourse shalt as this author doth think it a vanitie and foolishnes which foolishnes neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisedome of the world And thus haue I opened what they say on the Catholick part Now for the other parte whereof this author is and with his faith we say the words séeme to imploy that Christes humain body is not in the Sacrament in that it is sayd Christ to be there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitie which saying hath no Scripture for it For the Scripture speaketh of Christes body which was betraied for vs to be geuen vs to be eaten Where also Christes diuinity is present as accompanyng his humanity which humanitie is specially spoken of the presence of which humanitie when it is denyed then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinity specially that is to say other wise then it is by his omnipotency presēt euery where And to conclude this peece of comparyson this maner of speach was neuer I thinke red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity And S. Paule speaketh of a forme in the Godhead Qui quam in forma Dei esset Who when he was in the forme of God So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all forme then is he there neither as God nor man which is a straunger teaching then yet hath bene heare or red of but into such absurdities in déed do they fall who intreat irreuerently and vntruly this high mistery This is here worthy a spesyall note how by the maner of the spéech in the latter part of this difference the teaching semeth to be that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament because of the word there which thou reader mayest compare how it agréeth with the rest of this authors doctrine Let vs go to the next Caunterbury SUch is the nature of many that they can finde many knots in a playne rush and doubtes where no doubtes ought to bee found So fynd you sleight and craft where I ment all thinges symply and playnly And to auoyd such sleight and craft as you gather of my words I shall expresse thē plainly thus The Papistes say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantity We say that the body of Christ hath not his proper forme and quantity neither in the sacrament nor in them that receaue the Sacrament but is in the sacrament sacramentally and in the worthy receauers spiritually without the proper forme quantity of his body This was my meaning at the first and no mā that had loked of this place indifferently would haue taken the second part of this comparison to be vnderstanded of Christs diuine nature for the bread and wyne be sacraments of his body and bloud and not of his diuinitie as Theodoretus sayth and therfore his diuine nature is not sacramentally in the sacramēt but his humayne nature onely And what maner of spech had this ben to say of Christes diuine nature that it is in the sacrament without quantity which hath in it no manner of quantitie where so euer it be And where I set foorth these comparysons to shew wherein we vary from the Papists what variance had ben in this comparison if I had vnderstanded the first part of Christs humanitie and the second of his diuinitie The reader by this one place among many other may easyly discerne how captious you be to reprehend what so euer I say and to peruert euery thing into a wrong sense So that in respect of you Smith is a very indifferent taker of my wordes although in deed he farre passeth the bondes of honesty But to come directly to the matter if it be true that you say that in the sacrament Christes body hath all the formes and quantities of a naturall body why say you then that his body is not there present after the manner of quantitie Declare what difference is betweene forme and quantitie the manner of quantitie And if Christes body in the Sacrament haue the same quantitie that is to say the same length breadth and thicknes and the same forme that is to say the same due order and proportion of the mēbers and partes of his body that he had when he was crucified and hath now in heauen as he hath by your saying here in this place then I pray you declare further how the length bredth and thicknes of a man should be conteined in quantitie within the compasse of a peece of bread no lōger nor broader then one or two inches nor much thicker then one leafe of paper How an inch may be as long as an elle and an elle as short as an inch How length and roundnes shall agree in one proportion and a thicke and thin thing be both of one thicknes which you must warrant to be brought to passe if the forme and quantitie of Christes body be conteined vnder the forme and quantity of such bread and wine as we now vse But as Smyth in the last comparison did me good seruice against you so shall you in this comparison do me good seruice against him For among the fiue lyes wherewith he chargeth me in these comparisons he accompteth this for one that I report of the Papists that Christes body in the sacrament hath his proper forme and quantity which you say
the olde heresy denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ in the virgins wombe at the same tyme to reuiue When the true deliuerance of Christs flesh in the holy supper to be of vs eaten is also denied For as it is a meere trueth without figure and yet an high mistery Gods worke in the incarnation of Christ wherein our flesh was of Christ truely taken of the virgins substance So is it a meere trueth without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing yet an high mistery and Gods worke in the geuing of the same true flesh truely to be in the supper eaten When I exclude figure in the sacrament I mene not of the visible part which is called a figure of the celestial inuisible part which is truely there without figure so as by that figure is not impayred the truth of that presence which I ad to auoyd cauilation And make an end of this comparison this I say that this article declareth wantonnes to make a difference in words where none is in the sence rightly taken with a noueltie of spéech not necessary to be vttered now Caunterbury NOte well here reader how the cuttill commeth in with his darke coulours Where I speake of the substaunce of the thing that is eaten you turne it to the manner and circumstaunces thereof to blynde the simple reader and that you may make therof a riddle of yea and nay as you be wont to make blacke white and white blacke or one thing yea and nay black and white at your pleasure But to put away your darke coulours and to make the matter playne this I say that the fathers and prophets did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in promise of redemptiō to be wrought and we eat and drink the same flesh and bloud in confirmation of our faith in the redemption all ready wrought But as the fathers did eat and drinke so did also the Apostles at Christ his supper in promise of redemtion to be wrought not in confirmation of redēption already wrought So that if wrought and to be wrought make the diuersitie of presence and not presence then the Apostles did not eat and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ really present because the redemption was not then already wrought but promised the next day to be wrought And although before the crucifiyng of his flesh and effusion of his bloud our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken not onely of the Apostles at his last supper before hee suffered his passion but also of the holy Patriarkes and fathers before his incarnation aswell as he is now of vs after his ascention And although in the manner of signifiyng there be great difference between their sacraments and ours yet as S. Augustine saith both we and they receaue one thing in the diuersitie of Sacraments And our Sacraments contain presently the very things signified no more then theirs did For in their sacraments they were by Christ presently regenerated and fed as we be in ours although their sacraments were figures of the death of Christ to com and ours be figurs of his death now past And as it is al one Christ that was to be borne and to dye for vs and afterward was borne in deede and dyed in deede whose byrth and death be now passed so was the same Christ and the same flesh and bloud eaten and drunken of the faithfull fathers before he was borne or dead and of his Apostles after he was born and before he was dead and of faithfull christen people is now dayly eaten and drunken after that both his natiuity and death be passed And al is but one Christ one flesh one bloud as concerning the sustance yet that which to the fathers was to come is to vs passed And neuerthelesse the eating drinking is all one for neither the fathers did nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouthes but both the fathers did and we do eat spiritually by true and liuely faith The body of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to vs but corporally and locally he was yet borne vnto them from vs he is gone and ascended vp into heauē So that to neither he was nor is carnally substantially and corporally present but to them he was to vs he is spiritually present and sacramentally also and of both sacramētally spiritually and effectually eaten and drunken to eternall saluation euerlasting lyfe And this is plainly enough declared in the Scripture to them that haue willing mindes to vnderstand the truth For it is written in the old Testament Eccle. 24. in the person of Christ thus They that eat me shall yet hunger and they that drinke me shall yet be thirsty And S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians saying Our fathers did all eat the same spirituall meat and did all drink the same spirituall drinke and they drank of that spirituall rock that followed them which rock was Christ. These words S. Augustine expounding sayth What is to eat the same meat but that they did eate the same which wee doe Who so euer in Manna vnderstood Christ did eat the same spirituall meat that we do that is to say that meat which was receaued with fayth and not with bodyes Therefore to them that vnderstood and beleued it was the same meat and the same drinke So that to such as vnderstoode not the meate was onely Manna and the drinke onely water but to such as vnderstood it was the same that is now For thē was Christ to come who is now come To come and is come be diuers wordes but it is the same Christ. These be S. Augustines sayings And because you say that it is more agreable to the scripture to say that the fathers before Christs natiuity did not eat the body and drink the bloud of Christ I pray you shew me one scripture that so saith And shew me also one approued author that disalowed S. Augustines mind by me here alleaged because you say that all doe not agree to his vnderstanding And in the 77. Psalme S. Augustine saith also The stone was Christ. Therefore the same was the meat drinke of the fathers in the mistery wich is ours but in significatiō the same not in outward forme For it is one Christ him selfe that to them was figured in the stone and to vs manyfestly appeared in flesh And saint Augustine sayth playnely that both Manna and our Sacrament signifieth Christ and that although the Sacraments were dyuers yet in the thing by them ment and vnderstand they were both like And so after the mynd of S. Augustine it is cleare that the same thinges were geuen to the faithfull receiuers in the Sacraments of the old Testament that be geuen in the new the same to them was circumcisiō that to vs is baptisme and to
sacrifice whereof Malachy spake and that Christ doth now in the celebration of this supper as he did when he gaue the same to his Apostles and that he offreth himself now as he did then and that the same offering is not now renewed agayne This is your chain of errors wherein is not one linke of pure golde but all be copper fayned and coūterfaite For neither is Christes body verely and corporally present in the celebration of his holy supper but spiritually Nor his body is not the very sacrifice but the thing wherof the sacrifice was made and the very sacrifice was the crucifying of his body and the effusion of his bloud vnto death Wherfore of his body was not made a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world at his supper but the next day after vpon the cros Therfore sayth the Prophet that we were made whole by his wounds Liuore eius sanati sumus Nor that sacrifice of Christ in the celebration of the supper is not the only sacrifice of the church but all the workes that christen people doe to the glory of God be sacrifices of the church smelling sweetly before God And they be also the pure and clean sacrifice wherof the Prophet Malachy did speake For the Prophet Malachy spake of no such sacrifices as onely priestes make but of such sacrifice as all christen people make both day and night at all times and in all places Nor Christ doth not now as he did at his last Supper which he had with his Apostles◠for then as you say he declared his will that he would dye for vs. And if he do now as he did thē thē doth he now declare that he will dye for vs againe But as for offering him self now as he did then this speech may haue a true sence being like to that which sometime was vsed at the admission of vnlearned fryers and monkes vnto their degrees in the Uniuersities where the Doctor that presented them deposed that they were meete for the sayd degrees as well in learning as in vertue And yet that depositiō in one sence was true when in deede they were meete neither in the one nor in the other So likewise in that sence Christ offereth himself now as well as he did in his supper for in deede he offered himself a sacrifice propiciatory for remission of sinne in neither of both but onely vpon the cros making there a sacrifice full and perfect for our redemption and yet by that sufficient offering made only at that time he is a daily intercessor for vs to his father for euer Finally it is not true that the offering in the celebration of the supper is not renued againe For the same offering that is made in one Supper is daily renued and made againe in euery supper and is called the daily Sacrifice of the church Thus haue I broaken your chaine and scattered your linkes which may be called the very chaine of Belzebub able to draw into hell as many as come within the compasse therof And how would you require that men should geue you credite who within so few lines knitte together so many manifest lyes It is another vntruth also which you say after that Christ declared in the Supper him self an offering and sacrifice for sinne for he declared in his Supper not that he was then a sacrifice but that a sacrifice should be made of his body which was done the next day after by the voluntary effusion of his bloud of any other sacrificing of Christ for sinne the Scripture speaketh not For although the Scripture sayeth that our Sauiour Christ is a continual intercessor for vs vnto his father yet no Scripture calleth that intercession a sacrifice for sinne but onely the effusion of his bloud which it seemeth you make him to doe still when you say that he suffereth and so by your imagination he should now still be crucified if he now suffer as you say he doth But it seemeth you passe not greatly what you say so that you may multiply many gallant wordes to the admiration of the hearers But for as much as you say that Christ offereth him selfe in the celebration of the Supper and also that the church offereth him here I would haue you declare how the Church offereth Christ and how he offereth him selfe and wherein those offeringes stand in wordes deedes or thoughtes that we may know what you meane by your daily offering of Christ. Of offering our selues vnto God in all our actes and deedes with laudes and thankes geuing the scripture maketh mention in many places But that Christ himself in the holy communion or that the priests make any other oblation then all christen people doe because these be papisticall inuentions without Scripture I require nothing but reason of you that you should so plainly set out these deuised offeringes that men might plainly vnderstand what they be and wherein they rest Now in this comparyson truth it is as you say that you haue spent many words but vtterly in vayne not to declare but to darcken the matter But if you would haue followed the plaine words of Scripture you needed not to haue taryed so long and yet should you haue made the matter more cleere a great deale Now followeth my last comparison They say that Christ is corporally in many places at one time affirming that his body is corporally and really present in as many places as there be hostes consecrated We say that as the sonne corporally is euer in heauen no where els and yet by his operation and vertue the sonne is heare in earth by whose influence and vertue all thinges in the world be corporally regenerated increased and grow to their perfect state So likewise our sauiour Christ bodely and corporally is in heauen sitting at the right hand of his Father although spiritually he hath promysed to be present with vs vpon earth vnto the worldes end And when soeuer two or three be gathered together in his name he is there in the middest among them by whose supernall grace all godly men be first by him spiritually regenerated and after increase and grow to their spirituall perfection in God spiritually by faith eating his flesh and drinking his bloud although the same corporally be in heauen farre distant from our sight Winchester The true teaching is that Christes very body is present vnder the form of bread in as many hostes as be consecrate in how many places so euer the hostes bee consecrate and is their really and substantially which wordes really and substantially be implied when we say truely present The word corporally may haue an ambiguite and doublenes in respect and relation one is to the truth of the body present and so it may be sayd Christ is corporally present in Sacrament if the word corporally be referred to the maner of the presence then we should say Christes body were present after a corporall
suffice for that point of the similitude where this auctor woulde haue Christe none otherwise present in the Sacrament then he promised to be in thassemble of such as be gathered together in hys name it is a playne abolition of the mistery of the sacrament in the wordes whereof Christes humayne body is exhibite and made present with hys very fleshe to féede vs and to that singuler and speciall effect the other presence of Christ in thassemble made in in hys name is not spoken of and it hath no apparaunce of learning in scriptures to conclude vnder one consideration a specialitie a generalitie And therfore it was well answered of hym that sayd If I could tell reason there were no fayth If I could shew the like it wer not singuler Which doth be notable in this sacrament where cōdēyning all reason good men both constantly beleue that Christe sitteth on the right hand of hys father very God and man and also without chaunge of place doth neuerthelesse make himselfe by hys power present both God and man vnder the forme of bread and wine at the prayer of the Churche and by the ministery of the same to geue life to suche as with fayth do according to his institution in hys holy supper worthely receyue hym and to the condemnation of such as do unworthely presume to receaue hym there For the worthy receyuing of whom we must come indued with Christ and clothed with hym semely in that garment to receiue his most precious body and bloud Christe whole God and man wherby he then dwelleth in vs more aboundantly confirming in vs the effectes of hys Passion establishing our hope of resurrection then to enioy the regeneration of our body with a full redemption of body and soule to lyue with God in glory for euer Caunterbury IN this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come so neare together for you be almost right hartely welcome home and I pray you let vs shake handes together For we be agreed as me seemeth that Christs body is present and the same body that suffered and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence For you say that the body of Christ is not present but after a spirituall maner and so say I also And if there be any difference betweene vs two it is but a little and in this point only That I say that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the Sacrament and you say that he is but after a spiritual maner in the Sacrament And yet you say that he is corporally in the Sacrament as who should say that there were a difference betweene spiritually and a spirituall maner And that it were not all one to say that Christ is there onely after a spirituall maner and not onely spiritually But if the substance of the Sonne be here corporally present with vs vpon earth then I graunt that Christes body is so likewise So that he of vs two that erreth in the one let him be taken for a vaine man and to erre also in the other Therfore I am content that the reader iudge indifferently betweene you and me in the corporal presence of the sonne and he that is found to erre and to be a foose therin let him be iudged to erre also in the corporall presence of Christes body But now maister Bucer help this man at need For he that hath euer hitherto cryed out against you now being at a pinch driuen to his shiftes crieth for helpe vpō you And although he was neuer your frend yet extēd your charity to helpe him in his necessity But maister Bucer saith not so much as you do and yet if you both said that the beames of the sonne be of the same substāce with the sonne who would beleue either of you both Is the light of the candle the substance of the candle or the light of the fire the substance of the fire Or is the beames of the sonne any thing but the cleere light of the sonne Now as you said euen now of me if you erre so farre from the true iudgement of natuarll thinges that all men may perceiue your error what maruaile is it if you erre in heauenly thinges And why should you be offended with this my saying that Christ is spiritually present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name And how can you conclude hereof that this is a plaine abolitiō of the mistery of the Sacrament because that in the celebration of the Sacrament I say that Christ is spiritually present Haue not you confessed your self that Christ is in the Sacrament but after a spirituall manner And after that maner he is also among them that be assembled together in his name And if they that say so doe abolish the mistery of the Sacramēt then do you abolish it your selfe by saying that Christ is but after a spirituall maner in the sacrament after which maner you say also that he is in them that be gathered together in his name as well as I doe that say hee is spiritually in both But he that is disposed to pick quarrels and to calumi ate all thinges what can be spoken so plainly or ment so sinceerely but he will wrast it into a wrong sence I say that Chist is speritually and by grace in his supper as he is when two or three be gathered togither in his name meaning that with both he is spiritually and with neither corporally and yet I say not that there is no difference For this difference there is that with the one he is sacramētally and with the other not sacramentally except they be gathered together in his name to receaue the Sacrament Neuerthelesse the selfe same Christ is present in both nourisheth and feedeth both if the Sacrament be rightly receiued But that is onely Spiritually as I say and onely after a Spirituall maner as you say And you say further that before we receiue the Sacrament we must come indued with Christ and seemely cloathed with him But whosoeuer is indued and cloathed with Christ hath Christ present with him after a spirituall maner and hath receaued Christ whole both God man or els he could not haue euerlasting life And therfore is Christ present as well in Baptisme as in the Lordes Supper For in Baptisme be we indued with Christ and seemely cloathed with him as well as in his holy Supper we eate and drink him Winchester Thus I haue perused these differences which well considered me thinke sufficient to take away and appease all such differences as might be moued against the Sacrament the faith wherof hath euer preuayled against such as haue impugned it And I haue not read of any that hath written against it but somewhat hath against his enterprise in his wrytinges appeared wherby to confirme it or so euident vntruthes affirmed as wherby those that be as indifferent to the truth as Salomon was in
the iudgement of the liuing childe may discerne the very true mother from the other that is to say who plainly entend the true childe to continue aliue and who could be content to haue it be destroyed by deuision God of his infinite mercy haue pitie on vs and graunt the true faith of this holy mistery vniformely to be conceiued in our vnderstandinges and in one forme of wordes to be vttered and preached which in the booke of common prayer is well tearmed not distant from the Catholick faith in my iudgement Caunterbury YOu haue so perused these differences that you haue made more difference then euer was before for where before there were no more but two partes the true catholick doctrine and the papisticall doctrine now come you in with your new fantasticall inuentions agreeing with neither part but to make a song of three partes you haue deuised a new voluntary descant so farre out of tune that it agreeth neither with the tenor nor mean but maketh such a shamefull iarre that godly eares abhorre to heare it For you haue taught such a doctrine as neuer was written before this time aud vttered therein so many vntruthes and so many strange sayinges that euery indifferent Reader may easely discern that the true christen faith in this matter is not to be sought at your handes And yet in your own writinges appeareth some thing to confirme the truth quite against your own enterprise which maketh me haue some hope that after my answere heard we shall in the principall matter no more striue for the child seeing that your selfe haue confessed that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present with vs. And there is good hope that God shall prosper this child to liue many yeares seeing that now I trust you will help to foster and nourish it vp as well as I. And yet if diuisyon may shew a stepmother then be not you the true mother of the child which in the Sacrament make so many diuisions For you deuide the substances of bread and wine from their proper accidences the substances also of Christes flesh and bloud from their own accidences and Christes very flesh Sacramentally from his very bloud although you ioyne them again per concomitantiam and you deuide the sacrament so that the priest receaueth both the Sacrament of Christs body and of his bloud and the lay people as you call them receiue no more but the sacrament of his body as though the sacrament of his bloud and of our redemption pertayned onely to the priestes And the cause of our eternall life aud saluation you deuide in such sort betweene Christ and the priest that you attribute the beginning therof to the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and the continuance therof you attribute to the sacrifice of the priest in the masse as you doe write plainly in your last booke Oh wicked Stepmothers that so deuide Christ his Sacramentes and his people After the differences followeth the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters of my book which you binde as it were all together in one fardel and cast them quite away by the figure which you call reiection not answering one word to any Scripture or olde wryter which I haue there alleadged for the defence of the truth But because the Reader may see the matter plainly before his eyes I shall heare rehearse my words againe and ioyne thereto your answere My wordes be these Now to returne to the principall matter lest it might be thought a new deuise of vs that Christ as concerning his body and his humaine nature is in heauen and not in earth therefore by Gods grace it shal be euidently proued that this is no new deuised matter but that it was euer the olde fayth of the catholicke Church vntill the Papistes inuented a new fayth that Christ really corporally naturally and sensibly is here still with vs in earth shutte vp in a boxe or within the compasse of bread and wine This needeth no better nor stronger proofe then that which the olde authors bryng for the same that is to say the generall profession of all Christen people in the common creede wherein as concerning Christes humanitye they be taught to beleeue after this sort That he was conceiued by the holy Ghost borne of the virgin Mary That he suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Was crucified dead aud buried that he decended into hel and rose againe the third day That he ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his almighty Father And from thence shal come to iudge the quick and dead This hath beene euer the catholick faith of Christen people that Christ as concerning his body and his manhode is in heauen and shall there continue vntill he come down at the last iudgement And for as much as the Creede maketh so expresse mention of the Article of his ascention and departing hence from vs if it had been an other article of our faith that his body taryeth also here with vs in earth surely in this place of the Creede was so vrgent an occasion geuen to make some mention thereof that doubtlesse it would not haue been passed ouer in our Creede with silence For if Christ as concerning his humanity be both here and gone hence and both those two be articles of our faith when mention was made of the one in the Creede it was necessary to make mention of the other least by professing the one we should be disswaded from beleeuing the other being so contrary the one to the other To this article of our Creed accordeth holy Scripture and all the old auncyent doctors of Christes church for Christ him self sayd I leaue the world and goe to my father And also he sayd you shall euer haue poore folkes with you but you shall not euer haue me with you And he gaue warning of this error before hand saying that the time would come when many deceauers should be in the world and say Here is Christ and there is Christ but beleue them not said Christ. And S. Mark wryteth in the last chapter of his gospell that the Lord Iesus was taken vp into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father And S. Paul exhorteth all men to seeke for thinges that be aboue in heauen where Christ saith he sitteth at the right hand of God his father Also he saith that we haue such a bishoppe that sitteth in heauen at the right hand of the throne of Gods maiesty And that he hauing offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth continually at the right hand of God vntill his enemies be put vnder his feete as a footstoole And hereunto consent all the olde doctors of the church First Origen vpon Mathew reasoneth this matter how Christ may be called a stranger that is departed into another countrey seeing that he is with vs alway vnto the worldes end aud is among all them that be gathered together in his name and
of Christ of the eating of his flesh to be onely a figure this author had nothing aduanced his purpose As for spiritual vnderstanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter wher the same may stand with the rules of our faith All Christes words be life and spirit contayning in the letter many tymes that is aboue our capacity as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh to discusse the particularities of how yet we must beleue to be true that Christ sayth although we can not tell how For when we go about to discusse of Gods mistery how then we fall from fayth and waxe carnall men and would haue Gods wayes like ours Caunterbury HEre may euery man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see that you seek in this waighty matter nothing by shifts and cauillatioÌ„s For you haue nothing aunswered directly to Origen although he directly writeth agaynst your doctrine For you say that the eating of Chrstes flesh is taken in the proper signification without a fygure Origen sayth there is a figure And Origen sayth further that it is onely a figuratiue spech although not adding this word onely yet adding other words of the same effect For he sayth that we may not vnderstand the words as the letter soundeth And sayth further that if we vnderstand the words of Christ in this place as the letter soundeth the letter killeth Now who knoweth not that to say these words not as the letter soundeth and that letter killeth be as much to say as onely spiritually and only otherwise then the letter soundeth Wherfore you must spit vpon your hands aud take better hold or els you can not be able to plucke Origen so shortly from me And I maruayle that you be not ashamed thus to trifle with the auncient authors in so serious a matter and such places where the reader onely looking vpon the authors wordes may see your dealing The next is Chrysostome whom I cite thus And Saynct Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth the same saying that if any man vnderstand the words of Christ carnally he shall surely profit nothing therby For what meane these words the flesh auayleth nothing He ment not of flesh God forbid but he ment of them that fleshly and carnally vnderstood those things that Christ spake But what is carnall vnderstanding To vnderstand the words simply as they be spoken and nothing els For we ought not so to vnderstaÌ„d the things which we see but all misteries must be considered with inward eyes and that is spiritually to vnderstand them In these words S. Iohn ChrisostoÌ„ sheweth plainly that the words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud are not to be vnderstand simply as they be spoken but spiritually and figuratiuely Winchester Sainct Chrisostom declareth himself how misteries must be considered with inward eyes which is a spirituall vnderstanding wherby the truth of the mistery is not as it were by a figuratiue spech empayred but with an humility of vnderstanding in a certayn fayth of the truth maruayled at And here the author of this book vseth a sleight to ioyne figuratiuely to spiritually as though they were alwayes all one which is not so Caunterbury AS you haue handled Origen before euen so do you haÌ„dle ChrisostoÌ„ Wherfore I only refer the reader to looke vpon the words of Chrysostome recited in my book who sayth that to vnderstand the words of eating of Christes flesh symply as they be spoken is a carnall vnderstanding And then can it be no proper speech as you say it is bicause it can not be vnderstand as the wordes be spoken but must haue an other vâ—derstanding spiritually Then followeth next Sainct Augustine of whom I write thus And yet most planely of all other S. Augustine dooth declare this matter in his booke De doctrina christiana in which book he instructeth christian people how they should vnderstand those places of Scripture which seem hard and obscure Seldome sayth he is any difficulty in proper words but either the circumstance of the place or the conferring of diuers translations or els the originall toung wherin it was written will make the sence playn But in words that be altered from their proper signification there is great diligence and hede to be taken And specially we must beware that we take not litterally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely Nor contrary wise we must not take for a figure any thing that is spoken properly Therfore must be declared sayth S. Augustine the maner how to discerne a proper spech from a figuratiue Wherin sayth he must be obserned this rule that if the thing which is spoken be to the furtherance of charity then it is a proper spech and no figure So that if it be a commaundement that forbiddeth any euill or wicked act or commaundeth any good or beneficiall thing then it is no figure But if it commaund any ill or wicked thing or forbiddeth any thing that is good and beneficiall then it is a figuratiue spech Now this saying of Christ Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you seemeth to commaund an haynons and wicked thing therfore it is a figure commaunding vs to be partakers of Christes passion keeping in our mindes to our great comfort and profite that his flesh was crucified and wouÌ„ded for vs. This is briefly the sentence of S. Augustine in his booke De doctrina Christiana And the like he writeth in his book De catechisandis rudibus and in his book Contra aeduersarium legis prophet arum and in diuers other places which forte diowsnes I passe ouer For if I should reherse all the authorityes of S. Augustine and other which make mention of this matter it would weary the reader to much Wherfore to all them that by any reasonable meanes will be satisfied these things before rehearsed are sufficient to proue that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud is not to be vnderstanded simply and playnly as the words do properly signify that we do eat and drinke him with our mouthes but it is a figuratiue spech spiritually to be vnderstanded that we must deeply print and fruitfully beleue in our harts that his flesh was crucified and his bloud shed for our redemption And this our beliefe in him is to eat his flesh and drink his bloud although they be not present here with vs but be asceÌ„ded into heauen As our forefathers before Christs tyme did likewise eat his flesh and drinke his bloud which was so farre from them that he was not yet then borne Winchester Sainct Augustine according to his rules of a figuratiue and proper spéech taketh this spéech Except ye eat c. for a figuratiue spéech because it semeth to commaund in the letter carnally vnderstanded an hainous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man as mans carnal imagination conceiueth
his body which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body Wherfore it followeth by Tertullians confession whē Christ made the bread his body that Christ ended the figure and made it the trueth making now his body that was before the figure of his body For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still then did he not make it his body as Tertullian himselfe saith he did And Tertullian therfore being red thus as apeareth to me most probable that that is to say in Tertullian should be onely referred to the explicacion of the first this as when Tertullian had alleged Christes wordes saying this is my body and putteth to of his owne that is to say the figure of my body these wordes that is to say should serue to declare the demonstration this in this wise that is to say this which the Prophet called the figure of the body is now my body And so Tertulian sayd before the Chryst had made bread his body which bread was a figure of his body with the Prophet and now endeth in the very trueth being made his body by conuersion as Cyprian sheweth of the nature of bread into his body Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certayn vnfayned truth of that is signified seing Christes body was figured by bread in the prophet Hieremy it appereth Christ had a true body And that the bread was of Christ aproued for a figure he made now his very body And this may be sayd euidently to Tertullian who reasoning agaynst heretikes vseth the commoditie of arguing and giueth no doctrine of the sacrament to further this authors purpose And what aduantage should the heretiques haue of Tertulian if he should meane that these words This is my body had onely this sence this is the figure of my body hauing himselfe sayd before that Christ made bread his body If so playne speach to make bread his body conteyneth no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body Why should not they say that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure and so no certayntie of any trew body in Christ by Tertullianes wordes This place of Tertullian is no secret poynt of learning and hath bene of Decolampadius and other alleadged and by ether Catholique men aunswered vnto it wherof this author may not think now as vpon a wrangling argument to satisfie a coniecture deuised therby to confirme a new teaching Finally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure which this author must proue or els he doth nothing Caunterbury ON what a wrangling and wrasting is here made What crookes be cast what leaping about is here to auoyde a foyle And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall reade the place of Tertullain to iudge whether you haue truely expounded him or in the wrastling with him be quite ouerthrowen and haue a flat fall vpon your backe For Tertullian sayth not that the bread was a figure of Christs body only in the prophet as you expound Tertullian but sayth that bred and wine were figures in the old testament and so taken in the prophets and now be figures agayne in the new testament so vsed of Christ himself in his last supper And where Tertullian sayth that Christ made bread his body he expoundeth him self how Christ made bread his body adding by and by these wordes That is to say a figure of his body But if thou caust forbear good reader when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtill lawyer I pray thee laugh not for it is no matter to be laughed at but to be sorowed that the most auncient authors of Christes church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes O Lord what shall these men answer to thee at the last day whan no cauilations shall haue place These be Tertullians words Iesus taking bread and distributing it amōg his disciples made it his body saying This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Heare Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the Prophet but the saying of Christ this is my body And where Tertullian hath but once the word This you say the first this And so you make a wise speach to say the first where is but one And Tertullian speaketh of this in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body and you referre them to the Prophets wordes which be not there but the spoken of long after And if you had not forgotten your gramer and all kind of speach or els hurled away altogether purposely to serue your owne wilfull deuise you would haue referred the demonstration of his antecedent before and not to a thing that in order commeth long after And bread in the prophet was but a figuratiue speach but in Christes wordes was not onely a figuratiue speach but also a figuratiue thing that is to say very materiall bread which by a figuratiue speach Christ ordeyned to be a figure and a sacrament of his body For as the Prophet by this word bread figured Christes body so did Christ himsef institute very materiall bread to be a figure of his body in the sacrament But you referre this to the bread in the Prophet which Christ spake as Tertullian sayth of the bread in the gospell And Christes wordes must needes be vnderstanded of the bread which he gaue to his Apostles in the time of the gospell after he had ended the supper of the law And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his very body which was no materiall bread but this word bread then did Christ make this word bread his body and conuerted this word bread in to the substaunce of his body This is the conclusion of your subtell sophistication of Tertullians wordes Now as concerning Saynt Ciprian whome you here alledge he spake of a sacramentall and not of a corporall and carnall conuersion as shall be playnly declared when I come to the place of Ciprian and partely I haue declared alredy in myne other booke And Tertullian proued not in that place the veritie of Christes body by the figure of the Prophet but by the figure which Christ ordeyned of his body in his last supper For he went not about to proue that Christ should haue a body but that he had then a true body because he ordeined a figure therof which could haue had no figure as Tertullian sayth if it had ben but a phantasticall body and no true body in deed Wherfore this which you say in aunswering to the playn wordes of Tertullian may be sayd of them that care not what they say but it can not be sayd euidently that is spoken so sophistically But if so playne speech of Tertullian say you that Christ made bread his body conteyne no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body why should not the body of Christ euer be taken for a figure and
as it is in the very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and after is al one in nature substance bignes forme and fashion and yet it is not called as an other common body but with addition for the dignitie of his exaltation it is called a heauenly a godly an immortall and the lordes body so likewise the bread and wine before the consecration and after is all one in nature substance bignes form and fashion and yet it is not called as other common bread but for the dignitie wherunto it is taken it is called with addition Heauenly bread The bread of life and the bread of thankes giueng The fift that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to affirme for a certayne truth in religion any thing which is not spoken of in holy scripture And this is spoken to the great and vtter condemnation of the Papistes which make and vnmake newe articles of our fayth from tyme to tyme at their pleasure without any scripture at all yea quite and clean contrary to scripture And yet wyll they haue all men bound to beleue what soeuer they inuent vpon perill of damnation and euerlasting fyre And yet wil they constrayne with fyre and fagot all men to consent contrary to the manifest wordes of God to these their errours in this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes body and bloud First that there remayneth no bread nor wine after the consecration but that Christes flesh and bloud is made of them Second that Christes body is really corporally substantially sensibly and naturally in the bread and wine Thirdly that wicked persons do eat and drincke Christes very body and bloud Fourthly that priestes offer Christ euery day and make of him a new sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Thus for shortnes of tyme I doe make an end of Theodoretus with other old auncient writers which do most clearly affirme that to eat Christes body and to drink his bloud be figuratiue speaches And so be these sentenses likewise which Christ spake at his supper This is my body This is my bloud Winchester The author bringeth in Theodoret a greek whom to discusse particularly wer lōg tedious one notable place there is in him which toucheth the poynt of the mater which place Peter Marter alleageth in greek and then translateth it into Latin not exactly as other haue done to the truth but as he hath done I will write in here And then will I wryte the same translated into english by one that hath translated Peter Marters booke and then will I adde the translation of this author and finally the very truth of the Latine as I will abide by and ioyn an issue with this author in it wherby thou reader shalt perceaue with what sinceritie thinges be handled Peter Marter hath of Theodoret this in Latin which the same Theodoret in a disputation with an Heritique maketh the catholique man to say Captus es ijs quae tetenderas retibus Neque enim post sancti ficationem mistica simbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur manent enim in priori sua substantia figura specie adeoque videntur palpantur quemadmodum antea Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur tanquam ea existentia quae creduntur He that translateth Peter Marter in english doth expresse these wordes thus Lo thou art new caught in the same nette which thou haddest sette to catche me in For those same misticall signes do not depart away out of their owne proper nature after the hallowing of them For they remayne still in their former substance and their former shape and their former kind and are euen as well seene and felte as they were afore But the thinges that are done are vnderstanded and are beleued and are worshiped euen as though they were in very deede the thinges that are beleued This is the common translation into English of Peter Marters booke translated which this author doth translate after his fashion thus Thou art taken with thine owne nette for the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and be seen and touched as well as before Yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Thus is the translation of this author Myne English of this latine is thus Thou art taken with the same nettes thou diddest lay forth For the misticall tokens after the sanctification go not away out of their proper nature For they abide in their former substance shape and forme and so far forth that they may be seene and felt as they might before But they be vnderstanded that they be made and are beleued and are worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued This is my translation who in the first sentence meane not to vary from the other translations touching the remayne of substance shape forme or figure I will vse all these names But in the second parte where Theodoret speaketh of our beleefe what the tokens be made and where he sayth those tokens be worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued thou mayst see reader how this author flieth the wordes beleue and worship which the common translation in english doth playnly and truly expresse how soeuer the translator swarued by colour of the word tanquam which there after the greeke signifieth the truth and not the similitude onely like as saynt Paule Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam sint which is to make to be indeed not as though they were And the greeke is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it were an absurditie to beleue thinges otherwise then they be as though they were and very Idolatrie to worship wittingly that is not as though it were in dede And therfore in these two words that they beleued that they be made and be worshiped is declared by Theodoret his fayth of the very true reall presence of Christs glorious flesh wherunto the Deitie is vnited Which fleshe S. Augustine consonantly to this Theodoret sayd must be worshiped before it be receiued The word worshiping put here in english is to expresse the word Adorantur put by Peter in latine signifieng adoring being the verbe in Greke of such signification as is vsed to expresse godly worship with bowing of the knée Now reader what should I say by this author that conueieth these two wordes of beleuing and worshiping and in stede of them cometh in with reuerence taking reputing and esteming wherof thou mayst esteme how this place of Theodoret pinched this author who could not but see that adoring of the sacramēt signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored which els were an absurditie and therfore the author toke payne to
doubt not but the priest would haue absteined from ministration vnto more opportunitie and more accesse of Christian people as he would haue done likewise in saying of mattens and preaching Wherfore in your case I might well answer you as S. Hierom answered the argument made in the name of the heretike Iouinian which myght be brought agaynst the commendation of virginitie What if all men would liue virgines and no man marry How should then the world be mayntayned What if heauen fall sayd S. Hierom What if no man will come to the church is your argument for all that came in those dayes receaued the communion What if heauen fall say I For I haue not so euill opinion of the holy church in those dayes to think that any such thing could chaunce among them that no one would come when all ought to haue come Now when you come to your issue you make your case to straight for me to ioyne an issue with you bynding me to the bare and onely wordes of Clement and refusing vtterly his mynd But take the wordes and the mynd together and I dare aduenture an Issue to passe by any indiferent readers that I haue proued all my three notes And where you say that vpon occasion of this epistle I speake more reuerently of the sacrament then I do in other places if you were not giuen all together to calumniate and depraue my words you should perceaue in all my booke thorough euen from the beginning to the end therof a constant and perpetuall reuerence giuen vnto the sacramentes of Christ such as of dutie all Christian men ought to giue Neuerthelesse you interpret this word Wherin farre from my meaning For I meane not that Christ is spiritually eyther in the table or in the bread and wine that be sette vpon the table but I meane that he is present in the ministration and receauing of that holy supper according to his owne institution and ordinaunce Like as in baptisme Christ and the holy ghost be not in the water or fonte but be giuen in the ministration or to them thāt be duly baptised in the water And although the sacramental tokens be onely significations and figures yet doth almighty God effectually work in them that duely receaue his sacramentes those deuine and celestiall operations which he hath promised and by the sacramentes be signified For else they were vayne and vnfrutfull Sacramentes as well to the godly as to the vngodly And therfore I neuer sayd of the whole supper that it is but a significatiō or a bare memory of Christes death but I teach that it is a spirituall refreshing wherein our soules be fedde and nourished with Christes very flesh and bloud to eternall life And therfore bring you forth some place in my booke where I say that the Lordes suppper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same or else eate your wordes agayne and knowledge that you vntruly report me But heare what followeth further in my book Here I passe ouer Ignatius and Ireneus which make nothing for the papists opinions but stand in the commendation of the holy Communion and in exhortation of all men to the often and godly receauing therof And yet neither they nor no man else can extoll and commend the same sufficiently according to the dignitie therof if it be godly vsed as it ought to be Winchester This author sayth he passeth ouer Ignatius and Ireneus and why Bicause they make nothing he sayth for the Papistes purpose With the word papist the author playth at his pleasure But it shal be euident that Irene doth playnly confound this authors purpose in the deniall of the true presence of Christes very flesh in the sacramēt who although he vse not the wordes reall and substanciall yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speach of the sacrameut the vertue aud strength of those wordes And for the truth of the sacrament is Ireneus specially alleaged in so much as Melanghton when he writeth to Decolampadius that he will alleage none but such as speake playnly he alleageth Ireneus for one as apeareth by his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius And Decolampadius himselfe is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape any manner of euasion as to answer Ireneus in whome he notably stumbleth And Peter Martyr in his work graunteth Irene to be specially alledged to whome when he goeth about to answer a man may euidently see how he masketh him selfe And this author bringeth in Clementes epistle of which no great count is made although it be not contemned and passeth ouer Ireneus that speaketh euidently in the matter and was as old as Clement or not much yonger And bicause Ignatius was of that age and is alleadged by Theodorete to haue written in his epistle ad Smirnenses whereof may apeare his fayth of the mistery of the sacrament it shall serue to good purpose to write in the wordes of the same Ignatius here vpon the credite of the sayd Theodoret whome this author so much commendeth the wordes of Ignatius be these Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit Which wordes be thus much in english they do not admitte Eucharistias and oblations bycause they do not confesse Eucharistiam to be the flesh of our sauiour Iesu Christ which flesh suffered for our sinnes which flesh the father by his benignitie hath stirred vp These be Ignatius wordes which I haue not throughly englished bicause the word Eucharistia can not be well englished being a word of mistery and signifieng as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacrament heauenly and earthly visible and inuisible But in that Ignatius openeth his fayth thus he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our sauiour Christ that suffered for vs he declareth the sence of Christes wordes This is my body not to be figuratiue onely but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there giuen and therfore Ignatius sayth Eucharistia is the flesh of our sauior Christ the same that suffered and the same that rose agayne Which wordes of Ignatius so pithely open the matter as they declare therwith the fayth also of Theodoret that doth alleage him so as if the author would make so absolute a worke as to peruse all the fathers sayinges he should not thus leape ouer Ignatius nor Irene neither as I haue before declared But this is a color of rethorik called Reiection of that is hard to answer and is here a prety shift or slaight wherby thou reader mayst consider how this matter is handled Caunterbury IT shall not nede to make any further answer to you here as cōcerning Ireneus but onely to note one thing that if any place of Ireneus had serued for your purpose you would
significations and sacraments of that holines which almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holines which almighty god by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holynes as the water in baptisme is called aqua sanctificans Vnda regenerans Halowing or regenerating water because it is the sacrament of regeneration and sanctification Now as concerning Chrisostomes saying that Christ is in our hands Chrisostome saith as I haue rehearsed in my book not onely that he is in our hands but also that we se him with our eyes touch him him feele him and grope him fixe our teeth in his flesh tast it breake it eat it and digest it make red our tongues and dye them with his bloud c. which thinges cannot be vnderstand of the body and bloud of Christ but by a figuratiue speech as I haue more at large declared in my iiii book the viii Chapter And therfore S. Augustine De verbis Domini sermone xxxiij saith cleane cōtrary to Chrisostome that we touch not Christ with our hands Non tangi mus Dominum saith he This speech therfore of Chrisostome declareth not the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible sacrament but signifieth what God worketh inwardly in true beleuers And whereas you say that my notes be Descant voluntary without the Tenour part I haue named both the booke and chapter where S. Dyonyse telleth how the priest when he commeth to the receauing of the sacraments he deuideth the bread in peeces and distributeth the same to all that be present which one sentence contayneth sufficiently all my three notes So that if you be disposed to call my notes Descant there you may finde the playne song or tenor part of them And it is no maruel that you cannot iudge well of my Descant when you see not or will not see the Plain song wherupon the descant was made Now followeth Tertullian of whom I write thus Furthermore they do alledge Tertullian that he constantly affirmeth that in the sacrament of the alter we do eat the body and drinke the bloud of our sauiour Christ. To whom we graūt that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread wine which be called the body bloud of Christ because as Tertullian saith they do represent his body and bloud although they be not really the same in very deed And we graunt also that our soules by fayth do eat his very body drink his bloud but that is spiritually sucking out of the same euerlasting life But we deny that vnto this spirituall feeding is requiring any reall and corporall presence And therfore this Tertullian speaketh nothing against the truth of our catholick doctrine but he speaketh many things most playnly for vs and agaynst the Papists and specially in three poynts First in that he sayth that Christ called bread his body The second that Christ called it so because it representeth his body The third in that he sayth that by these wordes of Christ This is my body is ment This is a figure of my body Winchester Of Tertullian I haue spoken before and so hath this author also forgottē here one notable thing in Tertullian where Tertullian sayth that Christ made the bread his body not only called it so as appeare by Tertullians words reported by this author before This note that I make now of Tertullian maketh agaynst this authors purpose but yet it maketh with the truth which this author should not impugne The second note gathered of Tertullian by this author is not true for Christ called it his body and made it his body as Tertullian sayth Aud the third note of this author is in controuersy of reading and must be so vnderstanded as may agrée with the rest of Tertullians sayings which after my reading doth euidētly proue and at the least doth not improue the catholick doctrine of Christes church vniuersally receiued although it improueth yet which this author calleth here our catholique doctrine most imprudently and vntruely reporting the same Canterbury I Desire no more but that the reader will looke vpon the place of Tertullian before mentioned and see what you speak there what is mine answere therto and so confer them togither and iudge And that the reader will note also that here couertly you haue granted my first note that Christ called bread his body but so slyely that the reader should not by your will perceaue it And where you deny my second note vpon Tertullian that Christ called it his body because it represented his body the words of Tertulliā be these that Christ reproueth not bread wherin he representeth his owne body As for my third note yet once agayne reader I beseech thee turne back and looke vpon the place how this lawyer hath expounded Tertulliā if thou canst with patience abide to here of so foolish a glose And where he sayth that this author Tertullian must be so vnderstād as may agrée with the rest of his sayings would to God you would so do not onely in Tertullian but also in all other authors for then our controuersy should be soone at a poynt And it is a most shameles impudency of you to affirme that the catholick church vniuersally teacheth that Christ is really sensibly corporally naturally carnally and substantially present in the visible formes of bread and wine seing that you cannot proue any one of these your sayings either by scripture or by the consent of the catholick church but onely by the Papisticall church which now many yeres hath borne the whole swinge Now followeth Origen to whom I aunswere thus Moreouer they alleage for them Origen because they would seme to haue many auncient authors fauorers of their erronius doctrine which Origen is most clearely agaynst them For although he do say as they alleage that those things which before were signifyed by obscure figures be now truely indeede and in their very nature and kind accōplished fulfilled And for the declaratiō therof he bringeth forth three exāples One of the stone that floweth water an other of the sea and cloud and the third of Manna which in the olde testament did signify Christ to come who is now come indeed and is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly in his word in the sacrament of regeneration and the sacraments of bread and wine Yet Origen ment not that Christ is corporally either in his word or in the water of baptisme or in the bread and wine nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne agayne or eat Christes flesh and bloud For our regeneration in Christ is spirituall and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding which kind of regeneration and feeding requireth no reall and corporall presence of Christ but onely his presence in spirit grace and effectuall operation And that Origen thus ment
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
the author of this booke forgetteth himselfe to call Christ in vs naturally by his Godhead which were then to make vs al Gods by nature which is ouer great an absurdity and Christ in his diuine nature dwelleth only in his father naturally in vs by grace But as we receaue him in the sacrament of his flesh and bloud if we receiue hym worthily so dwelleth he in vs naturally for the naturall communication of our nature and hys And therfore where this author reporteth Hylary to make no difference betwéene our vnyon to Christ in Baptisme and in the supper let him trust in him no more that told hym so or if this author will take vpon him as of his owne knowledge then I must say and if he were another would say an aunswere in french that I will not expresse And hereupon will I ioynin the Issue that in Hylary the matter is so playn otherwise then this author rehearseth as it hath no coulor of defence to the contrary And what Hylary speaketh of Baptisme and our vnity therin I haue before touched and this vnity in flesh is after treated apart What shall I say to this so manifest vntruth but that it confirmeth that I haue in other obserued how there was neuer one of them that I haue red writing against the Sacrament but hath in his writings sayd somewhat so euidently in the matter or out of the matter discrepant from truth as might be a certayn marke to iudge the quality of his spirite Canterbury HEre you confesse that you cited Hilary vntruely but you impute the fault to your copy What copy you had I know not but aswell the citation of Melancthon as all the printed bookes that euer I saw haue otherwise then you haue written and therfore it seemeth that you neuer red any printed booke of Hylarius Marry it might be that you had from Smyth a false copy written who informed me that you had of him all the authorityes that be in your booke And hauing al the authorities that he had with great trauell gathered by and by you made your booke and stale from him all his thanck and glory like vnto Esops choughe which plumed himselfe with other birds fethers But whersoeuer you had your copy all the books setforth by publike fayth haue otherwise then you haue cited And although the false allegatiō of Hylary toucheth you somewhat yet chiefly it toucheth Smyth who hath erred much worse in his translation then you haue done albeit nether of you both handle the matter sincerely and faithfully nor agree the one with the other But I trow it be your chaunce to light vpon false bookes For wheras in this sentence Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit negit prius naturaliter vel se in Christo vel Christum sibi inesse one false print for naturaliter hath non naturaliter it seemeth that you chaunced vpō that false print For if you haue found Hilary truely corrected as you say you haue your fault is the more that out of a true copy would pick out an vntrue translation And if you haue so done then by putting in a little prety not where none ought to be with that little prity trip you haue cleane ouerthrowne your selfe For if it be an errour to deny that Christ is not naturally in vs as it his rehersed for an errour then must it be an errour to affirme that Christ is naturally in vs. For it is all one thing that he is not and to affirme that he is naturally in vs. And so by your owne translation you ouerthrow your selfe quite and cleane in that you say in many places of your book that Christ is naturally in vs and ground your saying vpon Hylarie Whereas now by your owne translation Hylary reiecteth that clearely as an haynous error And as concerning this word truely it fetteth not liuely forth a real and substanciall presence as you say it doth for Christ is truely in all his faithfull people and there truely eate his flesh and drinke his bloud and yet not by a reall and corporall but by a spirituall and effectuall presence And as concerning the word perfecta or peafectae in the print which I haue of your book is neyther of both but be left quite out Neuerthelesse that fault I impute to no vntruth in you but rather to the negligence either of your pen or of the printer But for the perfectnes of the vnity between Christ and vs you declare here to be the perfect vnity to be that which is but the one halfe of it For the perfect vnity of vs with Christ is not onely to haue Christ corporally and naturally dwelling in vs but likewise we to dwell corporally and naturally in him And Hylary declareth the second part to pertain to our vnity with Christ aswell as the first which of sleight pollicy you leaue out purposely because it declareth the meaning of the first part which is not that Christ is in them that receaue the sacrament and when they receaue the sacrament only but that he naturally tarrieth and dwelleth in all them that partayn to him whether they receaue the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth naturally in them so do they in him And although you haue excused your peruersity by your false copy yet here I will ioyne an issue with you that you did neither aleage Hylaries wordes before truely nor yet now do truely declare them As for the fyrst part you haue confessed your selfe that you were deceiued by a false copy And therfore in this part I plead that you be gilty by your own cōfessiō And as concerniug the second part Hylary speaketh not of the vnitye of Christ with the sacrament nor of the vnity of Christ with vs onely when we receaue the sacrament nor of the vnity of vs with Christ onely but also with his father by which vnity we dwell in Christ and Christ in vs also we dwell in the Father and the father in vs. For as Christ beyng in his father his father in him hath lyfe of his father so he beyng in vs we in him geueth vnto vs the nature of his eternity which he receiued of his father that is to say immortality and life euerlasting which is the nature of his Godhead And so haue we the Father and the Sonne dwelling in vs naturally and we in them forasmuch as he geueth to vs the nature of his eternitie which he had of his father and honoureth vs with that honoureth vs with that houour which he had of his father But Christ giueth not this nature of eternity to the Sacrament except you will say that the sacrament shall haue euerlasting lyfe as you must needes say if Christ dwell naturally in it after Hylaries maner of reasoning For by the saying of Hylary where Christ dwelleth there dwelleth his father giueth eternall lyfe by his sonne And so be
indifferent reader iudge whether you or I be in errour and whether of vs both hath most neede to excuse himselfe of ignorance Would god you were as ready humbly to yeld in those manifest errours which be proued agaynst you as you be stout to take vpon you a knowledge in those thinges wherein ye be most ignoraunt But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a perilous witch Now whereas I haue truly expounded this word corporally in Cirill when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs and haue declared how that word corporally as Cyrill vnderstandeth it maketh nothing for your purpose that Christes flesh should be corporally conteyned as you vnderstand the matter vnder the forme of bread for he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread nor that he dwelleth in them corporally that be not liuely members of his body nor that he dwelleth in his liuely members at such time onely as they receaue the Sacrament nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally and not we in him But he sayth as well that we dwell in him as that he dwelleth in vs and whē I haue also declared that Cyrills meaning was this that as the vine and branches be both of one nature so the sonne of God taking vnto him our humayne nature and making vs partakers of his diuine nature geuing vnto vs immortality and euerlasting life doth so dwell naturally and corporally in vs and maketh vs to dwell naturally and corporally in him And wheare as I haue proued this by Cyrills owne wordes as well in that place in his tenth booke vpon S. Iohns gospell the .xiii. chapiter as in his fourth booke the .xvii. chapiter you answere no more to all this but say that I seeke in Cirill where it is not to be found and seeke not where it is to be found A substanciall answere be you sure and a learned For you do here like a keper which I knew once required to follow a sute with his hound after one that had stolen a deare And when his hound was in his right sute and had his game fresh before him and came nere to the house and place where the deere was in deed after he had a little inkling that it was a speciall frend of his that killed the deare and then being loth to find the sute he plucked backe his hound being in the right way and appoynted him to hunt in an other place where the game was not and so deceaued all them that followed him as you would here doe to as many as will follow you For you promise to bring the reader to a place where he shall finde the meaning of this word corporally and when he commeth to the place where you appoynt the word is spoken of there but the meaning therof is not declared neither by you nor by Cirill in that place And so the reader by your fayre promise is brought from the place where the game is truely in deed and brought to an other place where he is vtterly disapoynted of that he sought for For where you send the reader to this place of Cirill The sonne is vnited as man corporally vnto vs by the misticall benediction spiritually as god here in deed in this sentēce Cirill nameth this word corporally but he telleth not the meaning therof which you promised the reader that he should fynde here Neuerthelesse Cirill meaneth no more by these wordes but that Christ is vnited vnto vs two manner of wayes by his body and by his spirite And he is also a band and knot to bynd and ioyne vs to his father being knit in nature vnto both to vs as a naturall man and to his father as naturall God himselfe knitting vs God his father together And although Cirill say that Christ is vnited vnto vs corporally by the mistical benedictiō yet in that place the material benedictiō may well be vnderstād of his incarnatiō which as Cirill and Hilary both call an hye mistery so was it to vs a meruailous benedictiō that he that was immortall God would become for vs a mortall man which mistery S. Paule sayth was without controuersye great and was hid from the world and at the last opened that Gentils should be made partakers of the promises in Christ which by his flesh came downe vnto vs. But to geue you all the aduantage that may be I will graunt for your pleasure that by the misticall benediction Cirill vnderstoode the sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud as you say and that Christ is therby vnited corporally vnto vs. Yet sayth not Cirill that this vnity is onely when we receaue the sacramēt nor extēdeth to all that receaue the sacramēt but vnto thē that being renued to a new life be made partakers of the diuine nature which nature Cirill himselfe vpō the vi chapiter of Iohn declareth to be life But he speaketh not one word of the corporall presence of Christ in the fourmes of bread and wine nor no more doth Hilary And therfore I may well approue that I sayd that the answer made vnto Hilary will very well also serue for Cirill And yet neyther of them both hath one word that serueth for your purpose that Christes flesh and bloud should be in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine And where you say that Christ vniteth himselfe to vs as man when he geueth his body in the sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it if you will speake as Cirill and other old authors vse to do Christ did vnite himselfe to vs as man at his incarnation And here agayne you geue euidence agaynst your owne issue affirming our vnity vnto Christ no further than we receaue the sacrament worthely And then they that receaue it vnworthely be not vnited corporally vnto Christ nor eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which is the playne mynd both of Hilary also of Cirill and directly with the state of my fourth booke agaynst your āswer to the same And here you pretending to declare agayne what is ment by this word corporall do tell the negatiue that there is no grosenes ment therby but the affirmatiue what is ment therby you declare not as you promised But if you meane playnly speake playnly whether Christes body being in the sacrament vnder the fourmes of bread and wine haue head feete armes legges backe and bely eyes eares and mouth distinct and in due order and proportion Which if he lacke the simplest man or woman knoweth that it can not be a perfect corporall mans body but rather an imaginatiue or phantasticall body as Martion and Ualētyne taught it to be Expresse here fully and playnly what manner of body you call this corporall body of Christ. And where you say that I alleadge Cirill to deny in wordes the eating of a man and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth and yet it shall appeare by further discussing say you that Cirill sayth not so
you say that he is corporally in all them that receaue the sacrament whether it be worthely or vnworthely Now foloweth thus in my booke And here may be well enough passed ouer Basilius Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Nazianzenus partely bicause they speake little of this matter partly bicause they may be easely āswered vnto by that which is before declared oftē repeted which is that a figure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure therfore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spokē of the thing it selfe And as cōcerning the eating of Christs flesh drincking of his bloud they spake of the spirituall eating drincking therof by fayth not of corporal eating and drincking with the mouth and teeth Winchester As for Basill Gregory Nissen and Gregory Nazianzen this author sayth they speake little of this matter and indeede they spake not so much as other doe but that they speake is not discrepant nor contrarieth not that other afore them had written For in the olde church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned openly and directly that we reade of before Berengarius v. C. yeares past and secretly by one Bertrame before that but onely by the Messalians who sayd the corporall eating did neither good nor hurt The Antropomorphites also who sayd the vertue of the misticall benediction endured not to the next day of whome Cirill speaketh and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning that deuided Christes flesh from the deity And where this author would haue taken for a true supposall that Basill Gregory Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue onely that is to be denyed And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it selfe And that I will declare thus Of the thing it selfe that is Christes very body being present indeede it may be sayd Adore it worship it there which may not besayd of the figure It may be sayd of the very thing being present there that it is a highe miracle to be there it is aboue nature to be there it is an high secret mistery to be there But none of these speaches can be conueniently sayd of the onely figure that it is such a miracle so aboue nature so high a mistery to be a figure And therfore it is no true doctrine to teach that we may say the same of the figure that may be sayd of the thing it selfe And where this author speaketh of the spiritual eating corporal eating he remayneth in his ignorāce what the word corporal meaneth which I haue opened in discussing of his answere to Cirill Fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually and the corporall eating institute in Christes supper requireth the reuerent vse of mans mouth to receiue our Lords meat drinke his owne very flesh and bloud by his omnipotency prepared in that supper which not spiritually that is to say not innocently as S. Angustine in one place expoūdeth spiritually receiued bringeth iudgement and condempnation according to S Paules wordes Caunterbury WHere you say that in the old church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned opēly you say herin very truly for the truth which I haue set forth was openly receiued and taught of al that were catholick without coutradiction vntil the papists diuised a contrary doctrine And I say further that the vntruth which you teach was not at that time improued of no man neither openly nor priuily For how could your doctrine be impugned in the olde church which was then neither taught nor knowen And as concerning Bertrame he did not write secretly for he was required by king Charles to write in this matter and wrot therin as the doctrine of the Church was at that tyme or els some man would haue reprehended him which neuer none did before you but make mention of his workes vnto his great prayse and commendation And the Massalians were not reproued for saying that corporall eating doth neither good nor hurt neither Epiphanius nor of S. Augustine nor Theodoret nor of any other auntient author that I haue red Mary that the sacraments do neither good nor hurt namely Baptisme is layd vnto the Massaliās charge and yet the corporall receiuing without the spirituall auaileth nothing but rather hurteth very much as appeared in Iudas and Simon Magus And as for the three heresies of the Massalians Anthropomorphites and Nestorians I allow none of them although you report thē otherwise thē either Epiphanius or S. Augustine doth And wherē you say that I would haue taken for a supposall that Basil Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue only still you charge me vntruly with that I nether say nor think For I knowledge as al good christen mē do that almighty God worketh effectually with his sacraments And where you report me to say an other vntruth that of a figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it self that I say true therin witnesseth plainly S. Augustin and Cyprian And yet I speake not vniuersally nor these examples that you bring make anything agaynst my sayings For the first example may be sayd of the figure if D. Smith say true And because you .ii. write both agaynst my book and a gree so euil one with an other as it is hard fo vntrue sayers to agree in one tale therfore in this poynt I commit you togither to see which of you is most valiant champion And as for your other iii. examples it is not true of the thing it selfe that Christes body is present in the sacrament by miracle or aboue nature although by miracle and aboue nature he is in the ministration of his holy supper amōg them that godly be fed therat And thus be your friuolous cauillations aunswered And where you say that I am ignorant what this word corporal meaneth surely then I haue a very grosse wit that am ignorant in that thing which euery plough man knoweth But you make so fine a cōstruction of this word corporall that neither you can tell what you meane your self nor no man can vnderstand you as I haue opened before in the discussing of Cyrils mind And as for the reuerent vse of mans mouth in the Lordes holy supper the bread and wine outwardly must be reuerently receaued with the mouth because of the things therby represented which by fayth be receaued inwardly in our hartes mindes not eatē with our mouthes as you vntruely allege S. Paule to say whose wordes be of the eating of the sacramentall bread and not of the body of Christ. Now followeth next mine aunswer to Eusebius Emissenus who is as it were your chefe trust and shot ancre Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly aunswered vnto for he speaketh not of
nourisheth the right beleuers Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier and thou shalt euidently perceiue that either he wil not or can not or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer and in my booke also by the receauing and feding vpon Christ spiritually But it is no maruaile that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ before they be borne a new and forsaking their papisticall leauen haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God then flesh bloud can teach them Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth that Christes body is corporally there where the visible formes of bread wine be of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture which teacheth vs to beleue professe that Christ as concerning his bodily presence hath forsaken the world is ascended into heauen shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud there is no mouth and teeth can serue but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes and speake very little And the cause why is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes Caparnaites that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity spirituall circumcition spirituall honger and thirst and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ but they hang all together so in the letter that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit which knowledge if that you had you should soone perceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made And where you peruert the order of the bookes setting the carte before the horse that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second saying that the naturall order of the matter so requireth here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes which is vnder the pretence coulour of order to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light For when they perceaue a window open wherby the light may shine in and the truth appeare then they busily go about to shut that window and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is and les light can be sene And when besides the darkenes of the matter they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes that he is become blind thē dare they make him iudge be the matter neuer so vntrue And no meruail for he is now becōe so blindfeld subiect vnto them that he must say what so euer they bid him be it neuer so much repugnāt to the euidēt truth In such sort it is in the matter of that sacramēt For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined that plaine wordes of the scripture the consent of aūcient writers the articles of our fayth the nature of a sacrament reason all sences making so euidently agaynst it therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation but they will alwayes beare men in hand that other matters must fyrst be examined as the late Bishop doth here in this place Now in the second place of Chrisostome where you say that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen which shall suffice for answere here also And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre here with vs in our handes truth it is that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment But that we shoud not think that he is corporally here with vs S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum saying Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man that we should therby take away the truth of his body And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body to be in two places at one tyme therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally and also naturally in the sacrament For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule But like as it is not to be thought that Quicquid est in deo est putandum vbique vt dens that whatsoeuer is in god is euery where as God is so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme euery where where his godhead is But Christ is sayth S. Augustine Vbique per id quod est deus in coelo autem per id quod est homo Euery where in that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence and the presence of his diuinitie of his grace of his truth of his maiestie and power is reall and effectuall in many places according to his worde Now as concerning your issue I refuse it not but say that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred and which our sauiour Christ ment and the old fathers speake of is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life Now if you can bring good testimony for you that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud and that it shall lyue for euer which neuer had lyfe and that Gods operation worke is more in domme creatures then in man then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you And when I heare your testimonies I shall make answer but before I here them I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne and beate the wind to no purpose Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alleadge sayth thus Christ geuing thankes dyd breake which also we doe adding thereto prayer And he gaue vnto them saying Take this is my body this that I do now geue and that which ye now do take For the bread is not a
example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this author teacheth then were the bread of Proposition figure of a figure and shadow of a shadow which is ouer great an absurditie in our religion Therfore there can not be a more playne proofe to shew that by S. Hieromes mynd Christes body is verely in the Sacrament and not figuratiuely onely then wheÌ„ he noteth Panes propositionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christes body in the Sacrament For as Tertulian sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis esses corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that answered vnto it wer not of truth which is the sence of Tertulians wordes And therfore S. Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certaynly playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this author sayth For S. Hierome affirmeth playnly Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although S. Hierom attributeth to the minister yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the author and worker notwithstanding by reason of the minestry in the church the doing is ascribed to manne as minister bycause Christ sayd Hoc facite after which speach saluation remission of sinne and the worke in other SacrameÌ„tes is attribute to the minister being neuerthelesse the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde bicause some be vniustly offended to heare that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findth fault before at the word making which religiousely heard and reuerently spoken should offend no man for man is but a minyster wherin he should not glory And Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread nor maketh him selfe so oft of bread a new body but sitting in heauen dooth as our inuisible Priest worke in the mistery of the visible pristhood of his church and maketh present by his omnipotencie his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuertion of the visible creatures of bread and wine as Emissen sayth into the same This author of this booke as thou reader mayst perceaue applieth the figure of the breades called Panes propositionis to the body of Christ to come where as S. Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore doth fashion his argument in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so much cleanes in them that should eat them that they might not eate of them which a day or two before had lyen with theyr wiues what cleanes is required in him that should make the body of Christ Wherby thou mayst se how this author hath reserued this notable place of S. Hierom to the later ende that thou shouldest in the ende as well as in the middest see him euidently snarled for the better remembrance Caunterbury TO these wordes of S. Hierome I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And now to adde some thing therunto I say that he meaneth not that Panis Propositionis be figures of the sacrament but of Christes very body And yet the same body is not onely in the sacrament figuratiuely but it is also in the true ministration therof spiritually present spirituallye eaten as in my booke I haue playnely declared But how is it possible that Caius Vlpian or Sceuola Batholus Baldus or Curtius should haue knowledge what is ment by the spirituall presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the spirituall eating of his flesh and bloud if they be voyde of a liuely fayth feeding and comforting theyr soules with their owne workes and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ. The meat that the Papistes liue by is indulgences and pardons and such other remission of sinnes as cometh all from the Pope which giueth no life but infecteth and poysoneth but the meate that the true Christian man lyueth by is Christ him selfe who is eaten onely by fayth and so eaten is life and spirite giuing that life that endureth and continueth for euer God graunt that we may learne this heauenly knowledge of the spirituall presence that we may spiritually taste and feede of this heauenly foode Now where you say that there canne not be a more playne proofe to shew that Christes body is verely in the sacrament and not figuratiuely onely than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christes body in the sacrament For as Tertulian sayth the other were not to be called a figure if that which aunswereth to it were not of truth Here your for is a playne fallax à non causa vt causa and a wonderous subtiltie is vsed therin For where Tertulian proueth that Christ had here in earth a very body which Martion denied bicause that bread was instituted to be a figure therof and there canne bee no figure of a thing that is not you alleadge Tertulians wordes as though he should say that Christes body is in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread whereof neyther Tertulian intreated in that place nor it is not required that the body should be corporally where the figure is but rather it should be in vayne to haue a figure when the thing it selfe is present And therfore you vntruely reporte both of S. Hierome and Tertulian For neyther of them both do say as you would gather of theyr wordes that Christes body is in the sacrament really and corporally And where you say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matier of bread either you be very ignoraunt in the doctrine of the sacrament as it hath bene taught these fiue hundred yeares or els you dissemble the matter Hath not this bene the teaching of the schole diuines yea of Innocent him selfe that the matter of this Sacrament is bread of wheat and wine of grapes Do they not say that the substaunce of bread is tourned into the substaunce of Christes flesh and that his flesh is made of bread And who worketh this but Christ him selfe And haue you not confessed all this in your booke of the Deuils sophistry why do you then deny here that which you taught before and which hath bene the common aproued doctrine of the Papistes so many yeares And bycause it should haue the more authorite was not this put into the masse bookes and reade euery yeare Dognum datur christianis quod in caâ—nem transit panis uinum in sanguinem Now seing that you haue taught so many yeares that the matter and substaunce of bread is not consumed to nothing but is chaunged and tourned into the body of Christ so that the body of Christ is made of it what meane you now to deny that Christ is made of the matier of bread Whan water was tourned into wine was not the wine made of the
are called by Damascene the body and bloud of Christ bicause that such persons through the working of the holy ghost be so knitte and vnited spiritually to Christes flesh and bloud and to his diuinite also that they be fedde with them vnto euerlasting life Furthermore Damascene sayth not that the sacrament should bee worshiped and adored as the Papists terme it which is playne idolatrye but that we must worship Christ God and man And yet we may not worship him in bread and wine but sittyng in heauen with his father and being spiritually within our selues Nor he sayth not that there remayneth no bread nor wine nor none other substaunce but only the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ but he sayth playnly that as a burning coale is not wodde only but fier and wodde ioyned together so the bread of the Communion is not bread only but bread ioyned to the diuinite But those that say that there is none other substaunce but the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ do not onely deny that there is bread and wine but by force they must deny also that there is either Christes diuinitie or his soule For if the flesh and bloud the soule and diuininitie of Christ be foure substances and in the sacrament be but two of them that is to say his flesh and bloud than where is his soule and diuinitie And thus these men diuide Iesus seperating his diuinitie from his humanitie Of whome S. Iohn sayth Whosoeuer deuideth Iesus is not of God but he is Antichrist And moreouer these men do so separate Christes body from his members in the sacramēt that they leaue him no mans body at all For as Damascene sayth that the distinctiō of members pertayne so much to the nature of mans body that where there is no such distinctiō there is no perfect mans body But by these papists doctrine there is no such distinction of members in the sacrament for either there is no head feete handes armes legges mouth eyes and nose at all or els all his head all feete all handes all armes all legges all mouth all eyes and all nose And so they make of Christes body no mans body at all Thus being confuted the Papists erroures aswell concerning Transubstanciation as the real corporal and naturall presence of Christ in the sacrament which were two principall poyntes purposed in the beginning of this worke Now it is tyme some thing to speake of the third errour of the papistes which is concerning the eating of Christes very body and drinking of his bloud Winchester Last of all the author bussieth himselfe with Damascene and goeth about to aunswer hym by making of a summe which summe is so wrong accompted that euery man that readeth Damascene may be auditour to controule it And this will I say Damascene writeth so euidently in the matter that Peter Martyr for a shift is fayne to finde fault in his iudgement and age and yet he is .viii. C. yeares olde at the least and I say at the least because he is relieued of summe halfe as old agayne And what so euer his iudgement were he writeth as Melancton sayth his testimony of the fayth of the Sacrament as it was in his time I would write in here Damasceus wordes to compare them with the summe collected by this author wherby to disproue his particulars playnly but the wordes of Damascene be to be redde translated already abrode As for the foure substances which this author by accompte numbreth of Christ myght haue bene left vnreckened by tale because amonge them that be faythfull and vnderstand truely wher soeuer the substaunce of Christes very body is there is also vnderstanded by concomitaunce to be present the substaunce of his soule as very man and also of the Godhead as very God And in the mater of the sacrament therfore contending with hym that woulde haue the substaunce of bread there it may be sayd there is in the Sacrament the onely substaunce of Christes bodye because the worde onely thus placed excludeth other straunge substaunces and not the substances which without contention be knowen and confessed vnite with Christes body And so a man may be sayd to be alone in his house when he hath no straungers although he hath a number of his owne men And Erasmus noteth how the euangilest writeth Christ to haue prayed alone and yet certayne of his disciples were there And if in a contention raysed whether the father and sonne were both killed in such a field or no I defended the father to haue bene onely killed there and therupon a wager layd should I lose if by profe it appeared that not onely the father but also three or fower of the fathers seruauntes were slayne but the sonne escaped And as in this speache the worde onely serued to exclude that was in contention and not to reduce the number to one no more is it in the speach that this author would reproue and therfore neded not to haue occupyed him selfe in the matter wherin I heard him once say in a good audiēce hym selfe was satisfied In which mynde I would he had continued and hauing so sclender stuffe as this is and the truth so euident agaynst him not to haue resuscitate this so often reproued vntruth wherin neuer hitherto any one could preuayle Caunterbury AS for Damascene needeth no further aunswer then I haue made in my former booke But I pray the reader that he will diligently examine the place and so to be an indifferent auditour betwixt vs two Now when you be called to accompt for the number of substaunces in the Sacramēt I perceaue by your wrangling that you be somewhat moued with this audite for bycause you be called to accompt And I can not blame you though it somewhat greeue you for it toucheth the very quicke And although I my selfe can right well vnderstand your numbers that when you name but one you meane fower yet you should haue considered before hand to whome your booke was written You wrote to playne simple people in the english tongue which vnderstande no further but one to be one and fower to be fower And therfore when you say there is but one and meane fower you attemper not your speach to the capacities of them to whome you write Now haue I aunswered to all your friuilous cauilations agaynst my thyrd booke and fortified it so strongly that you haue spent all your shotte and powder in vayne And I trust I haue eyther broken your peeces or pegged them that you shall be able to shoote no more Or if you shoote the shotte shall be so faynte that it shall not be able to perce through a paper leafe And the life I trust to doe to all the munition and ordinaunce layde agaynst my fourth booke THE CONFVTATION OF the fourth booke THus hauing perused the effect of the third booke I will likewise peruse the fourth and then shall follow
taught and admonished by these misticall or figuratiue wordes that we should be in his body vnder him our head among his members eating his flesh nor forsaking his vnitie And in his booke De doctrina Christiana S. Augustine sayth as before is at length declared that to eate Christes flesh and to drincke his bloud is a figuratiue speach signifying the participation of his passion and the delectable remembraunce to our benefite and profite that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. And in an other sermon also De verbis Apostoli he expoundeth what is the eating of Christes body and the drincking of his bloud saying The eating is to be refreshed and the drincking what is but to liue Eate life drincke life And that shall be when that which is taken visibly in the sacrament is in very deed eaten spiritually and dronken spiritually By all these sentences of S. Augustine it is euident and manifest that all men good and euill may with theyr mouthes visibly and sensibly eate the sacrament of Christes body and bloud but the very body bloud them selues be not eaten but spiritually that of the spiritual members of Christ which dwell in Christ haue Christ dwelling in them by whome they be refreshed and haue euerlasting lyfe And therfore sayth S. Augustine that when the other Apostles did eate bread that was the Lord yet Iudas did eate but the bread of the Lord and not the bread that was the Lord. So that the other Apostles with the sacramentall bread did eate also Christ him selfe whome Iudas did not eate And a great number of places moe hath S. Augustine for this purpose which for eschewing of tediousnes I let pas for this tyme and will speake some thing of S. Cirill ¶ Cyrill vpon S. Iohn in his Gospell sayth that those which eate Manna dyed bycause they receaued therby no strength to liue euer for it gaue no lyfe but onely put away bodily hunger but they that receaue the bread of life shall be made immortall and shall eschewe all the euils that pertayne to death liuing with Christ for euer And in an other place he sayth◠For as much as the flesh of Christ doth naturally geue life therfore it maketh them to liue that be partakers of it For it putteth death away from them vtterly driueth destructiō out of them And he concludeth the matter shortly in an other place in fewe wordes saying that when we eate the flesh of our sauiour than haue we life in vs. For if thinges that were corrupt were restored by onely touching of his clothes how can it be that we shall not liue that eate his flesh And further he sayth that as two waxes that be molten together do run euery part into other so he that receaueth Christes flesh and bloud must nedes be ioyned so with him that Christ must be in him and he in Christ. Here S. Cyrill declareth the dignitie of Christes flesh being inseparably annexed vnto his diuinitie saying that it is of such force and power that it geueth euerlasting life And what soeuer occasion of death it findeth or let of eternall life it putteth out and driueth cleane away all the same from them that eate that meate and receaue that medicine Other medicins or playsters sometyme heale and sometyme heale not but this medicine is of that effect and strength that it eateth away all rotten and dead flesh and perfectly healeth all woundes and sores that it is layd vnto This is the dignitie and excellēcy of Christes flesh and bloud ioyned to his diuinite of the which dignite Christes aduersaries the Papistes depriue and robbe him when they affirme that such men do eate his flesh and receaue this playster as remayne still sicke and sore and be not holpen therby Thus hast thou heard gentle reader the groundes and profes which moued me to write the mater of this iiii booke that good men onely eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud Now shalt thou here the late byshopes confutation of the same Winchester And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this author alleadgeth to proue that only good men receaue the body and bloud of Christ I graunt it without contention speaking of spirituall manducation and with liuely fayth without the Sacrament But in the visible sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do for the substance of the sacrament is by godes ordinauce all one And if this author would vse for a profe that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present bicause euill men receaue it that shal be no argument for the good seed when it was sowen did fall in the euill ground and although Christ dwelleth not in the euill man yet he may be receaued of the euill man to his condemnation bycause he receaueth him not to glorifie him as God as S. Paule sayth Non dijudicans corpus domini not esteming our Lordes body And to all that euer this author bringeth to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ may be sayd shortly that spiritually they eat it not besides the sacrament and in the sacrament they eate it not effectually to life but condemnation And that is and may be called a not eating As they be sayd not to heare the word of God that here it not profitably And bycause the body of Christ of it selfe is ordeyned to be eaten for life those that vnworthely eate to condemnation although they eate in dede may be sayd not to eate because they eate vnworthely as a thing not well done may be in speach called not done in respect of the good effect wherfore it was chiefly ordered to be done And by this rule thou reader mayst discusse all that this author bringeth forth for this purpose eyther out of Scriptures or doctors For euill men eate not the body of Christ to haue any fruite by it as euil men be sayd not to heare gods word to haue any frute by it and yet as they heare the worde of spirite life and neuerthelesse perish so euill men eate in the visible sacrament the body of Christ and yet perish And as I sayd this aunswereth the Scripture with the particuler sayinges of Ciprian Athanase Basyl Hierome and Ambrose As for S. Augustine which this author alleageth De ciuitate dei the same S. Augustine doth playnly say there in this place alledged how the good and euill receaue the same sacrament and addeth but not with like profite which wordes this author suppresseth and therfore dealeth not sincerely As for S. Augustine shall be hereafter more playnly declared Finally he that receaueth worthely the body bloud of Christ hath euerlasting life dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him he that receaueth vnworthely which can be onely in the sacrament receaueth not lyfe but condemnation Caunterbury IF you graunt without contention that which I do proue then you must graunt absolutely and franckly without any addition that onely good
in heauen after which diuision likewise we receaue not in the sacrament Christes flesh that was crucified being so a visible and mortall flesh But Christes flesh glorified incorruptible and impassible a Godly and spirituall flesh And so that is but one in substance and alwayes so that same one is neuerthelesse for the alteration in the maner of the being of it deuided and so called not the same wherin S. Hierom and S. Augustine vsed both one maner of speaking and S. Hierom resembling the diuision that he reherseth of Christes flesh to the diuision of our flesh in the resurrection doth more playnly open how the same may be called not the same bicause we beleue certaynly the resurrection of the same flesh we walke in and yet it shall be by the garmēt of incorruptibility not the same in quality and so be verefied the scriptures that flesh shall not possesse heauen and I shal see God in my flesh and here I will note to the reader by the way S. Hierome writeth this distinction of Christes flesh as a matter agreed on and then in catholique doctrine receaued not of his inuention but in the catholique fayth as a principle established which declareth the belyfe to haue bene of that very godly and spiritual flesh geuen really in the sacrament for els to eate onely in fayth is specially to remember Christes flesh as it was visibly crucified wherin was accomplished the oblation for our sinne and S. Paule willeth vs in the supper to shew forth and professe the death of Christ for so Christ would haue his death continually expressed till his coming and if S. Hierome with other should haue ment of the eating of Christ as he sitteth in heauen reigning this destinction of Christes flesh were an idle matter and out of purpose to compare the distinction in it to be like distinction of oure flesh to enter into heauen and not to enter into heauen the same and not the same And thus I say that this place of S. Hierome sheweth so euedently both his and S. Augustines fayth that wrot at the same tyme as there cannot be desired a more euident matter Caunterbury TO what purpose you should bring in here this place of S. Hierome making much agaynst you and nothing for you I cannot conceaue For he declareth no more in this place but that as all men in this world haue passible bodyes subiect to much filthynes corruption and death and yet after our resurrection we shal be deliuered from corruption vilenes weakenes and death and be made incorruptible glorious mighty and spirituall so Christes body in earth was subiect vnto our infirmities his flesh being crucified and his bloud being shed with a spere which now as you truly say is glorified impassible incorruptible and a spirituall body but yet not so spirituall that his humanitie is turned into his diuinity and his body into his soule as some heretikes phantasy nor that the diuersity of his members be taken away and so left without armes and legges head and feete eyes and eares and turned into the forme and fashion of a bowle as the Papistes imagine The sunne and the mone the fier and the ayre be bodyes but no mans bodyes bycause they lacke hart and lungues head and feete flesh and bloud vaynes and sinewes to knit them togither When Christ was transfigured his face shyned like the sunne and with his mouth he spake to Moyses Helias And after his resurrection we read of his flesh and bones his handes and feete his side and woundes visible and palpable and with mouth tongue and teeth he did eate and speake and so like a man he was in all proportions and members of man that Mary Magdalene could not discerne him from a gardiner And take away flesh and skinne sinewes and bones bloud and vaynes and then remayneth no mans body For take away distinction and diuersitie of partes and members how shall Peter be Peter and Paule be Paule How shall a man be a man and a woman a woman And how shall we see with our eyes and heare with our eares grope with our handes and go with our feete For eyther we shal do no such thinges at all or see with euery part of our bodies and likewise heare speake and go if there be no diuersity of members This I haue spoken for this purpose to declare that S. Hierome speaking of Christes diuine and spirituall flesh excludeth not therby any corporall member that pertayneth to the substance of a mans naturall body but that now being glorified it is the same in all partes that it was before And that same flesh being fyrst borne mortall of the virgine Mary and now being glorifyed and immortall as well the holy fathers did eate before he was borne and his apostles and disciples whiles he liued with vs here in earth as we doe now when he is glorified But what auayleth all this to your purpose except you could proue that to a spirituall eating is required a corporall presence And where you say that S. Hierome and S. Augustine vse both one maner of speaking that is not true For S. Hierom speaketh of the diuersity of the body of Christ and S. Augustine of the diuersity of eating therof And yet here is to be noted by the way that you say we receaue not in the sacramēt Christes flesh that was crucified which your wordes seme to agree euill with Christes wordes who the night before he was crucified declared to his desciples that he gaue them the same body that should suffer death for them And the Apostles receaued the body of Christ yet passible and mortall which the next day was crucified and if we receaue not in the sacrament the body that was crucified then receaue we not the same body that the Apostles did And here in your idle talke you draw by force S. Hieroms wordes to the sacrament when S. Hierom speaketh not one word of the sacramēt in that place let the reader iudge And here for the conclusion of the matter you fantasy and imagine such nouelties and wrape them vp in such darke speaches that we had neede to haue Ioseph or Daniell to expound◠our dreames But to make a cleare answere to your darke reason The body of Christ is glorified and reigneth in heauen and yet we remember with thankfull myndes that the same was crucified and emptied of bloud for our redemption and by fayth to chaw and digest this in our 〈◊〉 is to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud But your brayne rolleth so in fantasies that you wot not where to get out and one of your sayinges impugneth an other For first you say that we receaue not in the sacrament the flesh that was crucified and now you say we receaue him not as he sitteth in heauen and is glorified and so must you nedes graunt that we receaue him not at all Winchester But to returne to S. Augustine touching adoration
vnderstanding of Christes wordes somewhat to alter the same least we might stand stiffely in the letters and sillables and erre in mistaking the sense and meaning For where as our Sauiour Christ brake the bread and sayd This is my body S. Paule sayth that the bread which we breake is the communion of Christes body Christ sayd His body and S. Paule sayd the communion of his body meaning neuerthelesse both one thing that they which eate the bread worthely do eate spiritually Christes very body And so Christ calleth the bread his body as the old authors report bycause it representeth his body and signifieth vnto them which eat that bread according to Christes ordinance that they do spiritually eate his body and be spiritually fed and nourished by him and yet the bread remayneth still there as a Sacrament to signifie the same But of these wordes of Consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large Therfore to returne to the purpose that the bread remayneth and is eaten in this Sacrament appeareth by the wordes of Christ which he spake before the consecration For that Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate All this was done and spoken before the wordes of Consecration Wherfore they must nedes be vnderstood of the very bread that Christ tooke bread brake bread gaue bread to his disciples commaunding them to take bread aud eate bread But the same is more playne and euident of the wine that it remayneth and is drunken at the Lordes supper as well by the wordes that goe before as by the wordes that follow after the consecration For before the wordes of consecration Christ tooke the cup of wyne and gaue it vnto his disciples and sayd Drincke ye all of this And after the wordes of consecration followeth They dranke all of it Now I aske all the Papistes what thing it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to drincke when he sayd Drincke ye all of this The bloud of Christ was not yet there by theyr owne confession for these wordes were spoken before the consecration Therfore it could be nothing els but wine that he commaunded them to drincke Then aske the Papistes once agayne whether the disciples dranke wine or not If they say yea then let them recant theyr errour that there was no wine remayning after the consecration If they say nay then they condemne the Apostles of disobedience to Christes commaundement which dranke not wine as he commaunded them Or rather they reproue Christ as a Iuggler which commaūded his Apostles to drincke wine and when they came to the drincking therof he himselfe had conuayed it away Moreouer before Christ deliuered the cup of wine to his disciples he sayd vnto them Deuide this among you Here I would aske the Papistes an other question what thing it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to deuide among them I am sure they will not say it was the Cup except they be disposed to make men laugh at them Nor I thinke they will not say it was the bloud of Christ as well because the wordes were spoken before the consecration as bicause the bloud of Christ is not deuided but spiritually giuen whole in the sacrament Then could it be vnderstand of nothing els but of wine which they should deuide among them and drincke all togither Also when the Communion was ended Christ sayd vnto his Apostles Verily I say vnto you that I will drincke no more henceforth of this frute of the vine vntill that day that I shall drincke it new with you in my fathers kingdome By these wordes it is cleare that it was very wine that the Apostles dranke at that godly supper For the bloud of Christ is not the frute of the vine nor the accidents of wine nor none other thing is the frute of the vine but the very wine onely How could Christ haue expressed more playnly that bread and wine remayne then by taking the bread in his handes and breaking it him selfe and geuing it vnto his disciples commaunding them to eate it And by taking the cup of wine in his handes and deliuering it vnto them commaunding them to deuide it among them and to drincke it and calling it the frute of the vine These wordes of Christ be so playne that if an angell of heauen would tell vs the contrary he ought not to be beleued And then much lesse may we beleue the subtill lying Papistes If Christ would haue had vs to beleue as a necessary article of our fayth that there remayneth neyther bread nor wine would he haue spoken after this sort vsing all such termes and circumstaūces as should make vs beleue that styll there remayneth bread and wine What maner of teacher make they of Christ that say he ment one thing when his wordes be cleane contrary What christen hart can paciently suffer this contumely of Christ But what crafty teachers be these Papistes who deuise phantasies of theyr owne heades directly contrary to Christes teaching and then set the same abroad to christen people to be most assuredly beleued as Gods owne most holy word S. Paule did not so but followed herein the manner of Christes speaking in calling of bread bread and wine wine and neuer altering Christes wordes herin The bread which we breake sayth he is it not the Communion of Christes body Now I aske agayne of the Papistes whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated They can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated for that is not the communion of Christes body by their owne doctrine And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated then they must nedes confesse that after consecration such bread remayneth as is broken bread which can be none other then very true materiall bread And strayght wayes after S. Paule sayth in the same place that we be partakers of one bread and one cup. And in the next chapiter speaking more fully of the same matter foure tymes he nameth the bread and the cup neuer making mention of any Transubstantiation or remayning of accidentes without any substance which thinges he would haue made some mention of if it had bene a necessary article of our fayth to beleue that there remayneth no bread nor wine Thus it is euident and playne by the wordes of scripture that after consecration remayneth bread and wine and that the Papisticall doctrine of Transubstantiation is directly contrary to gods word Winchester But to the purpose the simplicity of fayth in a christen mans brest doth not so precisely marke and stay at the sillables of Christes wordes as this author pretendeth and knowing by fayth the truth of Christes wordes that as he sayd he wrought doth not measure gods secret working after the prolation of our sillables whose worke is in one instant how so euer speach in vs require a successiue vtterance and the manner of handling this author vseth to bring the misticall wordes in
one vniforme consent agreed that accidences had none other being or remayning but in their substances And yet if the fayth of our religion taught vs the contrary then reason must yelde to fayth But your doctrine of Transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the playne wordes of scripture as it is agaynst the order of naturall reason And where you say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach that no earthly thing remayneth but that the visible forme of bread and wine remayneth the same in greatnes in thicknes in weight in sauour in tast in property also to corrupt putrify and nourish as it did before tell playnly I pray you what thing it is which you call the visible fourme of bread and wine whether it be an accidence or a substance and if it be an accidence shew whether it be a quantity or quality or what other accidence it is that all men may vnderstand what thing it is which as you say is the same in greatnes thicknes weight sauour and other properties And where you alleadge Emissen for the conuersion of the substaunce of bread and wine this conuersion as Emissene sayth and as I haue declared before is like to our conuersion in baptisme where outwardly is no alteration of substance for no sacramentall alteration maketh alteration of the substance but the meruaylous and secret alteration is inwardly in our soules And as the water in baptisme is not changed but sacramentally that is to say made a sacrament of spirituall regeneration which before was none so in the lordes supper neyther the substance nor accidences of bread and wine be changed but sacramentally but the alteration is inwardly in the soules of them that spiritually be refreshed and nourished with Christes flesh and bloud And this our fayth teacheth vs and naturall reason doth good seruice to fayth herein agaynst your imagined Transubstantiation So that you haue not gotten reasons good wil nor consent to your vayne doctrine of Transubstantiation although you had proued your reall presence Which hitherto you haue not don but haue taken greate payne to shoote away all your boltes in vayne missing quite and cleane both the pricke and the whole butte And yet in the end you take a good ready way for your owne aduantage like vnto a man that had shot all his shaftes cleane wide from the butte and yet would beare all men in hand that he had hitte the pricke And when other should go about the measure how farre his shaftes were wide from the butte he would take vp the matter himselfe and cōmaund them to leaue measuring and beleue his owne saying that his arrowes stacke all fast in the marke and that this were the nearest way to finish the contention Euen so do you in this matter willing all men to leaue searching of how in the mistery of Christes presence in the sacrament saying that to be the nearest way And it were a much nerer way for you in dede if all men would leaue searching of how and without ground or reason beleue as well your Transubstātiation as the corporall presence of Christes body onely bicause you do say it is so But S. Peter requireth euery christen man to be ready to render a reason of his fayth to euery one that asketh and S. Paule requireth in a christen Bishop that he should be able to exhorte by holsome doctrine and to conuince the gaynsayers and not to require other men to giue fayth vnto him without asking of how or why only because he sayth so himselfe The olde catholique Authors tell wherfore Christ called bread his body and how christen people fed of his body And the blessed virgine Mary asked how she should conceaue a child neuer hauing company with man And you tell yourselfe how Christ is in heauen how in vs and how in the sacrament declaring all to be but after a spirituall maner And what maner of men be you that we may not aske you how to render a reason of your Transubstantiation being a matter by you onely deuised clearly without Gods word But at length when you haue swette well fauoredly in answering to myne arguments of naturall reason and naturall operation you be fayne to confesse a great part to be true and to turne altogether into miracles and that into such kind of miracles as the old catholike writers neuer knowledged nor touched in none of their workes For besides the chief miracle which you say is in the conuertiō of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes body and of the wine into his bloud there be other miracles when the formes of wine tourue into viniger and when bread mouldeth or a man doth vomite it or the mouse eateth it or the fire burneth it or wormes breed in it and in all like chaunces God still worketh miracles yea euen in poysoning with the consecrated wine And the multitude of such miracles as you do iudge pertayneth to the excellency of the Sacrament where as among the schoole authors this is a common receaued proposition non esse ponenda miracula sine necessitate And where you say that I make my principall foundation vpon the arguments of the scholasticall writers although myne arguments deduced out of the scholasticall authors be vnto you insoluble and therfore you passe them ouer vnanswered yet I make no foundation at all vpon them but my very foundation is onely vpon Gods word which foundation is so sure that it will neuer fayle And myne arguments in this place I bring in onely to this end to shew how farre your imagined Transubstantiation is not onely from Gods word but also from the order and precepts of nature and how many and portentuous absurdities you fall into by meanes of the same Which it semeth you do confesse by holding your peace without making answere therto But now lette vs consider what is next in my booke The Papisticall doctrine is also agaynst all our outward senses called our fiue wits For our eyes say they see there bread and wine our noses smell bread and wine our mouthes tast and our handes fele bread and wine And although the articles of our fayth be aboue all our outward senses so that we beleue thinges which we can neyther see feele heare smell nor tast yet they be not contrary to our senses at the least so contrary that in such thinges which we from tyme to tyme do see smell fele heare and tast we shall not trust our fenses but beleue cleane contray Christ neuer made no such article of our fayth Our fayth teacheth vs to beleue thinges that we see not but it doth not bid vs that we shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eyes and heare with our eares and grope with our handes For although our senses can not reach so farre as our fayth doth yet so farre as the compasse of our sences doth vsually reach our fayth is not contrary to the same but
bread and no bread called bread and no bread this is playne iugling where it hapneth Wherin this rude man for want of true vnderstanding of the wordes and perfect consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondly who if he should therupon require the scholler to shew him some difference of the very substance betwene bread cheese and ale what could the lerned scholler answere here but euen frankly declare his ignoraunce and say I know none which is as much to say as I know there is a difference but I wot not what it is Wherunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholler Then art thou with all thy lerning as very a foole as I to speake of a difference and can not tell what it is Now if the scholler should vtter euen the extremity of his learning in proper termes and say I know bread is no cheese and chese is no ale and of their accidentall partes I can indede shew differences but of the very substance none The rude man if his nature were not ouer dull would laugh roundly to heare a scholler vtter for a poynt of learning that bread is no cheese and cheese is no ale which who so knoweth not is a very foole and merely to knit vp the matter would kepe the accidents of his bread chese and all for him selfe and geue the substance to the scholler if he can deuide it as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture And this I write after this grosse sort to shew that this matter of substance is not commonly vnderstanded as sences exercised in learning perceaue it and how mans outward sences can not as this author would haue it be iudges of the inward nature of substance which reason perswadeth to be vsing the seruice of the sences for induction of the knowledge in which iudgement vpon their report hapneth many tymes much deceite Titus Liuius speaketh of a greate number of diuers dishes of meate made in a solemne supper wherat the gestes woundred to see such a variety at that tyme of the yeare and when they demaunded of it answere was made the substance was but one all hogges flesh so as the alteration in the accidentes deceaued their iudgements That stone which among many thought to haue some skill hath been taken for a precious diamond hath after by cunning lapidaries been iudged to be but a white saphire and contrariwise So easily may our iudgement vpon the report of our sences fall in errour not that the sences be properly deceaued but rather the man that is grossely sensuall and iudgeth fondly by them For the very substance is not the proper obiect of any of the fiue wittes but of their report considered in reason denied and sometyme gessed at wherof ensueth greate errour and quid pro quo among the poticaries and learned also in thinges strange whereof they haue but accidentall markes Wherefore vpon consideration of the premises it may easily appeare how the question of this author why the sences be not beleued in knowledge of substance as in knowledge of accidents may be resonably answered And then if the iudgement of reason in the estimation of Gods naturall workes and denying this or that substance when by accidents it should seeme otherwise reason doth stay sensuallity and when men of experience knowledge and credite haue determined such a certayne stone to be a very true diamond other ignorant will be ashamed to say the contrary And if a man fearing himselfe deceaued to haue bought one kinde of drugges for an other and yet mistrusting wisely his owne iudgement hauing caused it to be vewed by men of knowledge good fayth and honesty if they affirme it to be the very thing this man will then condemne his owne imagination and vpon credite call it so and take it so to be wherfore if in these thinges I say reason doth in a man stay sensuality and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the iudgement of rude vnderstanding and finally if credite among men be so much regarded how much more conuenient is it that fayth in Godds word wherin can be no deceite as there is in men should alter and change mans iudgement in reason and bring it into the obedience of fayth Of that is bread after the iudgement of our reason after the report of our sences Christ determineth vnto vs the substance of that to be his body saying This is my body why shall not now a true christen man answere euer according to his fayth to say and professe the same to be the substance of Christes body vpon credite of Christes wordes as well as the carnall man will vpon report of his sences conclude in reason there to be the substance of bread wherby is not taken away the credite of our sences as this author supposeth which haue their obiects still true as they had before For the collour greatnes sauour and tast all remayne truely with the experiences of them as before Upon whose report reason neuertheles now reduced to the obsequie of fayth forbeareth reuerently to conclude agaynst the truth of fayth but according to fayth confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christes body and the accidents to remayne in their very true nature bicause fayth teacheth not the contrary and that it agreeth with the rule of fayth so to be and therfore remayneth a very true greatnes thicknes and wayght which may be called in common speach substance signifying the outward nature And in that sense Theodoret reasoning with an heretique semeth to call it bicause hauing spoken of substance remayning he declareth what he meaneth by it adding it may be seene and felt as before which is not the nature of substance properly but by like common speach that remayneth may be called matter as Origen called it wherein also remayne the true sauour and tast with true propriety to corrupt or putrifie and also nourish God so ordering the vse of the creature of bread and likewise wine in this mistery as the inward nature of them which indeede is the substance but onely comprehended in reason and vnderstanding is conuerted into the most precious substance of Christes body and bloud which is indeede a substance there present by gods omnipotency onely to be comprehended by fayth so farre as may be vnderstanded of mannes weakenes and imbecilitie And where this author putteth a danger if sences be not trusted there is a gappe open to the Ualentinians and Marcionistes and therfore bringeth in the feeling of S. Thomas hereunto I say that the truth of that feeling dependeth vpon a true beliefe according to the scriptures that Christ was very man for els the body glorified of Christ as S. Gregory noteth was not of the owne glorified nature then eyther visible or palpable but therin Christ condescended to mannes infirmity and as he was truth it selfe left that a true testimony to such as humbly were disposed by grace to receaue it not to conuince heretiques who can
sunne and the moone of a man and a beast of fish and flesh betwene the body of one beast and an other one herbe and an other one tree an other betwene a man and a woman Yea betwene our body and Christes and generally betwene any one corporall thing and an other For is not the distinction of all bodely substances knowen by their accidents without the which a mans body can not be knowen to be a mans body And as substances can not be substances without accidents so the nature of accidentes can not be without substāces whose being deffinitiō is to be in substāces But as you speake of substances and accidentes agaynst scripture sense reason experience and all learning so doe you also speake manifestly agaynst your selfe For you say that euery thing that is must haue a substance wherein it is stayde and that euery naturall visible thing is of two partes of substance and accidentes and yet by your Transubstantiation you leaue no substance at all to stay the accidentes of the bread and wine And moreouer this is a meruaylous teaching of you to say that the accidents of bread be one parte of breade and be called the outward kinde of bread the sensible parte of bread the nature and matter of bread and very bread Was there euer any such learning taught before this day that accidentes should be called partes of substances the nature of substances and the matter of substances and the very substāces themselues If euer any man so wrotte tell who it is or els knowledge the truth that all these matters be inuented by your owne imagination wherof the rude man may right well say Here is sophistry in deede and playne iuggling But you conuey not your iuggling so craftely but that you be taken as the Grekes terme it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen with the māner Now as concerning your expert lapidarie if his sences be deceaued how shall he iudge a true stone from a counterfaite Doth he not diligently looke vpon it with his sight to discerne truely of it For tell me I pray you how a man without sences shall iudge a true diamond Put out his eyes and is not a white saphire a diamond and a glas all one in his iudgemēt Mary if he be a man of cleare sight of true knowledge and experience in the iudgement of stones and be therewithall a man of good fayth and honesty as you tell the tale they that be ignorant will be ashamed to controll his iudgement But if he be blinde or be a man neither of fayth nor honesty but his experience hath ben euer exercised to deceaue all that trust him and to sell them white saphirs for diamondes then no man that wise is will take a glas or saphire at his handes of trust although he say it be a true diamond Euen so likewise the Papistes being so accustomed with these marchandises of glistering glasses and counterfayte drugges to deceaue the world what wise men will trust them with their fayned Transubstantiation being so manifestly agaynst the playne wordes of scripture agaynst all reason sence and auncient writers And although you haue taken neuer so great labor and paynes in this place to answere myne argumentes wherin you do nothing els but shew your ignorance in philosophy and logike yet all is in vayne except you could proue Transubstantiation to be a matter of our fayth which being not proued all that you haue spoken here serueth to no purpose nor concludeth nothing For you are not so ignorant in sophistry but you know well though that of a false Antecedent can no Consequent directly follow And as concerning these wordes of Christ This is my body by your owne teaching in these wordes he called bread his body which can be no formall and proper speach but spoken by a figure as the order of the text playnly declareth and all the old authors do testify And where you say that although the substance of bread and wine be gone yet the sences haue their proper obiect still remayning as they had before that is to say the colours greatnes thicknes weight sauour and tast expresse thē I pray you playnly what thing it is that is coloured great thinne or thicke heauy or light sauoury or tasted For seing you confesse that these do remayn you must confesse also that there remayneth bread For that greatnes thicknes thinnes colours and weight be not in the body of Christ nor in the ayre which can not be wayed and in some thing they must nedes be for by your owne saying euery thing hath a substance to stay it therfore they must nedes be in the substance of bread and wine And to say that the accidents of bread be the natures matters and substances therof is nothing els but to declare to the world that you make wordes to signify at your pleasure But other shift haue you none to defend your Transubstantiation but to deuise such monstrous kindes of speaches as neuer was heard of before For you say that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine remayne not but be changed into the body and bloud of Christ the olde writers say directly contrary that the nature matter and substance remayne Christ sayth Theodoret called bread and wine his body and bloud and yet changed not their natures And agayne he sayth The bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substance forme and figure which they had before And Origene sayth that the matter of bread auayleth nothing but as concerning the materiall part therof it goeth downe into the bealy and is auoyded downward And Gelasius sayth that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be Now seeing that your doctrine who teach that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine be changed and remayne not is as cleane contrary to these olde writers with many other as black is contrary to white and light to darknes You haue no remedy to defend your errour and wilfull opinion but to imagine such portentuous and wonderfull kindes of speaches to be spoken by these authors as neuer were vttered before by no man that is to say that the outward aparance and accidences of any thing should be called the nature matter and substance therof But such monsters had you rather bring forth then you would in one iote relent in your errour once by you vttered and vndertaken by you defended And yet bring you nothing for the profe of your saying but that if the authors wordes should be vnderstand as they be spoken this should follow thereof that bread and wine should be seene and felt which as no man doubteth of but all men take it for a most certayne truth so you take it for a greate inconuenience and absurdity So farre be you forced in this matter to vary in speach and iudgement from the sentence and opinion of all men And
it is not taken for the substance as you would fayne haue it but for the property For the substance of bread still remayning in them that duely receaue the same the property of carnall nourishment is changed into a spirituall nourishment as more largely in myne answer to you in that place shall be declared And where you would somewhat releue your selfe by certayne words of Chrisostome which immediatly follow the sentence by me alleadged which wordes be these that the bread after consecration is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne of God vpon which wordes you would gather your Transubstantiation how effectuall your argument is in this matter may appeare by an other like Steuen Gardiner after he was consecrated was called the byshop of Winchester and not two byshoppes but one bishop ergo Steuen Gardiner was transubstantiate And a counter layd by an Auditour for a thousand poundes is not then called a counter but a thousand poundes ergo it is transubstantiated And the man and wife after mariage be called but one body ergo there is Transubstantiation This must be the fourme of your argument if you will proue Transubstantiation by these wordes of Chrisostome Now come we to S. Ambrose At the same tyme was S. Ambrose who declareth the alteration of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ not to be such that the nature and substance of bread and wine be gone but that thorough grace there is a spirituall mutation by the mighty power of God so that he that worthely eateth of that bread doth spiritually eate Christ and dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him For sayth S. Ambrose speaking of this change of bread into the body of Christ if the word of God be of that force that it can make thinges of nought and those thinges to be which neuer were before much more it can make thinges that were before still to be also to be changed into other thinges And he bringeth for example here of the change of vs in baptisme wherin a man is so changed as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebius that he is made a new creature and yet his substance remayneth the same that was before Winchester Saynt Ambrose doth not as this Author would haue it impugne Transubstantiation but confirmeth it most playnly bicause he teacheth the true presence of Christes body in the sacrament which he sayth is by change and thinges still remayning and that may be verefied in the outward visible matter that is to say the accidents remayning with their proper effects which therfore may worthely be called thinges And here I would aske this Author if his teaching as he pretendeth were the catholike fayth and the bread onely signified Christes body what should nede this force of Gods word that S. Ambrose speaketh of to bring in the creation of the world wherby to induce mans fayth in this mistery to the belefe of it As for the example of Baptisme to show the change in mans soule wherof I haue spoken declaring Emissene serueth for an induction not to leane to our outward sences ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther bycause we see none outward experience of it but els it is not necessary that the resemblance shall answere in equality otherwise then as I sayd afore each part answering his conuenient proportion and as for their comparison of resemblance Baptisme with the sacrament this author in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thinke deny but man by regeneration of his soule in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth that it is not partaker of holines by this consecration but howsoeuer this author in his owne doctrine snarleth him selfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the consecration the body of Christ which is an vndoubted affirmation then to be no bread howsoeuer the accidents of bread do remayne Caunterbury SAynt Ambrose teacheth not the reall and corporall presence of Christs body in the sacrament as I haue proued sufficiently in my former booke the 64. 81. and 82. leaues and in myne answere vnto you in this booke But agaynst Transubstantiation he teacheth playnly that after consecration not onely thinges remayne but also that the thinges changed still remayne And what is this but a flatte condemnation of your imagined Transubstantiation For if the thinges changed in the sacrament do still remayne and the substances of bread and wine be changed then it followeth that theire substances remayne and be not transubstantiated so that your vntrue and crafty shift will not releeue your matter any whit when you say that the accidence of bread is bread wherin all the world knoweth how much you erre from the truth And better it had bene for you to haue kept such sayings secret vnto your selfe which no man can speake without blushing except he be past all shame than to shew your shamefull shiftes open vnto the world that all men may see them And specially when the shewing therof onely discouereth your shame and easeth you nothing at all For the accidences be not changed as you say your selfe but the substances And then if the thinges that be changed remayue the substance must remayne and not be transubstantiated And S. Ambrose bringeth forth to good purpose the creation of the world to shew the wonderfull worke of God aswell in the spirituall regeneration and spirituall feeding and nourishing of the liuely members of Christes body as in the creation and conseruation of the world And therfore Dauid calleth the spirituall renouation of man by the name of creation saying Cor mundum crea in me Deus O God create in me a new hart And as for any further answer here vnto Ambrose nedeth not but bicause you referre you here to Emissene they which be indifferent may read what I haue answered vnto Emissene a little before and so iudge Now let vs examine S. Augustine And S. Augustine about the same tyme wrote thus That which you see in the alter is the bread and the cup which also your eyes do shew you But fayth sheweth further that bread is the body of Christ the cupper his bloud Here he declareth two thinges that in the sacrament remayneth bread and wine which we may discerne with our eyes and that the bread and wine be called the body and bloud of Christ. And the same thing he declareth also as playnly in an other place saying The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thinges of the visible kind of the element and of the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ both of the sacrament and of the thinge signified by the sacrament Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man forasmuch as he is very God and very man For euery thing cōteineth in it the very nature of those thinges wherof it consisteth
Now the sacrifice of the church coÌ„sisteth of two thinges of the sacrament and of the thing thereby signified that is to say the body of Christ. Therfore there is both the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament which is Christes body What can be deuised to be spoken more playnly agaynst the error of the Papistes which say that no bread nor wine remayneth in the sacrament For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures that is to say of his manhod and of his godhead and therfore both those natures remayne in Christ euen so sayth S. Augustine the sacrament consisteth of two natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures must nedes remayne in the sacrament For the more playne vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that there were certayne heretikes as Simon Menander Martion Valentinus Basilides Cerdon Manes Eutiches Manichaeus Apolinaris and Diuers other of like sortes which sayd that Christ was very God but not a very man although in eating drinking sleeping and all other operations of man to mens iudgementes he appeared like vnto a man Other there were as Artemon Theodorus Sabellius Paulus Samasathenus Marcellus Photinus Nestorius and many other of the same sectes which sayd that he was a very naturall man but not very God although in geuing the blind their sight the dumbe their speach the deafe their hearing in healing sodenly with his word all diseases in raysing to life them that were dead and in all other workes of God he shewed himselfe as he had bene God Yet other there were which seeing the scripture so plaine in those two matters confessed that he was both God and man but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation sayd they he was God onely and not man and after his incarnation he ceased from his Godhead and became a man onely and not God vntill his resurrection or ascension and then say they he left his manhod and was onely God agayne as he was before his incarnation So that when he was manne he was not God and when he was God he was not man But agaynst these vayne heresies the Catholike fayth by the expresse word of God holdeth and beleueth that Christ after his incarnation left not his diuine nature ' but remayned still God as he was before being togither at one tyme as he is still both perfect God and perfect man And for a playne declaration hereof the old auncient authors giue two examples one is of man which is made of two partes of a soule and of a body and ech of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that when the soule by the almighty power of god is put in to the body neither the body nor soule perisheth therby but therof is made a perfect man hauing a perfect soule and a perfect body remayning in him both at one tyme. The other example which the olde authors bring in for this purpose is of the holy Snpper of our Lord which consisteth say they of two partes of the sacrament or visible element of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receaue the sacrament the very natures of bread and wine ceasse not to be there but remayne there still and be eaten and drunken corporally as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually so likewise doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne still with his humanity Let now the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation that there remayneth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the Sacrament if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehersed that Christ is not God and man both togither But to proue that this was the mynd of the old authors beside the saying of S. Augustine here recited I shall also reherse diuers other Winchester In the 26. leafe this author bringeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which when this author wrote it is like he neither thought of the third or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare most euidently the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament affirming the same to be the sacrifice of the church wherby appeareth it is no figure onely In the first saying of S. Augustine is written thus how fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ now whatsoeuer fayth sheweth is a truth and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ which speach bread is the body of Christ is as much to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissene wrote by conuersion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ and as S. Augustine in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the flesh of Christ. As for the second saying of S. Augustine how could it with more playne wordes be written then to say that there is both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament which is Christes body calling the same the sacrifice of the church Now if Christes body be there it is truely there and in dede there which is really there as for there in a figure were as much to say as not there in truth and indede but onely signified to be absent which is the nature of a figure in his proper and speciall speach But S. Augustine sayth euen as the author bringeth him forth and yet he gaue his priuy nippe by the way thus It is sayd of S. Augustine there be two thinges in the sacrifice which be conteyned in it wherof it consisteth so as the body of Christ is conteined in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynd According whereunto S. Augustine is alleadged to say in the same booke from whence this author tooke this saying also these wordes following vnder the kindes of bread and wine which we see we honor thinges inuisible that is to say the flesh and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did before the consecration for we must faythfully confesse before the consecration to be bread and wine that nature formed and after consecration the flesh and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath consecrate Thus sayth S. Augustine as he is alleadged out of the booke which in deede I haue not but he hath the like sence in other places and for honoring of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the side and reall presence S. Augustine hath the like in his booke De Catâ—chisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader how this author concludeth himselfe in the fayth of the reall presence of Christes body by his owne collection of S. Augustine mynd which is as he confesseth in his owne wordes noting S. Augustine that as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures
obstinately bent to peruert the true doctrine of this holy Sacrament you would neuer haue vttered this sentence That there was neuer man ouerturned his owne assertions more euidently then this Author doth For I am well assured that my doctrine is sound and therfore do trust that I shall able to stand by myne assertions before all men that are learned and be any thing indifferent and not bent obstinately to mayntayne errors as you be when you tumbling and tossing your selfe in your filthy fantasies of Transubstantiation and of the reall and carnall presence of Christes body shal be ashamed of your assertiōs But I meruayle not much of your stout bragging here bicause it is a common thing with you to dashe me in the teeth with your owne faultes And it is vntrue that you say that the sacrifice is parfited before the perfection For if the sacrifice be parfited before the perception it is parfited also before the consecration For betwene the consecration and perception was no sacrifice made by Christ as appeareth in the Euangelistes but the one followed immediately of the other And although Christ being in heauen be one of the partes wherof the sacrifice consisteth be present in the sacrifice yet he is not naturally there present but sacramentally in the sacrament and spiritually in the receauours And by this which I haue now answered I haue wrastled with you so in the matter of Christes presence that I haue not fallen vpon my back my selfe to pull you ouer me but I standing vp right my selfe haue geuen you such a fall that you shall neuer be able to recouer And now that I haue brought you to the ground although it be but a small peece of manhoode to strike a man when he is downe yet for the truthes sake vnto whome you haue euer bene so great an aduersary I shall beate you with your Transubstantiation as they say both backe and bone Now say you syr is whitenes or other colours the nature of bread and wine for the colours be onely visible by your doctrine or be they elements or be accidents the bodely matter Lye still ye shall be better beaten yet for your wilfulnes Be the accidents of bread substances as you sayd not long before And if they be substances what manner of substances be they corporall or spirituall If they be spirituall then be they soules deuils or angels And if they be corporall substances eyther they haue life or no life I trust you will say at the least that bread hath life bicause you sayd but euen now almost that the substance of bread is the soule of it Such absurdities they fall into that mayntayne errours But at length when the similitude of the two natures in Christ remayning both in their proper kindes must needes be answered vnto then commeth in agayne the cuttill with his colours to hide him selfe that he should not be seene bicause he perceaueth what danger he is in to be taken And when he commeth to the very nette he so stoutly striueth wrangleth and wresteth as he would breake the nette or els by some craft wind himselfe out of it but the net is so strong and he so surely masted therein that he shall neuer be able to gette out For the olde catholike Authors to declare that two natures remayne in Christ togither that is to say his humanity and his diuinity without corruption or wasting of any of the sayd two natures do geue two examples therof one is of the body and soule which both be in a man togither and the presence of the one putteth not away the other The other example is of the Lordes Supper or ministration of the Sacrament where is also togither the substaunce and nature of bread and wine with the body and bloud of Christ and the presence of the one putteth not away the other no more then the presence of Christes humanitie putteth away hys diuinitie And as the presence of the soule driueth not away the body nor the presence of the fleshe and bloud of Christ driueth not away the bread and wine so doth not the presence of Christes humanity expell his diuinitie but his diuinitie remayneth still with his humanitie as the soule doth with the body and the body of Christ with the bread And then if there remayne not the nature and substaunce of bread it must follow also that there remaineth not the diuine nature of Christ with his humanity or els the similitude is clearely dissolued But yet say you we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality but onely haue respect to the end wherfore the resemblance is made And do you not see how this your saying taketh away your owne argument of the reall presence in the sacrament and neuerthelesse setteth you no whitte more at liberty concerning Transubstantiation but masteth you faster in the nette and maketh it more stronger to holde you For the olde Authors make this resemblance onely to declare the remayning of two natures not the manner and forme of remayning which is farre diuers in the person of Christ from the vnion in the Sacrament For the two natures of Christ be ioyned togither in vnity of person which vnity is not betwene the Sacrament and the body of Christ. But in that poynt wherein the resemblance is made there must needes be an equality by your owne saying And for as much as the resemblance was made onely for the remayning of two natures therfore as the perfite natures of Christes manhod godhead do both remayne and the perfite nature of the soule and the body both also remayne so must the perfite nature of Christes body and bloud and of bread and wine also remayne But for as much as the similitude was not made for the manner of remayning nor for the place therfore the resemblance requireth not that the body and bloud of Christ should be vnited to the bread and wine in person or in place but onely that the natures should remayne euery one in his kind And so be you cleane ouerthrowen with your transubstantiation except you will ioyne your selfe with those Heretikes which denied Christes humanity diuinity to remayne both togithers And it seemeth that your doctrine varieth very little from Ualentine and Martion if it vary any thing at all when you say that Christes flesh was a spirituall flesh For when S. Paule speaking of Christes body sayd we bee members of his body of his fleshe and of his bones he ment not of a spirituall body as Ireneus sayth for a spirite hath no flesh nor bones but of a very mans body that is made of flesh sinewes and bones And so with striuing to gette out of the nette you roll your selfe faster in it And as for the wordes of S. Augustine make nothing for the reall presence as I haue before declared So that therin I neyther haue foyle nor trippe but for all your bragges hookes and crookes you haue such
a fall as you shall neuer be able to stand vpright agayne in this matter And my shaftes be shot so straight agaynst you and with such a force that they perse through shilde haburgen in such sort that all the harnes you haue is not able to withstand them or to make one arrow to start backe although to auoyde the stroke you shift your place seeking some meane to flye the fight For when I make mine argument of Transubstantiation you turne the matter to the reall presence like vnto a surgeon that hath no knowledge but when the head is wounded or sore he layth a playster to the heele Or as the prouerbe sayth Interrogatus de alijs respondet de caepis when you be asked of garlicke you answer of onions And this is one prety sleight of sophistry or of a subtill warrier when he seeth him selfe ouermatched and not able to resist then by some policy quite to put of or at the least to delay the conflict and so do you commonly in this booke of Transubstantiation For when you be sore pressed therin than you turne the matter to the reall presence But I shall so straytly pursue you that you shall not so escape For where you say that the fathers which vsed the examples of the Sacrament and of the body and bloud of Christ to shew the vnity of two natures in Christ did beleue that as really and as truely the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the Sacrament the fathers neither sayd nor beleued as you here report but they taught that both the Sacrament and the thing therby represented which is Christes body remayne in their proper substaunce and nature the signe being here and the thing signified being in heauen and yet of these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church But it is not required that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the signe and figure as the soule is in the body bicause there is no such vnion of person nor it is not required in the soule and body that they should be euer togither for Christes body and soule remayned both without eyther corruption or Transubstantiation when the soule was gone downe into hell and the body rested in the sepulcher And yet was he than a perfect man although his soule was not than really present with the body And it is not so great a meruayle that his body should be in heauen and the sacrament of it here as it is that his body should be here and his soule in hell And if the Sacrament were a man and the body of Christ the soule of it as you dreame in your traunse then were the Sacrament not in a traunse but dead for the tyme whilest it were here and the soule in heauen And like scoffing you might make of the Sacrament of Baptisme as you doe in the Sacrament of Christes body that it lyeth here in a traunse when Christ being the life therof is in heauen And where you thinke that my second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of me when I minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Trāsubstantiation onely you haue no probatiō of your thought but still you remayne in your dreames traunses and vayne phantasies which you haue vsed throughout your booke so that what so euer is in the bread and wine there is in you no Transubstantiation nor alteration in this thing at all And what auayleth it you so often to affirme this vntruth that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament as the soule of man is present in the body except you be like to them that tell a lye so often that with often repeating they think men beleue it and sometyme by often telling they beleue it them selues But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soule of man to proue therby the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament but to proue the two natures of the godhead and the manhoode in the person of Christ. Lette vs now discusse the minde of Chrisostome in this matter whome I bring thus in my booke S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth against the pestilēt errour of Apolinaris which affirmed that the Godhead and manhod in Christ were so mixed and confounded togither that they both made but one nature Agaynst whome S. Iohn Chrisostome writeth thus When thou speakest of God thou must consider a thing that in nature is single without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with such like And when thou speakest of man thou meanest a nature that is weake subiect to hunger thirst weeping feare sweating and such like passions which can not be in the diuine nature And when thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures togither in one persone who is both passible and impassible Passible as concerning his flesh and impassible in his deite And after he concludeth saying Wherfore Christ is both God and man God by his impassible nature and man bicause he suffered He himselfe being one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned togither which be not of one substance but ech of them hath his properties distinct from the other And therfore remayneth there two natures distinct and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord although the nature of the bread remayne still in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of Gods sonne so likewise here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of S. Chrisostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecration the nature of bread remayneth still although it haue an higher name and be called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eate the supernaturall bread of the body of Christ who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sitteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Winchester S. Chrisostomes wordes in deede if this author had had them eyther truely translated vnto him or had taken the paynes to haue truly translated them himselfe which as Peter Martyr sayth be not in print but were found in Florence a copy wherof remayneth in the archdeacon or Archbishop of Caunterburies handes or els if this author had reported the wordes as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyrs booke wherin some poynt the translator in English semeth to haue attayned by gesse the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr vttereth it himselfe if eyther of this had bene done the matter should haue seemed for so much the more playne But
maner of wayes by tooth and by nayle to shake him of First you would shake him of by this pretēce that he vseth his two Argumentes of the two examples of man and the Sacrament agaynst the Eutichians onely But Gelasius will not so easely leaue his hold For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutichians declaring by these two examples how two differēt natures may remaine in Christ and that the integritie of Christ can not be except both the different natures remaine in their properties which cōdemneth both the foresayd heresies that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ the Eutichians his diuinitie and the Nestorians his humanitie And yet if he had vsed these examples agaynst the Eutichians onely they byte you as sore as if they were vsed agaynst them both For if he conclude by these two examples agaynst the Eutichians as you say hee doth that the integritie of Christ can not be but both natures different that is to say his manhode and Godhead must remaine in their propertie then must it nedes be so in the examples also And then as Christ had in him two natures with their naturall properties neither perishing but both remainyng and as man hath in him two natures the soule and the body both remainyng still so must in the Sacrament also the nature of bread and wine remaine without Transubstantiation or corruption of any of the natures accordyng to the sayd wordes of Gelasius Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be And Gelasius bringeth not this Image and similitude to that purpose that you would draw it that is to say to expresse the maner of Christs presēce in the Sacramēt but to expresse the maner of two natures in Christ that they both so remaine that neither is corrupted or transubstantiated no more then the bread and wine be in the Sacrament And by this all men may see that Gelasius hath fastened his teeth so surely that you can not so lightly cast him of with a shake of your chayne And if he ment to expresse the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament as you fayne he doth that the maner is onely by fayth wherof he speaketh not one word yet are you nothyng at libertie thereby but held much more faster thē you were before For Gelasius speaketh of the action of the mystery Christes flesh and bloud be present in the action of the mystery onely by fayth therfore can they not be present in the bread or wine reserued which haue no fayth at all And presence by fayth onely requireth no reall materiall and and corporall presence For by fayth is Christ present in Baptisme and by fayth Abraham saw him the holy Fathers did eate his flesh and drincke his bloud before he was borne And Christ humbling him selfe to take vpon him our mortall nature hath exalted vs to the nature of his deitie making vs to reigne with him in his immortall glory as it were Gods And this sayth Gelasius God worketh in vs by his Sacramentes per quae diuinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini that is to say by the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be associate vnto the diuine nature and yet ceasseth not the substaunce or nature of bread and wine to be So that the Sacrament not beyng altered in substaunce we be altered and go into the diuine nature or substaunce as Gelasius termeth it beyng made partakers of Gods eternitie And therfore when he speaketh of the goyng of the Sacraments into the diuine substaunce he meaneth not that the substaunces of the Sacraments go into the substaunce of God which no creature can do but that in the action of that mystery to them that worthely receaue the Sacramentes to them they be turned into diuine substaunce through the working of the holy Ghost who maketh the godly receauers to be the partakers of the diuine nature and substaunce And that this was the intent meanyng of Gelasius appeareth by two notable sentences of him wherof one is this Surely sayth he the Image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrate in the action of the mysterie The other is that by the Sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature he sayth not that the Sacramentes be but that we be made partakers of the nature of Christes Godhead And if he should meane as you haue most vntruely altered both his wordes sence at your pleasure not that the godly receiuers but that the substaunce of bread and wine should go into the diuine substaunce then were not they chaunged into his humanitie but into his deitie and so were the bread and wine deified or at the least made partakers of the diuine nature and immortalitie But for asmuch as Gelasius sayth that the two natures in Christ remaine in like case as the natures of the sacraments remayne for he maketh his argument altogither of the remayning of the natures by the verbe permanere and the participle permanens then as you say that the integrity of Christ can not be except both his natures different remayne in their properties so can not the integritie of the sacrament be except the two natures of bread and wine remayne in their properties For els seeing that the remayning of the natures is in the Sacrament as it is in Christ as Gelasius sayth then if in the Sacraments remayne but the accidents and apearance of bread and wine and not the substances of them how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine proue the two substances and natures of Christ to remayne Might it not rather be gathered that onely the appearance of Christes humanity remayneth in accidents and not the substance of it selfe as Martion sayth as you say it is in the sacrament or els that Christes humanity is absorpted vp by his diuinity and confounded therwith as the Eutichians say that the bread and wine is by the body and bloud of Christ But the catholique fayth hath taught from the beginning according to holy scripture that as the image or sacrament be two diuers natures and different remayning in their properties that is to say bread and wine so likewise in the person of Christ remayne two natures his diuinity and his humanity And I pray you what danger is it to say that Christes body is in the sacramentall bread but as in a figure should that emply that his body is in his person but as in a figure That should be euen as good an argument as this Christ was in the brasen serpent but in a figure ergo he is now in heauen but in a figure For the forme of argumentation is all one in the one and the other And if Christ be in vs by vertue and efficacie although in the sacraments representing
the same as Gelasius sayth he be but sacramentally figuratiuely and significatiuely what perill is it to vs And what auayleth it vs his being in the sacrament and not in vs. And the two natures in the Sacrament which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ be bread and wine which as they remayne and that truely in their natures and substances so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine Sacraments of the terrestriall nature of Christ that is to say of his body and bloud but not of his celestiall and diuine nature as you imagine And they be called Sacraments bicause they be figures which if they were no figures they were no Sacraments But it is not required that the thing represented by the figure should be really and corporally present in the figure when the figures ordeyned to represent a thing corporally absēt the figure were in vayne as Lactansius sayth if the thing were present And at the least wise in this place Gelasius vseth the natures and substances of bread and wine which be Sacraments of Christes flesh and bloud to be images and similitudes in this poynt not of his flesh and bloud but of his diuine and humayne nature that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament remayne still in theire proper kindes without violation adnihilation confusion commixtion or Transubstantiation so is it in the two natures of Christes manhode and his godhead So that Gelasius vseth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ not for the consecration of the sacrament as you would peruert his meaning And bicause you would haue all your thinges strange as it were one that had come out of a strange cuntry where he had learned a strange fashion of speach neuer heard of before or rather deuised it himselfe you call the colours of bread and wine the matter of bread and wine bicause colours onely be visible after your teaching And then must the naturall property of colours be to signify our feeding spirituall by the body and bloud of Christ that as they feede vs spiritually so do the colours corporally And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis ad oppositum antecedentis as colours feede not our bodyes so Christ feedeth not our soules This is the conclusion of your goodly new deuised diuinity And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence bicause you were loth to commit but one horrible errour in one sentence that Gelasius calleth Christes body and bloud his diuine substance This is a goodly hearing for the Eutichians who say that in Christ is no moe natures but his diuine substance which by your interpretation must be true For if his godhead be a diuine substance and his body and bloud also a diuine substance why should Eutiches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than diuine substaunce And so shall we bring to passe that either Christ hath but one substaūce or two diuine substaunces although not of like sorte and so not one humaine substaunce And is it like that Gelasius who so long contēded agaynst Eutiches for two distinct substaūces in Christ humaine and diuine would in the conclusion of his disputation so much yeld vnto the hereticke to graunt that Christes humaine substaunce should be a diuine substaunce And it is worthy to be noted and double noted how you wrāgle with the wordes of Gelasius wrast them cleane out of tune For where Gelasius sayth that there remaineth the substaunce or nature of bread and wyne to declare thereby the remainyng of two natures in Christ you say that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last and not in the first that is to say that the nature of bread and wine remaineth And nature say you is there taken for the proprieties which you call accidentes And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher that should so ambiguously speake of two thyngs when he meaneth but of one For when he sayth that the substaunce or nature remayneth you say he meaneth that onely the nature remaineth And were this tollerable in a learned man when he meaneth the nature to remaine not the substaunce to expresse it by these termes The substaunce or nature remaineth And if Gelasius meane that the substaunce of bread and wine remaineth not but the natures and then if by nature he vnderstode the accidentes as you vntruely surmise of him and make them the Image and similitude to proue Christes two natures thē they proue no more but that the accidentes of Christes natures remayne and not the substaunce whiche saying whether it be a fauouryng of the Eutichians Nestorians Ualentiniās Martionistes Apolinaristes and other of that sort let the learned be iudge And although it be not necessary the exāples to be in all partes equall as you alledge of Rusticus Diaconus yet they must needes be like in that point wherfore they were takē to be examples for els they were none examples And therefore seyng that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought for examples of Christes two natures for this intēt to proue that the two natures of Christ remaine in their substaunce it must needes be so in the bread and wine or els they serued nothyng to that purpose And the transition that Gelasius ment of is in the persons that receaue the Sacramentes whiche be transformed into the diuine nature as Gelasius sayth by efficacie vertue represented by the Sacraments but the transition is not in the bread and wyne as you and your Thomas imagine of transition whiche remaine in the Sacrament without substāciall mutatiō conuersiō transitiō transelementatiō or trāsubstantiatiō For if in the mystery of the Sacrament were transition mutation conuersion and transelementation of the substaunce of bread and wine how could that mystery be an example of the principall mystery of Christes incarnation to proue thereby that there is no transition mutation conuersion or transelementation of the two substaunces of Christ in his incarnation Doth not the remainyng of substaunce in the Sacrament proue the remainyng of substaunce in the Incarnation For how can the not remainyng of substaunce be an example image and similitude to proue the remainyng of the substaunce But here appeareth what it is to wrastle agaynst the truth to defend an euell cause what absurdities wit eloquence be driuen vnto when they striue agaynst God and his word And where you think your selfe ouer sore pressed with this argument and similitude of bread and wine to the two natures in Christ I must needes presse the argument and wordes so farre as pertayneth to the remayning of the natures and substance for to that end was the image and similitude brought in by Gelasius And then by argument from the cause wherfore the resemblance was made if the substance and nature of the bread and wine remayne not in the Sacrament it followeth that the two natures and substance of
Christ remayne not in his person which is no sound teaching wherfore to make the argument agree with the catholike teaching we must needes say that as in the person of Christ remayne the two natures and substance of his godhead and manhod so in the sacrament remayne the natures and substances of bread and wine that the comparisons may agree with themselues and with the catholike fayth Like as it is also in the other example of the body and soule which two natures must needes remayne in the person of man without transubstantiation of any nature if they shall resemble the remayning of the two natures in Christ. And how do the two natures in the Sacrament remayne in their property I pray you declare if the nature of bread and wine be gon And how doth not the diuine nature swallow vp the earthly nature if the nature of bread and wine be so turned into the diuine nature that it remayneth not but is clearly extinct If you may purge your selfe in handling of this author by confession of your ignorance you must obtayne it by great fauor of them that will so accept it For els in this one author is affirmed by you many great errors with wilfull deprauation of the authors mynd to geue weapons to them that be enemies to the truth and to the subuersion of the catholike fayth And no les haue you done in Theodoretus next folowing bicause you would handle them both indifferently and do no more Iniury to the one than to the other And as for Ciprian Ambrose Theophilact and Emissene I haue answered to them before It is tyme now to heare Theodoret. Theodoretus also affirmeth the same both in his first and in his second dialoge In the first he sayth thus He that called his naturall body wheate and bread and also called himselfe a vine the selfe same called bread and wine his body and bloud and yet changed not their natures And in his second dialogue he sayth more playnly For sayth he as the bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substance forme and figure which they had before euen so the body of Christ after his ascention was changed into the godly substance Now let the Papistes choose which of these two they will graunt for one of them they must needes graunt eyther that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne still in the Sacrament after the consecration and than must they recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation or els that they be of the errour of Nestorius and other which did say that the nature of the Godhead or of the manhod remayned not in Christ after his incarnation or ascension For all these olde authors agree that it is in the one as it is in the other Winchester And if that I haue here sayd be well considered there may appeare the great ignoraunce of this author in the alleadging of Theodoret the applying of him and the speaking of Nestorius in the end For as the Eutichians reasoning as S. Augustin sayth to confound the Nestorians fell into an absurdity in the confusion of their two natures in Christ so Theodoretus reasoning agaynst the Eutichians fell in a vehement suspition to be a Nestorian like as S. Augustine reasoning agaynst the Maniches for defence of free will seemed to speake that the Pelagians would alow and reasoning agaynst Pelagians seemed to say that the Manichees would alow such a daunger it is to reduce extremities to the meane wherein S. Augustine was better purged then Theodoret was although Theodoret was recōciled But for example of that I haue sayd this argumēt of Theodoretus agaynst the Eutichiās to auoyd cōfusiō of natures in Christ sheweth how in the Sacramēt where the truth of the mistery of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in similitude learned the presence of the body of Christ there in the Sacrament doth not alter the nature that is to say the property of the visible creatures This saying was that the Nestorians would draw for there purpose to proue distinct persons agaynst whome Cirill trauayled to shew that in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ that was geuen to be eaten was geuen not as the flesh of a common man but as the flesh of God wherby appeared the vnity of the godhead to the manhod in Christ in one person and yet no confusion as Theodoretus doth by his argument declare But whether the Printers negligence or this authors ouersight hath confounded or confused this matter in the vttering of it I can not tell For the author of this booke concludeth solemnly thus by induction of the premises that euen so the body of Christ was after the ascention changed into the godly substance I wene the Printer left out a not and should haue sayd not changed into the godly substance for so the sence should be as Peter Martyr reporteth Theodorete And yet the triumphe this author maketh agaynst them he calleth for his pleasure Papistes with his forked dilemma maketh me doubt whether he wist what he sayd or no bicause he bringeth in Nestorius so out of purpose saying the Papistes must eyther graunt the substance of bread and wine to remayne or els to be of Nestorius heresie that the nature of Godhed remayned not This author of the booke for the name of Nestorius should haue put Eutiches and then sayd for conclusion The nature of manhod remayned not in Christ. And although in Theodoret the substance of bread is spoken of to remayne yet bicause he doth after expound himselfe to speake of that is seene and felt he seemeth to speake of Substance after the common capacity and not as it is truely in learning vnderstanded an inward inuisible and not palpable nature but onely perceaued by vnderstanding so as this outward nature that Theodorete speaketh of may according to his wordes truly remayne notwithstanding Transubstantiation This author declareth playnly his ignoraunce not to perceaue whither the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth which is properly agaynst the Eutichians rather then the Nestorians For and no propriety of bread remayne it proueth not the Godhead in Christ not to remayne but the humanity onely to be as it were swallowed vp of the diuinity which the Eutichians entended and specially after Christes resurrection agaynst whome the argumēt by Theodorete is specially brought how so euer this author confoundeth the Nestorians and Eutiches names and taketh one for an other which in so high a matter is no small fault and yet no great fault among so many other houger and greater as be in this booke committed Caunterbury IF that which you haue sayd to Gelasius be well considered and conferred with this in Theodorete it seemeth by your processe in both that you know not what confusion of natures is And then your ignorance therin must needes declare that you be vtterly ignorant of all their whole discours which tendeth onely to proue
that the two natures in Christ his diuinity and his humanity be not confounded And for ignorance of confusion you confounde all togither Gelasius and Theodorete proue that the two natures in Christ be not confounded bicause they remayne both in their owne substances and properties so that the remayning declareth no confusion which should be confounded if they remayned not If a droppe of milke be put into a pot of wine by and by it looseth the first nature and substance and is confounded with the nature and substance of wine And if wine and milke be put togither in equale quantity then both be confounded bicause neyther remayneth neyther perfect wine with his substāce natural proprieties nor perfect milke with the substance proprieties of milke but a cōfusion an humble iomble or hotch potch a posset or sillabub is made of thē both togither like as in mans body the foure elemēts be cōfoūded to the cōstitutiō of the same not one of the elemēts remayning in his proper substāce forme pure naturall qualities So that if one nature remayne not the same is confounded And if there be more natures that lose their substance they be all confounded except there be an vtter consumption or adnihilation of the thing that looseth his substance and therfore the argument which all the old ecclesiasticall authors vse to saue the confusion of the two natures in Christ is to proue that they both remayne And if we may learne that by the similitude of the sacrament as Gelasius and Theodoret teach and you here confesse the same then must needes the substance of bread and wine remayne or els is there none example nor similitude of the remayning of two natures in Christ but of their confusion as by youre fayned doctrine the substance of bread is confounded with the body of Christ neyther being adnihilate nor remayning but transubstantiated confounded and conuerted into the substance of Christes body And thus with your well vnderstanding of the matter you confound all togither where as I with my ignorance not blaspheming that holy vnion and mistery of Christes incarnation doe saue all the natures whole without mixtion confusion or Transubstantiation either of the diuine humayne nature in Christ or of the soule and body in man or of the bread wine in the Sacramēt but all the substāce natures be saued remayne cleerly with their natural properties conditions that the proportiō in that poynt may be like and one to be the true Image and similitude of the other But surely more grosse ignoraunce or wilfull impiety then you haue shewed in this matter hath not lightly bene seene or red of And where you say that I by ouersight or the Printer by negligence haue left out a not if I should haue put in that not of myne owne head contrarye to the originall in Greeke and to all the translatours in Latine and the translation of Master Peter Martyr also I should haue bene as farre ouerseene as you bee whiche as it seemeth of purpose confound and corrupt you care not whether any Authors wordes or their meanyng And as for my forked dilemma you shall neuer be able to aunswer ther to but the more you trauayle therein the more you shall entangle your selfe For eyther you must graunt as vnwilling as you be that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne after the consecration or els that the nature and substance of Christes humanity and diuinitie remayne not after his incarnation wherein erred not onely Eutiches whome you say I should haue put for Nestorius but also Martion Ebion Ualentinus Nestorius and other as in my booke I haue declared And one thing is principally to be noted in your answere to Theodoret how you can sophisticate and falsefy all mens sayinges be they neuer so playne For where betweene me and the Papistes the matter here in contention is this Whether the bread and wine remayne in their proper nature and substauce or no. I saying that they remayne and the Papistes saying that they remayne not the Issue being in this poynt whether they remayne or remayne not I bring for me Chrisostome who sayth the nature of bread remayneth I bring Gelasius who sayth that there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine I bring this Theodoret whose wordes be these The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substances forme and figure Now how can any man deuise to speake the truth in more playne wordes than these be For they say the very same wordes that I say And yet bicause the truth is not liked here must be deuised a crafty Lawyers glose of them that neuer sought other but to calumniate the truth and must be sayd agaynst all learning reason and speach that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents well yet then you confesse that those olde auncient Authors agree with me in wordes and say as I do that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated but remayne in their former substance And then the issue playnly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses vntill such tyme as you can proue that these authors spake one thing and ment an other and that qualities and accidents be substances And if you vnderstoode whereunto the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth you would not say that they spake agaynst the Eutiches any more then they do agaynst the Nestorians For if the bread and wine remayne not as you say but be swallowed vp of the body and bloud of Christ then likewise in the principall mistery eyther the deity must be swallowed vp of the humanity or the humanity of the deity The contrary wherof is not onely agaynst the Eutichians but also agaynst the Nestorians Martionistes and all other that denied any of his two natures to remayne perfectly in Christ. And where as you with all the route of the Papistes both priuately and openly report me to be vnlearned and ignorant bycause you would therby impayre my credite in this weighty matter of our fayth my knowledge is not any whit the lesse bicause the Papistes say it is nothing nor yours any deale the more bicause the Papistes do say that you onely be learned whome for any thing that euer I could perceaue in you I haue found more full of wordes and talke then of learning And yet the note of ignorance I nothing passe of if therby the truth and Gods glory should not be hindered Now after the reproofe of your doctrine of Transubstantiation by all the old writers of Christes church I write in my booke after this māner Now forasmuch as it is proued sufficiently as well by the holy Scripture as by naturall operation by naturall reason by all our sences and by the most olde and best learned authors and holy martirs of Christes church that the substance of bread and wine do remayne and be receaued of
faythfull people in the blessed Sacrament or supper of the Lord It is a thing worthy to be considered and well wayed what moued the Schoole authors of late yeares to defend the contrary opinion not onely so far from all experience of our sences and so farre from all reason but also cleane contrary to the olde church of Christ and to Godes most holy word Surely nothing moued them therto so much as did the vayne fayth which they had in the church and sea of Rome For Ioannes Scotus otherwise called Duns the subtillest of all the schoole authors intreating of this matter of Transubstantiation sheweth playnly the cause therof For sayth he the wordes of the Scripture might be expounded more easely and more playnly without Transubstantiation but the church did choose this sense which is more hard being moued therto as it seemeth chiefly bicause that of the Sacramentes men ought to hold as the holy churh of Rome holdeth But it holdeth that bread is transubstantiate or turned into the body and wine into the bloud as it is shewed De summa Trinitate fide Catholicae Firmiter credimus And Gabriell also who of all other wrote most largely vpon the Canon of the Masse sayth thus It is to be noted that although it be taught in the scripture that the body of Christ is truely conteined and receaued of christen people vnder the kindes of bread wine yet how the body of Christ is there whether by conuersion of any thing into it or without conuersion the body is there with the bread both the substance and accidence of bread remayning there still it is not found expressed in the Bible Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth as it is written De haereticis Ad abolendum And that church holdeth and hath determined that the bread is trāsubstantiated into the body of Christ and the wine into his bloud Therfore is this opinion receaued of all them that be catholike that the substance of bread remayneth not but really and truely is tourned transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the body of Christ. Thus you haue heard the cause wherfore this opinion of Transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among christen people that is to say bicause the church of Rome hath so determined although the contrary by the Papistes owne confession appeare to be more easy more true and more according to the Scripture But bicause our english papistes who speake more grossely herein then the Pope himselfe affirming that the naturall body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine can not nor dare not ground their fayth concerning transubstantiation vpon the church of Rome which although in name it be called most holy yet in deede it is the most stinking dongehill of all wickednes that is vnder heauen and the very sinagoge of the deuill which whosoeuer followeth can not but stumble and fall into a pit ful of erroures Bicause I say the English papistes dare not now stablish their fayth vpon that foundation of Rome therfore they seeke Figge leaues that is to say vayne reasons gathered of their owne braynes and authorities wrested from the intent and minde of the authors wherwith to couer and hide their shamefull errours Wherfore I thought it good somwhat to trauayle herein to take away those figge leaues that their shamefull errours may playnly to euery man appeare The greatest reason and of most importance and of such strength as they thinke or at the least as they pretend that all the world can not answere therto is this Our sauiour Christ taking the bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body Now say they as sone as Christ had spoken these wordes the bread was straight way altered and changed and the substāce therof was conuerted into the substance of his precious body But what christen eares canne paciently heare this doctrine that Christ is euery day made a new and made of an other substance than he was made of in his mothers wombe For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother now by these papistes opinion he is made euery day of the nature and substance of bread and wine which as they say be turned into the substance of his body and bloud O what a meruaylous Metamorphosis and abhominable heresie is this to say that Christ is dayly made a new and of a new matter wherof it followeth necessarely that they make vs euery day a new Christ and not the same that was borne of the virgine Mary nor that was crucified vpon the crosse and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper which was borne and crucified as it shall be playnly proued by these arguments folowing First thus If Christes body that was crucified was not made of bread but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread as the papistes say than Christes body that was eaten in the supper was not the same that was crucified For if they were all one body than it must needes follow that either Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread or els that his body that was crucified was made of bread And in like manner it followeth If the body of Christ in the Sacrament be made of the substance of bread and wine and the same body was conceaued in the Virgines wombe than the body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was made of bread and wine Or els turne the argument thus The body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was not made of bread and wine but this body of Christ in the Sacrament is made of bread and wine than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceaued in the virgines wombe An other argument Christ that was borne in the Virgines wombe as concerning his body was made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother but Christ in the Sacrament is made of an other substance and so it followeth that he is an other Christ. And so the Antichrist of Rome the chiefe author of all idolatrie would bring faythfull christen people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgine Mary through the operation of the holy ghost and suffered for vs vpon the crosse to worship an other Christ made of bread and wine through the consecration of Popish priestes which make themselues the makers of God For say they the priest by the wordes of consecration maketh that thing which is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper and that say they is Christ himselfe both God and man and so they take vpon them to make both God and man But let all true worshipers worship one God one Christ once corporally made of one onely corporall substance that is to say of the blessed virgin Mary that once dyed and rose once
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
say they doth not Chrisostomus the great clerke say most playnly that we see neither bread nor wine but that as waxe in the fier they be consumed to nothing so that no substance remayneth But if they had rehersed no more but the very next sentence that followeth in Chrisostome which craftely and maliciously they leaue out the meaning of S. Ihon Chrisostome would easely haue appeared and yet will make them blush if they be not vtterly past shame For after the foresayd wordes of Chrisostome immediately follow these wordes Wherfore sayth he when ye come to these misteries do not thinke that you receaue by a man the body of God but that with tongues you receaue fier by the angelles Seraphin And straight after it followeth thus Thinke that the bloud of Saluation floweth out of the pure and godly side of Christ and so comming to it receaue it with pure lippes Wherfore bretheren I pray you and beseech you let vs not be from the church nor let vs not be occupied there with vayne communication but let vs stand fearefull and trembling casting downe our eies lifting vp our mindes mourning priuily without speach and reioysing in our hartes These wordes of Chrisostom do follow immediately after the other words which the Papistes before rehersed Therfore if the Papistes will gather of the wordes by them recited that there is neither bread nor wine in the sacrament I may aswell gather of the wordes that follow that there is neither priest nor Christes body For as in the former sentence Chrisostome sayth that we may not thinke what we see bread wine so in the second sentence he sayth that we may not thinke that we receaue the body of Christ of the priestes handes Wherfore if vpon the second sentence as the Papists them selues will say it cannot be truly gathered that in the holy communion there is not the body of Christ ministred by the priest then must they confesse also that it cannot be well and truely gathered vpon the first sentence that there is no bread nor wine But there be all these thinges togither in the holy communion Christ himselfe spiritually eaten and drunken and nourishing the right beleuers the bread and wine as a sacrament declaring the same and the priest as a minister therof Wherfore S. Ihon Chrisostome ment not absolutely to deny that there is bread and wine or to deny vtterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there but he vseth a speach which is no pure Negatiue but a Negatiue by comparison Which fashion of speach is commonly vsed not onely in the Scripture and among all good authors but also in all manner of languages For when two thinges be compared togither in the extolling of the more excellent or abasing of the more vile is many tymes vsed a Negatiue by comparison which neuerthelesse is no pure Negatiue but onely in the respect of the more excellent or the more base As by example When the people reiecting the prophet Samuell desired to haue a king almighty God sayd to Samuell They haue not reiected thee but me Not meaning by this negatiue absolutely that they had not reiected Samuell in whose place they desired to haue a king but by that one negatiue by comparison he vnderstood two affirmatiues that is to say that they had reiected Samuell and not him alone but also that they had chiefely reiected God And when the Prophet Dauid sayd in the persone of Christ I am a worme and not a man by this negatiue he denyed not vtterly that Christ was a man but the more vehemently to expresse the great humiliation of Christ he sayd that he was not abased onely to the nature of man but was brought so low that he might rather be called a worme then a man This maner of speach was familiar and vsuall to S. Paule as when he sayd It is not I that do it but it is the sinne that dwelleth in me And in an other place he sayth Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach the gospell And agayne he sayth My speach and preaching was not in wordes of mans perswasion but in manifest declaration of the spirite and power And he sayth also Neither he that grafteth nor he that watereth is any thing but God that giueth the increase And he sayth moreouer It is not I that liue but Christ liueth within me And God forbid that I should reioyce in any thing but in the crosse of our Lord Iesu Christ. And further We do not wrastle agaynst flesh and bloud but agaynst the spirites of darkenes In all these sentences and many other like although they be negatiues neuertheles S. Paule ment not clearly to deny that he did that euill wherof he spake or vtterly to say that he was not sent to baptise who in deede did baptise at certayne times and was sent to do all thinges that pertayned to saluation or that in his office of setting forth of Gods word he vsed no witty perswasions which in deede he vsed most discretely or that the grafter and waterer be nothing which be Gods creatures made to his similitude and without whose worke there should be no increase or to say that he was not aliue who both liued and ranne from countrey to countrey to set forth Gods glory or clearly to affirme that he gloried and reioysed in no other thing than in Christes crosse who reioyced with all men that were in ioy and sorowed with all that were in sorrow or to deny vtterly that we wrastle agaynst flesh and bloud which cease not dayly to wrastle and warre agaynst our enemies the world the flesh and the diuill In all these sentences S. Paule as I sayd ment not clearly to deny these thinges which vndoubtedly were all true but he ment that in comparison of other greater thinges these smaller were not much to be esteemed but that the greater thinges were the chief thinges to be considered As that sinne committed by his infirmitie was rather to be imputed to originall sinne or corruption of nature which lay lurking within him than to his owne will and consent And that although he was sent to bapise yet he was chiefly sent to preach Gods word And that although he vsed wise and discret perswasions therin yet the successe therof came principally of the power of God and of the working of the holy spirite And that although the grafter and waterer of the gardeyn be some thinges and do not a little in their offices yet it is God chiefly that giueth the increase And that although he liued in this world yet his chiefe life concerning God was by Christ whome he had liuing within him And that although he gloried in many other thinges ye in his owne infirmities yet his greatest ioy was in the redemption by the crosse of Christ. And that although our spirite dayly fighteth agaynst our flesh yet our chief and principall fight is agaynst our
ghostly enemies the subtill and puisant wicked spirites and diuels The same manner of speach vsed also S. Peter in his first epistle saying That the apparaile of women should not be outwardly with brayded here and setting on of gold nor in putting on of gorgious apparayle but that the inward man of the hart should be without corruption In which manner of speach he intended not vtterly to forbid all broyding of here all gold and costly apparell to all women for euery one must be apparayled according to their condition state and degree but he ment hereby clerely to condemne all pride and excesse in apparayle and to moue all women that they should study to decke their soules inwardly with all vertues and not to be curious outwardly to decke and adourne their bodyes with sumptuous apparayle And our sauiour Christ himselfe was full of such maner of speaches Gather not vnto you sayth he treasure vpon earth willing therby rather to set our mindes vppon heauenly treasure which euer indureth than vppon earthly treasure which by many sundry occasions perisheth and is taken away from vs. And yet worldly treasure must needes be had and possessed of some men as the person tyme and occasion doth serue Likewise he sayd When you be brought before kinges and princes thinke not what and how you shall answer Not willing vs by this negatiue that we should negligently and vnaduisedly answere we care not what but that we should depend of our heuenly father trusting that by his holy spirite he will sufficiently instruct vs of answer rather then to trust of any answer to be deuised by our owne witte and study And in the same maner he spake when he sayd It is not you that speake but it is the spirite of God that speaketh within you For the spirite of God is he that principally putteth godly wordes into our mouthes and yet neuerthelesse we do speake according to his mouing And to be short in all these sentences following that is to say Call no man your father vpon earth Let no man call you lord or master Feare not them that kill the body I came not to send peace vpon earth It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand You shall not worship the father neyther in this mountnor in Ierusalem I take no witnes at no man My doctrine is not mine I seeke not my glory In all these negatiues our sauiour Christ spake not precisely and vtterly to deny all the foresayd thinges but in comparison of them to prefer other thinges as to prefer our father and Lord in heauen aboue any worldly father lord or master in earth and his feare aboue the feare of any creature and his word and gospell aboue all worldly peace Also to prefer spirituall and inward honoring of God in pure hart and mynd aboue locall corporall and outward honour and that Christ preferred his fathers glory aboue his owne Now for as much as I haue declared at length the nature and kind of these negatiue speaches which be no pure negatiues but by comparison it is easye hereby to make answer to S. Iohn Chrisostom who vsed this phrase of speach most of any author For his meaning in his foresayd Homily was not that in the celebration of the Lordes supper is neyther bread nor wine neither priest nor the body of Christ which the Papistes themselues must needes confesse but his intent was to draw our mindes vpward to heauen that we should not consider so much the bread wine and priest as we should consider his diuinity and holy spirite giuen vnto vs to our eternall saluation And therfore in the same place he vseth so many tymes these wordes Thinke and thinke not willing vs by these wordes that we should not fixe our thoughts and myndes vpon the bread wine priest nor Christes body but to lift vp our hartes higher vnto his spirite and diuinity without the which his body auayleth nothing as he sayth himselfe It is the spirite that giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing And as the same Chrisostome in many places moueth vs not to consider the water in baptisme but rather to haue respect to the holy ghost receaued in baptisme and represented by the water euen so doth he in this homily of the holy communion moue vs to lift vp our myndes from all visible and corporall things to thinges inuisible and spirituall In so much that although Christ was but once crucified yet would Chrisost haue vs to thincke that we see him dayly whipped and scourged before our eyes and his body hanging vpon the Crosse and the speare thrust into his side and the most holy bloud to flow out of his side into our mouthes After which manner S. Paule wrote to the Galathians that Christ was paynted and crucified before their eyes Therfore fayth Chrisostome in the same homily a litle before the place rehersed What doest thou O man diddest not thou promise to the prist which sayd Lift vp your myndes and hartes and thou diddest answere We lift them vp vnto the Lord Art not thou ashamed and afrayd being at that same houre found a liar A wonderfull thing The table is set forth furnished with Gods misteries the Lambe of God is offered for thee the priest is carefull for thee spirituall fier cometh out of that heauenly table the angels Seraphin be there present couering their faces with vi winges All the angelicall power with the priest be meanes aud intercestors for thee a spirituall fyer cometh downe from heauen bloud in the cup is druncke out of the most pure side vnto thy purification And art not thou ashamed afrayd and abashed not endeuoring thy selfe to purchase Gods mercy O man doth not thyne owne conscience condemne thee There be in the weeke 168. houres and God asketh but one of them to be giuen wholy vnto him and thou consumest that in worldly busines in trifling and talking with what boldnes then shalt thou come to these holy misteries O corrupt conscience Hitherto I haue rehersed S. Iohn Chrisostomes wordes which do shew how our myndes should be occupyed at this holy table of our Lord that is to say withdrawen from the consideration of sensible thinges vnto the contemplation of most heauenly and godly thinges And thus is answered this place of Chrisostom which the Papists tooke for an insoluble and a place that no man was able to answere But for further declaration of Chrisostoms mynd in this matter read the place of him before rehersed fol. 327. and 343 Winchester Answering to Chrisostome this author complayneth as he did in Ciprian of malicious leauing out of that which when it is brought in doth nothing empayre that went before Chrisostome would we should consider the secret truth of this mistery where Christ is the inuisible Priest and ministreth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest wherof
drinke very wine so we lift vp our hartes vnto heauen and with our fayth wee see Christ crucified with our spirituall eyes and eat his flesh thrust thorow with a speare and drinke his bloud springing out of his side with our spirituall mouthes of our fayth And as Emissene sayd when we go to the reuerend aultar to feede vpon spirituall meat with our fayth we looke vpon him that is both God and man wee honour him we touch him with our minds we take him with the hands of our hartes and drinke him with the draught of our inward man So that although we see and eat sensibly very bread and drinke very wine spiritually eat and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud yet may wee not rest there but lift vp our mindes to his deity without the which his flesh auaileth nothing as he sayth himself Further auÌ„swere needeth not to any thing that you haue here spoken For euery learned reader may see at the first shew that all that you haue spoken is nothing els but very triflyng in wordes Now followeth S. Ambrose Yet there is an other place of S. Ambrose which the Papists thinke maketh much for their purpose but after due examination it shall playnely appeare how much they be deceiued They alleadge these wordes of S. Ambrose in a booke intituled De ijs qui initiantur misterijs Let vs proue that there is not that thing which nature formed but which benediction did consecrate and that benedictioÌ„ is of more strength then nature For by the blessing nature it selfe is also chaunged Moyses held a rodde he cast it from him and it was made a serpent Agayn he took the serpent by the tayle and it was turned agayne into the nature of a rodde Wherefore thou seest that by the grace of the prophet the nature of the serpent and rod was twise thaunged The flouds of Egypt ran pure water and sodenly bloud began to brust out of the vaines of the springes so that men could not drinke of the floud but at the prayer of the Prophet the bloud of the floud went away and the nature of water came agayne The people of the Hebrues were compassed about on the one syde with the Egyptians and on the other side with the sea Moyses lifted vp his rod the water deuided it selfe and stood vp like a wall and betwene the waters was left a way for them to passe on foot And Iordan agaynst nature turned backe to the head of his spring Doth it not appeare now that the nature of the Sea flouds or of the course of fresh water was chaunged The people was dry Moyses touched a stone and water came out of the stone Did not grace her worke aboue nature to make the stone to bring forth the water which it had not of nature Marath was a most bitter floud so that the people being dry could not drinke thereof Moyses put wood into the water and the nature of the water lost his bitternes which grace infused did sodenly moderate In the tyme of Heliseus the prophet an axe head fell from one of the Prophets seruauntes into the water he that lost the yron desired the prophet Heliseus helpe who put the helue into the water and the iron swam aboue Which thing we know was done aboue nature for yron is heuier then the liquor of water Thus we perceiue that grace is of more force then nature and yet hetherto we haue rehersed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets Now if the blessing of a man bee of such valew that it may chaunge nature what do we say of the consecration of God wherein is the operation of the wordes of our sauiour Christ For this Sacrament which thou receiuest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Helias was of such power that it could bring fyre down from heauen shall not the word of Christ be of that power to chaunge the kindes of the elementes Of the making of the whole world thou hast red that God spake and the thinges were done he commaunded and they were created The word then of Christ that could of no things make things that were not can it not chauÌ„ge those thinges that be into that thing which before they were not For it is no les matter to geue to thinges new nature then to alter natures Thus far haue I rehearsed the woâ—â—es of S. Ambrose if the sayd book be his which they that be of greatest learning and iudgemeÌ„t do not thinke by which wordes the Papists would proue that in the supper of the Lord after the words of Consecration as they be commonly called there remayneth neither bread nor wine because that S. Ambrose sayth in this place that the nature of the bread and wine is chaunged But to satisfy their mindes let vs graunt for their pleasure that the foresayd booke was S. Ambrose owne worke yet the same booke maketh nothing for their purpose but quite agaynst them For he sayth not that the substaunce of bread and wine is gone but he sayth that their nature is chaunged that is to say that in the holy communion we ought not to receiue the bread and wine as other common meates and drinkes but as thinges cleane chaunged into a higher estate nature and condition to be taken as holy meates and drinkes whereby we receiue spirituall feeding and supernaturall nourishment from heauen of the very true body and bloud of our sauior Christ through the omnipotent power of God and the wonderful working of the holy ghost Which so well agreeth with the substaunce of bread and wine still remayning that if they were gone away and not there this our spiritual feeding could be taught vnto vs by them And therefore in the most part of the examples which S. Ambrose alleadgeth for the wonderfull alteration of natures the substances did still remayne after the nature and properties were chaunged As when the water of Iordane contrary to his nature stood still like a wale or flowed agaynst the streame towardes the head and spring yet the substaunce of the water remained the same that it was before Likewise the stone that aboue his nature and kinde flowed water was the self same stone that it was before And the floud of Marath that chaunged his nature of bitternesse chaunged for all that no part of his substaunce No more did that yron which contrary to his nature swam vpon the water lose thereby any part of the substaunce thereof Therefore as in these alterations of natures the substances neuertheles remayned the same that they were before the alterations euen so dooth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lords supper and be naturally receiued and disgested into the body notwithstanding the sacramentall mutation of the same into the bodye and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the supernaturall spirituall and explicable eating and drinking feeding and disgesting of the
body and bloud of Christ in all them that godly and according to their duety do receiue the sacramentall bread and wine And that S. Ambrose thus ment that the substaunce of bread and wine remayne still after the consecration it is most clere by three other examples of the same matter following in the same chapter One is of them that be regenerated in whom after their regeneration doth still remayn theyr former naturall substaunce An other is of the incarnation of our sauiour Christ in the which perished no substaunce but remayned aswell the substaunce of his godhead as the substaunce which he tooke of the blessed virgine Mary The third example is of the water in baptisme where the water still remaineth water although the holy ghost come vpon the water or rather vpon him that is baptised therein And although the same S. Ambrose in an other booke entituled de sacrameÌ„tis doth say that the bread is bread before the wordes of consecration but wheÌ„ the consecration is done of bread is made the body of Christ Yet in the same booke in the same chapter he telleth in what mâ—â—ner and forme the same is done by the wordes of Christ not by taking away the substaunce of the bread but adding to the bread the grace of Christes body and so calling it the bodye of Christ. And hereof he bringeth foure examples The first of the regeneration of a man the second is of the standing of the water of the red sea the third is of the bitter water of Marath and the fourth is of the yron that swam aboue the water In euery of the which examples the former substaunce remayned still not withstanding alteration of the natures And he concludeth the whole matter in these few wordes If there be so much strength in the wordes of the Lord Iesu that things had their beginning which neuer were before how much more be they able to worke that those thinges that were before should remayne and also be chauÌ„ged into other thinges Which wordes do shew manifestly that notwithstanding this wonderfull sacramentall and spirituall chaunging of the bread into the body of Christ yet the substaunce of the bread remayneth the same that it was before Thus is a sufficient answere made vnto iij. principall authorities which the Papistes vse to alleadge to stablish their errour of transubstantiation The first of Cyprian the second of S. Iohn Chrisostome and the third of S. Ambrose Other authorities and reasons some of them do bring for the same purpose but forasmuch as they be of smale moment and waight and easy to be aunswered vnto I will passe theÌ„ ouer at this time and not trouble the reader with them but leaue them to be wayed by his discretion Winchester Now let vs heare what this author will say to S. Ambrose He reherseth him of good length but translateth him for aduauÌ„tage As among other in one place where S. Ambrose sayth This Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Chryst. This author translateth Is done by the word of Christ because making must be vnderstanded in the substaunce of the Sacrament chiefly before it is receiued and doing may be referred to the effect chiefly for which purpose it should seeme the author of this book caÌ„not away with the word made whereat it pleaseth him in an other place of this book to be mery as at an absurdity in the Papistes when in deed both S. Ambrose here S. Cyprian and S. Hierome also in their places vse the same word speaking of this sacrament and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordayning the substaunce of it by such a conuersion as bread is made the body of Christ. But as touching the answere of this author to S. Ambrose it is diuers For first he doth trauerse the authority of the book which allegation hath bene by other heretofore made and aunswered vnto in such wise as the book remayneth S. Ambroses still and Melancthon sayth it séemeth not to him vnlike his and therefore alleadgeth this very place out of him agaynst Decolampadius Thys author will not sticke in that allegation but for aunswere sayth that S. Ambrose sayth not that the substaunce of the bread and wine is gone and that is true he sayth not so in sillables but he sayth so in sence because he speaketh so plainly of a chaunge in the bread into that it was not whereunto this author for declaration of chaunge sayth the breade and wine be chaunged into an higher estate nature and condition which thrée words of estate nature and condition be good wordes to expresse the chaunge of the bread into the body of Christ which body is of an other nature an other state and condition then the substaunce of the bread without comparison hier But then this author addeth to be taken as holy meates and drinkes wherin if he mean to be taken so but not to be so as his teaching in other places of this booke is the bread to be neuer the holier but to signifie an holy thing then is the change nothing in deed touching the nature but onely as a coward may be changed in apparayle to play Hercules or Sampsons part in a play himselfe therby made neuer the hardier man at all but onely appoynted to signifie an hardy man of which mans change although his estate and condition might in speach be called changed for the tyme of the play yet no man would terme it thus to say his nature were changed whether he ment by the word nature the substance of the mans nature or property for in these two poyntes he wer still the same man in Hercules coate that he was before the play in his owne so as if ther be nothing but a figure in the bread then for so much this authors other teaching in this booke where he sayth the bread is neuer the holier is a doctrine better then this to teach a change of the bread to an higher nature when it is onely appoynted to signifie an holy thing And therfore this authors answer garnished with these three gay wordes of estate nature and condition is deuised but for a shift such as agreeth not with other places of this booke not it selfe neyther And where S. Ambrose meruayleth at gods worke in the substance of the sacrament this author shifteth that also to the effect in him that receaueth which is also meruaylous in deede but the substance of the sacrament is by S. Ambrose specially meruayled at how bread is made the body of Christ the visible matter outwardly remayning and onely by an inward change which is of the inward nature called properly substance in learning and a substance in deede but perceaued onely by vnderstanding as the substance present of Christes most precious body is a very substance in deede of the body inuisibly present but present indeede and onely vnderstanded by most true and certayne knowledge of fayth And although this author noteth how in the examples of
and principally in the persons and in the sacramentall signes it is none otherwise but sacramentally and in significatiō And whether this be matter of trueth or a thing deuised onely for a shift let the reader iudge And where you say in your further aunswere here to S. Ambrose that the visible matter of the bread outwardly remayneth it seemeth you haue not well marked the wordes of S. Ambrose who sayth that the words of Christ chaungeth species elementorum And then if species as you haue sayd before in many places signify the visible matter then the visible matter remayneth not as you say but is changed as S. Ambrose sayth And so S. Ambrose wordes that species elementorum mutantur be cleane contrary to your wordes that the visible matter remayneth I will passe ouer here how you call accidents of bread the matter of bread agaynst all order of speach bicause I haue touched that matter sufficiently before And yet this is not to be passed ouer but to be noted by the way how playnly S. Ambrose speaketh agaynst the Papistes which say that the body and bloud of Christ remayne sub speciebus panis vini vnder the formes of bread and wine And S. Ambrose sayth that species elementorum mut antur the formes of bread and wine be changed Aud where you say that in the examples of mutation brought in by S. Ambrose although the substance remayne still the same yet that skilleth not your answer here seemeth very strange to say that that thing skilleth not which skilleth all togither and maketh the whole matter For if in the examples the substances remayne notwithstanding the mutation of the natures by benediction then do not these examples proue that the substance of bread and wine remayne not And if this were singuler from the examples as you say it is then were not the other examples of this For if the substances remayne in them how can they be brought for examples to proue that the substances of bread and wine remayne not when they be brought for examples and thinges that be like and not that the one should be singular and vnlike from the other And where you alleadge this place of S. Ambrose for you nothing can be spoken more directly agaynst you For the natures sayth S. Ambrose of bread and wine be changed And the nature say you is the outward visible formes and that that is changed remayneth not say you also and so followeth then that the substances of bread and wine remayne and not the outward visible formes which is directly agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation and agaynst all that you sayd hitherto cōcerning that matter And wher a sacramentall mutatiō is to you a new tearme it declareth nothing els but your ignorance in the matter And although you seeme to be ignorant in other authors yet if you had expended diligently but one chapter of S. Ambrose you should haue found three examples of this sacramentall mutation wherin the substances remayne entier and whole one is in the sacrament of Christes incarnation an other is in a person that is baptised and the third in the water of baptisme which three examples I alleadged in my booke but you thought it better slightly to passe them ouer then to trouble your brayne with answering to them And where you say that calling bread the body of Christ is making it in deed the body of Christ as Christ was called Iesus bicause he is the sauiour of all men in deed here it appeareth that you consider not the nature of a sacrament For when sacraments be named or called by the names of the thinges which they signifie yet they be not the same thinges indeed but be so called as S. Augustine sayth bicause they haue some similitude or likenes to the thinges which they be called But Christ was called Iesus our Sauiour as the very true Sauiour in deed not as a sacrament or figure of saluation as the bread is the sacrament of Christes flesh and wine the sacrament of his bloud by which names they be called and yet be not the very thinges in deed Thus haue I answered to the chiefe authors which you alleadge for Transubstantiation making your owne authors not onely to ouerthrow your building but to digge vp your foundation cleane from the botome and nothing is left yon but arrogancy of mynd and bosting of words as men say that you still phansye with your selfe and bragge that you be bishop of Winchester euen as a captayne that glorieth in his folly when he hath lost his castle with ordinaunce and all that he had And at length you be driuen to your church which you call the consent of christendome vniuersall when it is no more but the Papisticall church that defendeth your transubstantiation Now declareth my booke the absurdities that follow the errour of Transubstantiation And now I will reherse diuers difficulties absurdities and inconueniences which must needes follow vpon this errour of Transubstantiation wherof not one doth follow of the true right fayth which is according to Gods word First if the Papists be demaunded what thing it is that is broken what is eaten what is dronken and what is chawed with the teeth lippes and mouth in this sacrament they haue nothing to answere but the accidentes For as they say bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament but onely their accidents And so they be forced to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawen and swallowed without any substance at all which is not onely agaynst all reason but also agaynst the doctrine of all auncient authors Winchester In the second volume of the 43. leafe the author goeth about to note 6. absurdities in the doctrine of Transubstantiation which I entend also to peruse The first is this First if the Papistes be demaunded c. This is accompted by this author the first absurditie and inconuenience which is by him rhetorically set forth with lippes and mouth and chawing not substanciall termes to the matter but accidentall For opening of which matter I will repeate some part agayne of that I haue written before when I made the scholler answer the rude man in declaration of substance which is that albeit that sensible thing which in speach vttered after the capacity of common vnderstanding is called substance be comprehended of our sences yet the inward nature of euery thing which is in learning properly called substance is not so distinctly knowen of vs as we be able to shew it to the sences or by wordes of difference to distinct in diuers kindes of thinges one substance from an other And herin as Basill sayth if we should goe about by separation of all the accidents to discerne the substance by it selfe alone we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothing indeede There is a naturall consideration of the abstract that can not be practised in experience And to me if it were
asked of commen bread when we breake it whether we breake the substance or onely the accidents First I must learnedly say If the substance be broken it is by meane of the accident in quantitie and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophye as this author doth in diuinity agaynst the catholique fayth to say in diuision we breake not the substance of bread at all the heresie in philosophy were not of such absurditye as this author mayntayneth in diuinity For I haue some probable matter to say for me where as he hath none For my strange answer I would say that albeit a naturall thing as bread consisting of matter and essenciall forme with quantity and therby other accidents cleauing and annexed may be well sayd to be in the whole broken as we see by experience it is Yet speaking of the substance of it alone if one should aske whether that be broken and it should be answered yea then should the substance appeare broken and whole all at one tyme seeing in euery broken peece of bread is a whole substance of bread and where the pâ—ece of bread broken is so little a crumme as can no more in deed be deuided we say neuertheles the same to be in substance very bread and for want of conuenient quantity bread indiuisible and thus I write to shew that such an aunswere to say the accidents be broken hath no such clere absurdity as this author would haue it séeme But leauing of the matter of Philosophy to the scholes I will graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges and therefore therein is a speciall miracle of God But when the accidentes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible part of the sacrament then the same accidents to be broken eaten and drunken with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh them is no miracle or maruaile and as for absurdity no point at all for by quantitye which remayneth is all diuision we ought to confes and good christen men do profes the mistery of the sacrament to be supernaturall and aboue the order of nature and therefore it is a trauaile in vayne to frame the consideration of it to agrée with the termes of philosophy But where this author sayth that nothing can be aunswered to be broken but the accidents yes verely for in time of contention as this is to him that would aske what is broken I would in other termes aunswere thus that thou seest is broken And then if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the sacrament vnder which is present inuisibly the substaunce of the most precious bodye of Christ. If he will aske yet further is that body of Christ broken I wil say no. For I am learned in fayth that that glorious body now impassible cannot be deuided or broken and therefore it is whole in euery part of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in common bread in euery part that is broken According whereunto it is in the booke of common prayer sette forth howe in ech part of that is broken of the consecrate bread is the whole body of our sauior Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say Is not that that is broken bread I would aunswere as a beleuing man by fayth truely no. For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christ inuisibly there and the breaking to be not in it but in the visible figure Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my fayth is a most certayne truth beleueth things as they verely be for Christs word is of strength not onely to shew and declare as other mens wordes do but therewith effectuall to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clarks soberly entreat the matter such as minde well I meane to consider accidentes and substance which termes the rude vnderstand not it is not necessary therefore in those termes to make aunswere to such as be contentiously curious who labour with questions to dissolue the trueth of the mistery in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we should that is no inconuenience in the mistery but an imperfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauing such giftes of God as other haue nor studying to attayne learning as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scholes with a deuoute minde to aunswere all captious questions hath for the exercitation of mens sences bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is now picked out by this author and brought to the common peoples eares in which it might sound euill they not being able to make aunswere therunto wereby they might be snarled and intangled with vayne fansies against that trueth which before without curiosity of questions they truely and constantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible formes of bread wine for signification the thing whereof is the very body and bloud of Christ which being the trueth of the whole it is no absurdity to confes truely the partes as they be if occasion require howsoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carnall mans eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the trueth should be altered into a lye wherewith to make melody to theyr vnderstandinges For howsoeuer carnal reason be offended with spirituall truth it forceth not but agaynst the whole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine can be iustified with whose testimonye how the fayth of the church in the sacrament now agréeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this author to reporte the contrary Caunterbury HEre may the reader perceiue how much you sweat and labor so that it pittieth me to see what trauaile you take babling many things no thing to the purpose to aunswere my first absurditye And yet at the end you be enforced to affirme all that I charge you withall that is to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawed and swallowed without any substaunce at all And more I need not to say here then before I haue aunswered to your clarkely dialogue betweene the scholler and the rude man sauing this that you make all men so wise that they iudge accidents in their common vnderstanding to be called substaunces and that no man is able to know the difference of one substaunce from an other And here you fall into the same folly that Basill speaketh For if he that goeth about to seperate accidentes from their substaunce fayle of his purpose end in nothing indeed then you separating the accidentes of bread from their substaunce and the substaunce of Christes body from the accidentes by your owne saying alleadged of Basill you must fayle of your purpose in the end bring both
thereunto in the same place And where you haue set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall man after your owne imagination you haue so well deuised the matter that you haue made ii extremities without any meane For the true faythfull man would answere not as you haue deuised but he would say according to the old catholick fayth and teaching of the Apostles Euangelists Martyrs and confessours of Christes Churche that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts the earthly and the heauenly The earthly is the bread and wine the other is Christ himselfe The earthly is without vs the heauenlye is within vs The earthlye is eaten with our mouthes and carnally feedeth our bodies the heauenly is eaten with our inward man and spiritually feedeth the same The earthly feedeth vs but for a tyme the heauenly feedeth vs for euer Thus would the true faythfull man answere without leaning vnto any extremity either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accideÌ„ces of bread but professing beleuing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heauen and yet spiritually to dwell in his faythfull people and they in him vnto the worldes ende This is the true catholicke fayth of Christ taught from the first beginning and neuer corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers And where you say that one thing is but one substaunce sauing onelye in the person of Christ your teaching is vntrue not onely in the person of Christ but also in euery man who is made of ij substaunces the body and soule And if you had beene learned in philosophy you would haue founde your saying false also in euery corporall thing which consisteth of ij substaunces of the matter and of the forme And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament So vntrue it is that you moste vainely boast here that your doctrine hath bene taught in all ages and bene the catholicke faith which was neuer the catholique but onely the Papisticall fayth as I haue euidentlye proued by holy scripture and the old catholick authors wherein truely and directly you haue not aunswered to one Winchester In whose particular words although there may be sometime cauillations yet I will note to the reader foure marks and tokens imprinted rather in those olde authors deeds then wordes which be certayne testimonies to the truth of their fayth of the reall presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguing vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacrament wherein I note not the particuler sentences which sometime be daungerous speches but their whole doinges As Irene who was in the beginning of the church argueth agaynst the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh whome Irene reproueth by the féeding of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified fleshe of Christ in the Sacrament which flesh and â—t be there but in a figure then it should haue proued the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratiuely And if the Catholicke fayth had not bene then certainely taught and constantly beleued without varience Christes very flesh to be indeede eaten in that mistery it would haue beene aunswered of the heretickes if had bene but a figure but that appeareth not and the other appeareth which is a testimony to the truth of matter indéed Hylary reasonyng of the naturall coniunction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to come to passe by the receiuyng truely the very flesh of our Lord in our Lordes meate and thereupon argueth agaynst the Arrians which Arrians if it had not bene so really in déede would haue aunswered but all was spiritually so as there was no such naturall and corporall Communion in déede as Hylary supposed but as this author teacheth a figure and it had bene the Catholicke doctrine so that argument of Hylary had bene of no force Saint Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to conuince the Appolinaristes and Eutichians which were none argument if Christes very body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the Godhead is in the person of Christ beyng the effect of the argument this that as the presence of Christes body in this mistery doth not alter the propertie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie which agaynst those heretickes serued for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous arguyng to be embraced of the Nestorians who would hereby haue furthered their heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they would haue sayd As the earthly and heauenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanitie and Godhead not vnited in Christ which is false and in the comparynges we may not looke that all should aunswere in equalitie but onely for the point that it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanitie by his Godhead and yet we may not say that as in the Sacrament be but onely accidents of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidentes of the humanitie For that mistery requireth the whole truth of maÌ„s nature and therfore Christ tooke vpon him the whole man body and soule The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidentes onely beyng the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ. And this I write to preuent such cauillations as some would search for But to returne to our matter all these argumentes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very body as the celestiall part of the Sacrament beyng the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remayneth in the former proprietie with the very presence of the celestiall thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke Caunterbury AS for your foure markes tokens if you marke them well you shall perceaue most manifestly your ignorauÌ„ce and errour how they note and appoint as it were with their fingers your doctrine to be erronious as well of Transubstantiation as of the reall presence And to begyn with your first marke Irenee in deede proued the resurrection of our bodyes vnto eternall lyfe bycause our bodyes be nourished with the euerlastyng foode of Christes body And therfore as that foode is euerlastyng so it beyng ioyned vnto his eternall deitie giueth to our bodies euerlastyng lyfe And if the beyng of Christes body in any creature should geue the same lyfe then it might peraduenture be thought of some fooles that if it were in the bread it should giue life to the bread But
neither reason learnyng nor fayth beareth that Christes body beyng onely in bread should gyue life vnto a man So that if it were an Article of our faith to beleue that Christ is present in the formes of bread and wine it were an vnprofitable Article seyng that his being in the bread should profit no man Irenee therefore meaneth not of the beyng of Christ in the bread and wyne but of the eatyng of him And yet he meaneth not of corporall eating for so Christ sayth him selfe that his flesh auayleth nothing but spirituall eatyng by fayth Nor he speaketh not of spirituall eatyng in receauyng of the Sacrament onely for then our lyfe should not be eternall nor endure no longer then we be eating of the sacrament for our spirituall life cōtinueth no lōger thē our spirituall feedyng And then could none haue lyfe but that receaue the Sacramēt and all should haue perished that dyed before Christes Supper and institutiō of the Sacrament or that dye vnder age before they receiue the Sacrament But the true meaning of Irenee Hilary Cyprian Cyrill and other that treated of this matter was this that as Christ was truely made man and crucified for vs and shed his bloud vpon the Crosse for our redemption now reigneth for euer in heauen so as many as haue a true fayth and belefe in him chawyng their cuddes and perfectly remembryng the same death and passion which is the spirituall eatyng of his flesh and drinkyng of his bloud they shall reigne in euerlastyng lyfe with him For they spiritually and truely by faith eate his flesh and drinke his bloud whether they were before the institution of the Sacrament or after And the beyng or not beyng of Christes body and bloud really and corporally in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine neither maketh nor marreth nor is to no purpose in this matter But for confirmation of this our fayth in Christes death and passion for a perpetuall memory of the same hath Christ ordeined this holy Sacrament not to be kept but to be ministred among vs to our singular comfort that as outwardly and corporally we eate the very bread and drinke the very wine and call them the body and bloud of Christ so inwardly and spiritually we eate drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally he is in heauen and shall be vntill the last Iudgement when he shall come to Iudge both the quicke and the dead And in the Sacrament that is to say in the due ministration of the Sacrament Christ is not onely figuratiuely but effectually vnto euerlastyng lyfe And this teachyng impugneth the heresies of the Ualentinians Arrians and other heretickes and so doth not your fayned doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine and that vngodly and wicked men eate and drinke the same which shall be cast away from the eternall lyfe and perish for euer And for further aunswere to Hilary I referre the Reader to myne other aunswere made to him before And for S. Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete if there be no bread and wine in the Sacrament their Argumentes serue for the heretickes purpose and cleane directly agaynst them selues For their entent agaynst the heretickes is to proue that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soule and a perfect body and to be perfect God and perfect man As to the full perfection of the Sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine and the perfect body and bloud of Christ. So that now turnyng the Argument if there be no perfect bread and wine as the Papistes falsely surmise then may the heretickes cōclude agaynst the Catholicke fayth and conuince Chrisostome Gelasius Theodorete with their own weapon that is to say with their own similitude that as in the Sacramēt lacketh the earthly part so doth in Christ lacke his humanitie And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine and yet is none in deede so shall they argue by this similitude that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and bloud and yet was there none in very deede And thus by your deuilish Trāsubstantiation of bread and wine do you trāsubstantiate also the body and bloud of Christ not conuincyng but confirmyng most haynous heresies And this is the conclusion of your vngodly fayned doctrine of transubstantiation And where you would gather the same cōclusion if Christes flesh and bloud be not really present it seemeth that you vnderstand not the purpose and intent of these Authors For they bring not this similitude of the Sacrament for the reall presence but for the reall beyng That as the Sacrament consisteth in two partes one earthly an other heauenly the earthly part beyng the bread and wine and the heauenly the body and bloud of Christ and these partes be all truely and really in deede without colour or simulation that is to say very true bread and wine in deede the very true body and bloud of Christ in deede euē likewise in Christ be two natures his humanitie and earthly substaunce and his diuinitie and heauēly substaunce and both these be true natures and substaunces without colour or dissemblyng And thus is this similitude of the Sacrament brought in for the truth of the natures not for the presence of the natures For Christ was perfect God and perfect man whē his soule went downe to hell and his body lay in the graue bycause the body and soule were both still vnited vnto his diuinitie and yet it was not required that his soule should be present with the body in the sepulture no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the Sacrament but as the soule was then in hell so is his body now in heauen And as it is not required that where so euer Christes diuinitie is there should be really and corporally his manhode so it is not required that where the bread and wyne be there should be corporally his flesh and bloud But as you frame the Argument agaynst the heretickes it serueth so litle agaynst them that they may with the same frame and engine ouerthrow the whole Catholicke Church For thus you frame the Argument As the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth not alter the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie Marke well now good Reader what foloweth hereof As the presence of Christes body in this mysterie doth not alter say you the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie But the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures as the Papistes say that the substaunces of bread and wyne be extinguished and there remayneth no substaūce but of the body of Christ Ergo likewise in the
mysterie of Christes incarnation the humanitie is extinguished by the presence of his Godhead and so there remayneth no more but the substaunce of his diuinitie as the Eutichians sayd And thus the similitude of Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete ioyned to the saying of the Papistes frameth a good Argument for the heretickes But those Authours framed their Argumēt cleane cōtrary on this wise that the bread and wyne be not transubstantiate or extinguished but continue still in their owne substaunces figures fashion and all naturall proprieties and therfore doth the humanitie of Christ likewise endure and remayne in proper substaunce with his naturall proprieties without extinction or transubstantiation For those Authours take no bread and wyne for the visible proprieties onely of bread and wyne but for very true bread and wyne with all their naturall qualities and conditions And the heretickes shall soone finde out your cauillation where to auoyde the matter you say that the mysterie of the Sacrament requireth not the truth of the substaunce For why should the Authours bryng them forth to proue the truth of the substaunce in Christ if there were no true substaunce in them Thus all your shiftes and Sophistications be but wynde or colours cast ouer the truth to bleare mens eyes which colours rubbed of the truth appeareth cleare and playne And your first marke is not clearely put out but turned to a marke spectacle for your selfe wherin you may clearely see your owne errour and how foule you haue bene deceaued in this matter and open your eyes if God will geue you grace to put away your inducate hart to see the cleare truth Winchester An other certaine token is the wondryng and great marueling that the old authors make how the substaunce of this Sacrament is wrought by Gods omnipotencie Baptisme is marueiled at for the wonderfull effect that is in man by it how man is regenerate not how the water or the holy Ghost is there But the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures how they be so chaunged into the body bloud of Christ which is a worke wrought of God before we receiue the Sacrament Which worke Cyprian sayth is ineffable that is to say not speakeable which is not so if it be but a figure for then it may be easely spoken as this authour speaketh it with ease I thinke he speaketh it so often of a presence by signification if it may so be called euery man may speake and tell how but of the very presence in déede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament no creature can tell how it may be that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body and therewith continually reignyng there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in déede which Christ in déede worketh being neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen as S. Chrisostome doth with a maruaile say If the maruaile were onely of Gods worke in man in the effect of the Sacrament as it is in Baptisme it were an other matter but I sayd before the wonder is in the worke of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receiued which declareth the old authours that so wonder to vnderstand the reall presence of Christes very body and not an onely signification which hath no wonder at all And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it and calleth the worke ineffable S. Chrisostome wondreth at it S. Ambrose wondreth at it Emissene wondreth at it Cyrill wondreth at it What should we now doubt whether their sayth were of a signification onely as this authour would haue it which is no wonder at all or of the reall presence which is in déede a wonderfull worke Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the old fathers there can no construction of sillables or wordes disswade or peruert the truth thus testified Caunterbury AS touchyng this your second marke in the ministration of the Sacramentes aswell of the Lordes holy Supper as of Baptisme God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receauers not in the outward visible signes For it is the person Baptised that is so regenerate that he is made a new creature without any reall alteration of the water And none otherwise it is the Lordes Supper for the bread wine remaine in their former substaunce neither be fed nor nourished yet in the man that worthely receiueth them is such a wonderfull nourishmēt wrought by the mighty power of God that he hath thereby euerlasting life And this is the ineffable worke of God wherof Cyprian speaketh So that aswell in the Lords Supper as in Baptisme the marueilous workyng of God passing the comprehension of all mans wit is in the spirituall receiuers not in the bread wine water nor in the carnall vngodly receauers For what should it auayle the liuely members of Christ that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures But in his members he is present not figuratiuely but effectually and effectually and ineffably worketh in them nourishyng and feedyng them so wonderfully that it passeth all wittes and toungues to expresse And neuerthelesse corporally he is ascended into heauen and there shall tarry vntill the world shall haue an end And therfore sayth Chrisostome that Christ is both gone vp into heauen and yet is here receaued of vs but diuersly For he is gone vp to heauen carnally is here receaued of vs spiritually And this wonder is not in the woorkyng of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receaued as you fayne it to be nor in thē that vnworthely receaue it carnally but in them that receaue Christ spiritually beyng nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated that they may be fed of the same thyng wherof they be regenerated and so be throughly Os ex ossibus eius caro ex carne eius Bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh And consideryng deepely this matter Cyprian wondreth as much at Gods worke in Baptisme as in the Lordes Supper Chrisostome wondreth as much Emissene wondreth as much Cyrill wondreth as much all Catholicke writers wonder as much as well how God doth spiritually regenerate vs to a new lyfe as how he doth spiritually feede and nourish vs to euerlastyng lyfe And although these thyngs be outwardly signified vnto vs by the Sacramentall bread wine and water yet they be effectually wrought in vs by the omnipotent power of God Therefore you had neede to seeke out some other marke or token for your purpose for this serueth nothyng at all For by his wonderfull workyng Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine then in the water of Baptisme Winchester A thyrd token there is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierome when he declareth vpon the Epistle Ad Titum so aduisedly at lēgth how Panes propositionis
accepted and pleasaunt in the sight of God And this maner of shewyng Christes death and kèepyng the memorie of it is grounded vpon the Scriptures written by the Euangelistes and S. Paule and accordyng thereunto Preached beleued vsed and frequented in the Church of Christ vniuersally and from the beginnyng This authour vtteryng many wordes at large besides Scripture and agaynst Scripture to depraue the Catholike doctrine doth in a few wordes which be in déede good wordes and true confounde and ouerthrow all his enterprise and that issue will I ioyne with him which shall suffise for the confutation of this booke The fewe good wordes of the authour which wordes I say confounde the rest consist in these two pointes One in that the authour alloweth the Iudgement of Petrus Lombardus touchyng the oblation and sacrifice of the Church An other in that the authour confesseth the Councell of Nice to be holy Councell as it hath bene in déede confessed of all good Christen men Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fift booke to be ouerthrowen Caunterbury MY fift booke hath so fully so playnly set out this matter of the sacrifice that for aūswere to all that you haue here brought to the cōfutation therof the reader neede to do no more but to looke ouer my booke agayne and he shall see you fully aunswered before hand Yet wyll I here and there adde some notes that your ignoraūce and craft may the better appeare This farre you agree to the truth that the sacrifice of Christ was a ful and a perfect sacrifice which needed not to be done no more but once and yet it is remembred and shewed forth dayly And this is the true doctrine accordyng to Gods word But as concernyng the reall presence in the accidents of bread and wine is an vntrue doctrine fayned onely by the Papistes as I haue most playnly declared and this is one of your errours here vttered An other is that you cast the most precious body and bloud of Christ the sacrifice Propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world which of it selfe was not the sacrifice but the thyng whereof the sacrifice was made and the death of him vpon the Crosse was the true sacrifice propiciatorie that purchased the remission of sinne which sacrifice continued not long nor was made neuer but once where as his flesh and bloud continued euer in substaunce from his incarnation as well before the sayd sacrifice as euer sithens And that sacrifice propitiatorie made by him onely vpon the Crosse is of that effect to reconcile vs to Gods fauour that by it be accepted all our sacrifices of landes and thankes geuyng Now before I ioyne with you in your issue I shall rehearse the wordes of my booke which when the indifferent Reader seeth he shal be the more able to iudge truely betwene vs. My booke conteineth thus The fift Booke THe greatest blasphemy and iniurie that can be agaynst Christ and yet vniuersally vsed through the Popishe kyngdome is thys that the Priestes make their Masse a sacrifice propitiatorie to remit the sinnes as well of them selues as of other both quicke and dead to whom they list to apply the same Thus vnder pretence of holynes the Papistical priests haue taken vpon them to be Christes successours and to make such an oblation and sacrifice as neuer creature made but Christ alone neither he made the same any more tymes then once and that was by his death vpon the Crosse. For as S. Paule in his Epistle to the Hebrues witnesseth Although the high priestes of the old law offered many tymes at the least euery yeare once yet Christ offered not him selfe many tymes for then he should many tymes haue dyed But now he offered him selfe but once to take away sinne by that offering of him selfe And as men must dye once so was Christ offered once to take away the sinnes of many And furthermore S. Paul sayth That the sacrifices of the old law although they were continually offered from yeare to yeare yet could they not take away sinne nor make men perfect For if they could once haue quieted mens consciēces by taking away sinne they should haue ceassed and no more haue bene offered But Christ with once offering hath made perfect for euer them that be sanctified puttyng their sinnes cleane out of Gods remembraūce And where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne And yet further he sayth concernyng the old Testament that it was disanulled and taken away bicause of the feeblenesse and vnprofitablenesse therof for it brought nothyng to perfection And the priestes of that law were many bycause they liued not long and so the priesthode went from one to an other but Christ liueth euer and hath an euerlastyng priesthode that passeth not from him to any man els Wherfore he is able perfectly to saue them that come to God by him for asmuch as he liueth euer to make intercession for vs. For it was meete for vs to haue such an high priest that is holy innocent with out spot separated from sinners and exalted vp aboue heauen who needeth not dayly to offer vp sacrifice as Aarons priestes did first for his owne sinnes and then for the people For that he did once when he offered vp him selfe Here in his Epistle to the Hebrues S. Paule hath playnly and fully described vnto vs the difference betwene the priesthode and sacrifices of the old Testament and the most high and worthy priesthode of Christ his most perfect and necessary sacrifice and the benefite that commeth to vs thereby For Christ offered not the bloud of calues sheepe and goates as the priests of the old law haue vsed to do but he offered his own bloud vpon the Crosse. And he went not into an holy place made by mans hand as Aaron did but he ascended vp into heauen where his eternall Father dwelleth and before him he maketh continuall supplication for the sinnes of the whole world presentyng his owne body which was torne for vs and his precious bloud which of his most gracious and liberall charitie he shed for vs vpon the Crosse. And that sacrifice was of such force that it was no neede to renew it euery yeare as the Byshops did of the old Testament whose sacrifices were many tymes offered and yet were of no great effect or profite bycause they were sinners them selues that offered them and offered not their owne bloud but the bloud of brute beastes but Christes sacrifice ones offered was sufficient for euermore And that all men may the better vnderstand this sacrifice of Christ which he made for the great benefite of all men it is necessary to know the distinctiō and diuersitie of sacrifices One kynde of sacrifice there is which is called a Propitiatory or mercyfull sacrifice that is to say such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods wrath and indignatiō and obteineth mercy and forgiuenes
who should say that Christes sacrifice were not sufficient for the remission of our sinnes or els that his sacrifice should hang vpon the sacrifice of a priest But all such priestes as pretend to be Christes successours in makyng a Sacrifice of him they be his most haynous and horrible aduersaries For neuer no person made a sacrifice of Christ but he him selfe onely And therfore Saint Paule sayth that Christes priesthoode cannot passe from him to an other For what needeth any moe Sacrifices if Christes Sacrifice be perfect and sufficient And as Saint Paule sayth that if the sacrifices and ministration of Aaron and other priestes of that tyme had lacked nothyng but had bene perfect and sufficient then should not the sacrifice of Christ haue bene required for it had bene but in vayne to adde any thyng to that which of it selfe was perfect so likewise if Christes Sacrifice which he made him selfe be sufficient what neede we euery day to haue moe and moe Sacrifices Wherfore all Popish priestes that presume to make euery day a Sacrifice of Christ either must they needes make Christes Sacrifice vayne vnperfect and vnsufficient or els is their sacrifice in vayne which is added to the Sacrifice which is already of it selfe sufficient and perfect But it is a wonderous thyng to see what shiftes and cautels the Popish Antichristes deuise to colour and cloke their wicked errours And as a chayne is so ioyned togither that one linke draweth an other after it so be vices and errours knit togither that euery one draweth his felow with him And so doth it here in this matter For the Papistes to excuse them selues do say that they make no new Sacrifice nor none other Sacrifice then Christ made for they be not so blynd but they see that then they should adde an other Sacrifice to Christes Sacrifice and so make his Sacrifice vnperfect but they say that they make the selfe same Sacrifice for sinne that Christ him selfe made And here they runne headlonges into the foulest and most haynous errour that euer was imagined For if they make euery day the same oblation and Sacrifice for sinne that Christ hym selfe made and the oblation that he made was his death and the effusion of his most precious bloud vpon the Crosse for our redemption and price of our sinnes then foloweth it of necessitie that they euery day slea Christ and shed his bloud and so bee they woorse then the wicked Iewes and Phariseis which slew hym and shed hys bloud but once Almighty God the father of light and truth banish all such darknes and errour out of his Church with the authours and teachers therof or els conuert their hartes vnto him and giue this light of fayth to euery man that he may trust to haue remission of his sinnes and be deliuered from eternall death and hell by the merite onely of the death and bloud of Christ and that by his own fayth euery man may apply the same vnto him selfe and not take it at the appointment of Popish priestes by the merite of sacrifices and oblations If we be in deede as we professe Christian men we may ascribe this honor and glory to no man but to Christ alone Wherefore lette vs geue the whole laude prayse hereof vnto him let vs fly onely to him for succour let vs hold him fast and hāg vpō him and geue our selues wholy to him And for asmuch as he hath giuen him selfe to death for vs to be an oblation and sacrifice to his father for our sinnes let vs geue our selues agayne vnto him makyng vnto him an oblatiō not of goates sheepe kine and other beastes that haue no reason as was accustomed before Christes comming but of a creature that hath reason that is to say of our selues not killyng our own bodies but mortifiyng the beastly and vnreasonable affectiōs that would gladly rule and raigne in vs. So lōg as the law did raigne God suffered dūbe beastes to be offered vnto him but now that we be spirituall we must offer spirituall oblatiōs In the place of calues sheepe goates and doues we must kill deuilish pride furious anger insatiable couetousnes filthy lucre stinkyng lechery deadly hatred and malice foxy wylinesse woluish rauenyng and deuouryng and all other vnreasonable lustes and desires of the flesh And as many as belong to Christ must crucifie and kill these for Christes sake as Christ crucified him selfe for their sakes These be the sacrifices of Christian men these hostes and oblations be acceptable to Christ. And as Christ offered him selfe for vs so is it our dueties after this sorte to offer our selues to him agayne And so shall we not haue the name of Christian mē in vayne but as we pretend to belong to Christ in word and profession so shall we in deede be his in lyfe and inward affection So that within and without we shal be altogether his cleane from all hypocrisie or dissimulation And if we refuse to offer our selues after this wise vnto him by crucifying our owne willes and committyng vs wholly to the will of God we be most vnkynd people superstitious hupocrites or rather vnreasonable beastes worthy to be excluded vtterly from all the benefites of Christes oblations And if wee put the oblation of the prieste in the steede of the oblation of Christ refusing to receaue the Sacrament of his body and bloud our selues as he ordeined and trustyng to haue remission of our sinnes by the Sacrifice of the priest in the Masse and thereby also to obtaine release of the paynes in Purgatory we do not onely iniurie to Christ but also commit most detestable Idolatry For these be but false doctrines without shame deuised and fayned by wicked Popish priestes Idolaters Monkes and Friers which for lucre have altered and corrupted the most holy Supper of the Lord and turned it into manifest Idolatry Wherfore all godly men ought with all their hart to refuse and abhorre all such blasphemie agaynst the sonne of God And for asmuch as in such Masses is manifest wickednesse and Idolatry wherein the priest alone maketh oblation satisfactory and applyeth the same for the quicke and the dead at his will and pleasure all such Popish Masses are to be clearely taken away out of Christian Churches and the true vse of the Lordes Supper is to be restored agayne wherein godly people assembled together may receaue the Sacrament euery man for him selfe to declare that he remembreth what benefite he hath receiued by the death of Christ and to testifie that he is a member of Christes body fed with his flesh and drinkyng his bloud spiritually Christ did not ordeyne his Sacramentes to this vse that one should receiue them for another or the priest for all the lay people but he ordeined them for this intent that euery man should receiue them for him selfe to ratifie confirme and stablishe his owne fayth and euerlastyng saluation Therfore as one man may not
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
to such as profes to beleue the determination of that counsell in the opening of the mistery of the Trinity with other words then Scripture vseth although they expres such sence as in the scriptures is contained Why should not all such like wise beleue the same counsel in explication of the Sacraments which to do the author hath bound himselfe graunting that counsell holy And then we must bebeleue the very presence of Christes body and bloud on gods bord and that Priestes doe there sacrifice and be therefore called and named sacrificers So as those names terms be to be honoured and religiously spoken of being in an holy counsell vttered and confessed because it was so séene to them and the holy ghost without whose present asistance and suggestion beleued to be there the counsell could not or ought not to be called holy Now if we conferre with that counsell of Nice the testimony of the Church beginning at S. Dionyse who was in the time of the Apostles and after him comming to Irene who was nere the apostles and then Tertullian and so S. Cyprian S. Chrisostome S. Cyrill S. Hierome S. Augustine and from that age to the tyme of Petrus Lombardus all spake of the sacrament to the same effect and termed it for the word sacrifice and oblation to be frequented in the church of the body and bloud of Christ as may be in particularity shewed whereof I make also an issue with the author Caunterbury FOr aunswere to Nicene councell it speaketh of a sacrifice of laudes and thankes giuing which is made by the Priest in the name of the whole church and is the sacrifice as well of the people as of the priest this sacrifice I say the counsell of Nice speaketh of but it speaketh not one word of the sacrifice propitiatory which neuer none made but onely Christ nor he neuer made it any more then once which was by his death And where so euer Christ shal be herafter in heauē or in earth he shal neuer be sacrificed agayne but the church continually in remembraunce of that sacrifice maketh a sacrifice of laud and prayse geuing euermore thanks vnto him for that propitiatory sacrifice And in the third chapter of my booke here recited the difference of these ii sacrifices is playnely set out And although Nicene counsell call Christ the lambe that taketh away the sins of the world yet doth it not mean that by the sacrifice of the priest in the Masse but by the sacrifice of himselfe vpon the crosse But here according to your accustomed maner you alter some wordes of the counsell and adde also some of your owne For the councell sayd not that the Lamb of God is sacrificed of the priests not after the manner of other sacrifices but that he is sacrificed not after the manner of a sacrifice And in saying that Christ is sacrificed of the priest not like a sacrifice or after the maner of a sacrifice the counsell in these wordes signified a difference betweene the sacrifice of the priest and the sacrifice of Christ which vpon the Crosse offered himselfe to be sacrificed after the manner of a very sacrifice that is to say vnto death for the sinnes of the world Christ made the bloudy sacrifice which tooke away sinne the priest with the church make a commemoration thereof with laudes and thanksgeuing offering also themselues obedient to God vnto death And yet this our sacrifice taketh not away our sinnes nor is not accepted but by his sacrifice The bleeding of him took away our sinnes not the eating of him And although that Counsell say that Christ is situate in that table yet it sayth not that he is really and corporally in the bread and wine For thē that counsell would not haue forbid vs to direct our mindes to the breade and cup if they had beleued that Christ had bene really there But forasmuch as the counsell commaundeth that we shall not direct our mindes downeward to the bread and cup but lift them vp to Christ by fayth they geue vs to vnderstand by those wordes that Christ is really and corporally ascended vp into heauen vnto which place we must lift vp our mindes and reach him there by our fayth and not looke downe to find him in the bread And yet he is in the bread sacramentally as the same counsel sayth that the holy ghost is in the water of baptisme And as Christ is in his supper present to feed vs so is he in baptisme present to clothe and apparell vs with his owne selfe as the same counsell declareth whose words be these He that is baptised goeth downe into the water being subiect to sinne and held in the bands of corruption but he riseth vp free from bōdage and sinne being made by the grace of God his sonne and heir and coinheritor with Christ and apparelled with Christ himself as it is written As many of you as be baptised vnto Christ you haue put Christ vpon you These wordes of the counsell I reherse onely in english because I wil not let nor encōber the reader with the greeke or latine as you do which is nothing els but to reherse one thing thrise without need or profit If I had list I could haue rehersed all the greek authors in greek and the latine writers in latine but vnto english men vnto whom onely I write it were a vain labour or glory without fruit or profyte or any other cause except I entended to make my booke long for gayne of the printer rather then for profit to the reader But to returne to the matter Christ is present in his holy supper as that holy Councell sayth euen as he is present in Baptisme but not really carnally corporally and naturally as you without ground imagine And if he were to present yet is he not there sacrificed agayne for sinne For then were his first sacrifice vpon the Crosse in vayne if it sufficed not therefore And as for Dionyse Irenee Tertullian with all your other authors I haue aunswered them in the thirtenth chapiter of this my laste booke And what need you make an issue in this thing which is not in controuersy and which I affirme in my whole last booke The matter in question is of the sacrifice propitiatory and you make your issue of the sacrifyce generally Now let vs see how you intreat Petrus Lombardus Winchester For the other poynt in that the author approueth the iudgemēt of Petrus Lombardus in the matter what should I more doe but write in the wordes of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them which he these in the fourth booke the xii chapter alleadged by the author Post haec quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrisiciū vel immolatio si Christus quotidie vel immoletur semel tantum immolatus sit Ad hoc breuiter dici potest illud quod offertur consecratur a sacerdote vocari
sacrificium oblationem quia memoria est representatio veri sacrificy sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipso quotidie auteÌ„ immolatur in sacrameÌ„to quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel vnde Augustin Certum habemus quia Christus resurgens ex mortus iam non moritur c. tamen ne obliniscamur quod semel factum est in memoria nostra omn 〈◊〉 fit sclicet quaÌ„do pascha celebratur Nunquid totiens Christus occiditur sed tantuÌ„ aniu◠〈◊〉 â—ecordatio representat quod olim factuÌ„ est sic nos facit moueri taÌ„quaÌ„ videamus Domin◠〈◊〉 â—uce IteÌ„ semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso tameÌ„ quotidie immolatur in sacramâ—â—â—â— Quod sic intilligenduÌ„ est quia in manifestatione corporis distinctione membroruÌ„ semel tanti in cruce pependit offereÌ„s se Deo patri hostiaÌ„ redeÌ„ptionis efficacem eoruÌ„ scilicet quos praedestinauit Item Ambrosius In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad saluteÌ„ potes quid ergo nos Nonne per singulos dies offerimus Fae si quotidie offeramus ad recordationem eius mortis fit vna est hostia non multae quomodo vna noÌ„ multae quia semel immolatus est Christus Hoc auteÌ„ sacrificium exemplum est illius idipsum semper idipsum offertur proinde hoc idem est sacrificium alioquin dicetur quoniam in multis locis offertur multi sunt Christi non sed vnus vbique est Christus hic plenus existens illic plenus sicut quod vbique offertur vnum est corpus ita vnum sacrificium Christus hostiam obtulit ipsam offerimus nuÌ„c sed quod nos agimus recordatio est sacrificij Nec causa suae infirmitatis reperitur quia per ficit hominem sed nostrae quia quotidie peccamus Ex his colligitur esse sacrificium dici quod agitur in altari Christum semel oblatuÌ„ quotidie offerri sed aliter tunc aliter muncâ—et etiam quae sit virtus huius sacramenti ostenditur remissio scilicet peccatorum venalium perfectio virtutis The English hereof is this After this it is asked whether that the Priest doth may be sayd properly a sacrifice or immolation and whether Christ be dayly immolate or onely once Whereunto it may be shortlye aunswered that which is offered and consecrate of the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memory and representation of the true sacrifice and holye immolation done in the aultar of the crosse And Christ was once dead on the crosse and there was offered in himselfe but he is dayly immolate in the sacrament because in the sacrament there is made a memory of that is once done Whereupon S. Augustine We are assured that christ rising from death dieth not now c. Yet least we should forget that is once done in our memory euery yere is done videl as often as the pascha is celebrate is Christ as often killed onely a yerely remembraunce representeth that was once done and so causeth vs to be moued as though we saw our Lord on the crosse Also Christ was once offered in himselfe and is offered dayly in the sacrament which is thus to be vnderstaÌ„ded that in open shewyng of his body and distinction of his meÌ„bers he did hang onely once vpon the crosse offering himselfe to God the father an host of redemption effectuall for them whome he hath predestinate Also S. Ambrose In Christ the host was once offred being of power to helth what do we then doe we not offer euery day and if we offer euery day it is done to the remembraunce of the death of him and the host is one not many How one and not many because Christ is once offered this sacrifice is the example of that the same and alwayes the same is offered therfore this is the same sacrifice Or els it may be sayd because offering is in many places there be many Christes which is not so but one Christ is ech where and here ful and there full so as that which is offered euery where is one body and so also one sacrifice Christ hath offered the host we do offer the same also now But what we do is a remembraunce of the sacrifice Nor there is no cause found of the owne inualidity because it perfiteth the man but of vs because we dayly sinne Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called that is done in the alter and Christ to be once offered and dayly offered but otherwise then and otherwise now and also it is shewed what is the vertue of this Sacrament that is to say remission of veniall sinne and perfection of vertue Thus writeth Petrus Lombardus whose iudgement because this author alloweth he must graunt that the visible church hath Priestes in ministery that offer dayly Christes most precious body and bloud in mistery and then must it be graunted that Christ so offered himselfe in his supper For otherwise then he did cannot now be done And by the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus the same most precious body and bloud is offered dayly that once suffered and was once shed And also by the same Petrus iudgement which he confirmeth with the saying of other this dayly offering by the priest is daylye offered for sin not for any imperfection in the first offering but because wee daylye fall And by Petrus iudgement appeareth also how the priest hath a speciall functioÌ„ to make this offering by whose mouth god is prayed vnto as Hesychius sayth to make this sacrifice which Emissene noteth to be wrought by the great power of the inuisible priest By Petrus Lombardus also if his iudgement be true as it is in deed and the author coÌ„fesseth it so to be that is done in the aultar is not onely called a sacrifice but also is so the same that is offered once and dayly to be the same but otherwise then and otherwise now But to the purpose if the author will stand to the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus all his fift booke of this treaty is clerely defaced And if he will now call backe that agayne he might more compendeously do the same in the whole treatise being so far ouerseene as he is therein Caunterbury HOw is it possible to set out more playnely the diuersity of the true sacrifice of Christ made vpon the aulter of the crosse which was the propitiation of sinne from the sacrifice made in the sacrament then Lombardus hath done in this place For the one he calleth the true sacrifice the other he calleth but a memoriall or representation thereof likening the sacrifice made in the lordes supper to a yeares mind or anniuersary wherat is made a memoriall of the death of a person and yet it is not
his death indeed So in the Lords supper according to his commaundement we remember his death preaching and commending the same vntill his return agayne at the last day And although it be one Christ that died for vs and whose death we remember yet it is not one sacrifice that he made of himselfe vpon the crosse and that we make of him vpon the alter or table For his sacrifice was the redemption of the world ours is not so his was death ours is but a remēbraunce thereof Hys was the taking away the shines of the world ours is a praising and thanking for the same and therefore his was satisfactory ours is gratulatory It is but one christ that was offred thē that is offred now yet the offeringes be diuers his was the thing and ours is the figure His was the originall and ours is as it were a patterne Therefore concludeth Lombardus that Christ was otherwise offered then and otherwise now And seing then that the offeringes and sacrifices be diuers if the first was propitiatory and satisfactory ours cannot be so except we shall make many sacrifices propitiatory And then as S. Paule reasoneth either the first must be insufficient or the other in vayne And as Christ onely made thys propitiatory sacrifice so he made but one and but once For the making of any other or of the same agayne should haue beene as S. Paule reasoneth a reprouing of the first as vnperfect and insufficient And therefore at his last supper although Christ made vnto his father sacrifices of lauds and thankesgeuing as these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do declare yet he made there no sacrifice propitiatory for then either the sacrifice vpon the crosse had bene voyd or the sacrifice at the supper vnperfect and vnsufficient And although he had at his supper made sacrifices propitiatory yet the priests do not so who do not the same that Christ did at his supper For he ministred not the sacrament in remembrannce of his death which was not then brought to passe but he ordained it to be ministred of vs in remembraunce thereof And therfore our offering after Lombardus iudgement is but remembraunce of that true offering wherein Christ offered himselfe vpon the crosse And so did Christ institute it to be And Lombardus sayth not that Christ is dayly offered for proportion of our sinnes but because we dayly sinne wee dayly bee put in the remembraunce of Christes death which is the perfect proportion for sinne And the priest as Lombardus sayth maketh a memoriall of that oblation of Christ and as Hesechius sayth he doth in the name of the people so that the sacrifice is no more the priestes then the peoples For the priestes speak the wordes and the people should aunswere amen as Iustinus sayth The priest should declare the death and passion of Christ and all the people should looke vpon the crosse in the mount of Caluary see Christ there hanging and the bloud flowing out of his side into theyr wounds to heale all their sores and the priest and people altogether should laud and thanke instantly the Chyrurgion and Phiscycion of their soules And this is the priestes and peoples sacrifice not to be propitiators for sinne but as Emissene sayth to worship continually in mistery that was but once offered for the price of sinne and this shortly is the mind of Lombardus that the thing which is done at gods boord is a sacrifice so is that also which was made vpon the crosse but not after one manner of vnderstanding For this was the thing in deed and that is the anniuersary or commemoration of the thing And now haue I made it euident that Petrus Lombardus defaceth in no poynt my saying of the sacrifice but confirmeth fully my doctrine aswell of the sacrifice propitiatory made by Christ himselfe onely as of the sacrifice cōmemoratiue and gratulatory made by the preists and people So that in your issue taken vpon Lombard the verdit cannot but passe wyth me by the testimony of Lombard himselfe And yet I do not fully allow Lombardes iudgement in all matters who with Gratian his brother as it is sayd were ij chiefe champiōs of the Romish sea to spread abroad their errours and vsurped authority but I speake of Lombard onely to declare that yet in his tyme they had not cited so farre to make of theyr was a sacrifice propitiatory But in the end of this processe Lōbard speaketh with out the booke when he concludeth this matter thus that the virtue of this sacrament is the remission of veniall sin and perfection of vertue which if Lombard vnderstand of the sacrifice of Christ it is to little to make hys sacrifice the remission but of veniall sin And if he vnderstand it of the sacrifice of the priest it is to much to make the priests sacrifice either the perfection of vertue or the remission of veniall sinne which be the effects onely of the sacrifice of Christ. Now let vs consider the rest of your confutation Winchester The catholicke doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christes most precious body and bloud to be an iteration of the once perfited sacrifice on the crosse but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice and sheweth it also before the faythfull eyes and refresheth the effectuall memory of it so as in the dayly sacrifice without shedding of bloud we may sée with the eye of fayth the very body and bloud of Christ by Gods mighty power without diuision distinctly exhibits the same body and bloud that suffered and was shed for vs which is a timely memoriall to stir vp our fayth and to consider therin briefly the great charity of God towardes vs declared in Christ. The catholick doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to be in the same in essence that was offered on the crosse once assured therof by Christs wordes when he sayd This is my body that shal be betrayed for you The offering on the crosse was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin whereby to destroy the tyranny of sinne the effect whereof is geuen and dispensed in the sacrament of baptisme once likewise ministred and neuer to be iterate no more then Christ can be crucified agayne and yet by vertue of the same offering such as fall be releued in the sacrament of penaunce Caunterbury After you wilfull wrangling without any cause at the last of your own swing you come to the truth purely and sincerely professing and setting forth the same except in few wordes here and there cast in as it were cockle among cleane corne The offering on the crosse say you was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin the effect whereof is geuen and dispensed in the sacrament of baptisme once likewise ministred and neuer to be iterate but the catholick doctrine teacheth not that the dayly sacrifice is an
onely into imaginations contrary to the truth of Gods word but also contrary to your selfe But let passe away these Papisticall inuentions and let vs humbly professe ourselues with all our Sacrifices not worthy to approche vnto God nor to haue any accesse vnto him but by that onely propitiatorie sacrifice which Christ onely made vpon the Crosse. And yet let vs with all deuotion with whole hart and mynde and with all obedience to Gods will come vnto the heauenly Supper of Christ thankyng him onely for propitiation of our sinnes In which holy Communion the act of the Minister and other be all of one sort none propitiatorie but all of laudes and thankes geuyng And such sacrifices be pleasaunt and acceptable to God as S. Paule sayth done of them that be good but they winne not his fauour and put away his indignation from them that be euill For such reconciliation can no creature make but Christ alone And where you say that to call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactorie must haue an vnderstādyng that signifieth not the action of the priest here you may see what a businesse and hard worke it is to patch the Papistes ragges together and what absurdities you fall into thereby Euen now you sayd that the acte of the Priestes must needes bee a Sacrifice propitiatorie and now to haue an vnderstandyng for the same you bee driuen to so shamefull a shift that you say either cleane contrary that it is not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christ or els that the action of the Priest is none otherwise satisfactorie then all other Christen mens workes be For otherwise say you the dayly Sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest can not be called satisfactorie Wherefore at length knowledgyng your Popish doctrine to sound euill fauoredly you confesse agayne the true Catholicke teachyng that this speach is to be frequented and vsed that the onely immolation of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God And where you say that you haue not read the dayly sacrifice of Christs most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory if you haue not read of satisfactory Masses it appeareth that you haue read but very little of the Schoole Authours And yet not many yeares agoe you might haue heard them preached in euery pardon But because you haue not read therof read Doctour Smithes booke of the sacrifice of the Masse and both your eares and eyes shal be full of it Whose furious blasphemies you haue with one sentēce here most truely reiected wherfore yet remaineth in you some good sparkes of the spirit that you so much detest such abhominatiō And yet such blasphemies you go about to salue and playster as much as you may by subtle and crafty interpretations For by such exposition as you make of the satisfactory singyng of the Priest in doyng his duetie in that he was required to do by this exposition he singeth aswell satisfactory in saying of Mattens as in saying of Masse for in both he doth his duetie that he required vnto and so might it be defended that the Player vpon the Orgaines playeth satisfactory when he doth his duety in playing as he is required And all the singyng men in the Church that haue wages thereto sing satisfactory aswell as the Priestes when they sing accordyng to that they be hyered vnto And then as one singyng man or player on the Orgaines receauyng a stipende of many men to play or sing at a certaine tyme if he do his duety satisfieth them all at once so might a priest sing satisfactory for many persons at one tyme which the teachers of satisfactory Masses vtterly condemne But if you had read Duns you would haue written more Clerkely in these matters then you now do Now let vs heare what you say further Winchester Where the Authour cityng S. Paul Englisheth him thus that Christes Priesthode can not passe from him to an other These wordes thus framed be not the simple and sincere expression of the truth of the text Whiche sayth that Christ hath a perpetuall Priesthode and the Gréeke hath a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gréek Schooles expresse and expounde by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyng the Priesthode of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of Leui wher was amōg mortal men succession in the office of Priesthode but Christ liueth euer and therfore is a perpetuall euerlastyng Priest by whose authoritie Priesthode is now in this visible Church as S. Paule ordered to Timothe and Tite and other places also confirme which Priestes visible Ministers to our inuisible Priest offer the dayly Sacrifice in Christes Churche that is to say with the very presence by Gods omnipotencie wrought of the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ shewyng forth Christes death and celebratyng the memory of his Supper and death accordyng to Christes institution so with dayly oblation and sacrifice of the selfe same Sacrifice to kindle in vs a thankeful remēbraunce of all Christes benefites vnto vs. Caunterbury VVHere you find your selfe greued with my citing of S. Paul that Christes priesthood cannot passe from him to another which is not say you the truth of the text which meaneth that the Priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession your manner of speach herein is so darke that it geueth no light at all For it semeth to signify that Christes priesthood endeth but not to goe to other by succession but by some other meanes which thing if you meane then you make the endles priesthood of Christ to haue an end And if you mean it not but that Christs priesthood is endles and goeth to no other by succession nor other wise then I pray you what haue I offended in saying that Christs priesthood cannot passe from him to an other And as for the greeke wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any manner of succession whether it be by inheritance adoption election purchase or any other meanes And he that is instituted and inducted into a benefice after an other is called his successor And Erasmus calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod in alium transire non potest And so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify quod successione caret That is to say a thing that hath no succession nor passeth to none other And because Christ is a perpetuall and euerlasting priest that by one oblation made a full sacrifice of sinne for euer therfore his priesthood neither nedeth nor can passe to any other wherefore the ministers of Christes church be not now appoynted priests to make a new sacrifice for sinne as tho Christ had not done that at once sufficiently for euer but to preach abroad Christes sacrifice and to be ministers of his wordes
moreouer that Christ him selfe commeth downe vpon the child apparelleth him with his own selfe And as at the Lordes holy Table the Priest distributeth wine bread to feede the body so we must thinke that inwardly by fayth we see Christ feedyng both body and soule to eternall lyfe What comfort can be deuised any more in this world for a Christē man And on the other side what discomfort is in your papisticall doctrine what doubtes what perplexities what absurdities what iniquities what auayleth it vs that there is no bread nor wyne or that Christ is really vnder the formes and figures of bread and wyne and not in vs or if he be in vs yet he is but in the lippes or the stomacke and tarieth not with vs. Or what benefite is it to a wicked man to eate Christ and to receaue death by him that is lyfe From this your obscure perplex vncertaine vncomfortable deuilish and Papisticall doctrine Christ defend all his and graunt that we may come often and worthely to Christes holy Table to comfort our feeble and weake fayth by remembraunce of his death who onely is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sinnes and our meate drinke and foode of euerlastyng lyfe Amen Here endeth the Aunswere of the most Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury c. vnto the crafty and Sophisticall cauillation of Doct. Steuen Gardiner deuised by him to obscure the true sincere and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST THE Aunswere of Thomas Archebishop of Caunterbury c. agaynst the false calumniations of doctour Richard Smith who hath taken vpon him to confute the defence of the true catholik doctrine of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. I Haue now obtayned gentle reader that thing which I haue much desired which was that if all men would not imbrace the truth lately set forth by me concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ at the least some man would vouchsafe to take penne in hand and write against my booke bicause that therby the truth might both better be serched out and also more certaynly knowen to the world And herein I hartely thanke the late Bishop of Winchester and doctor Smith who partely haue satisfied my long desire sauing that I would haue wished aduersaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures more exercised in the olde auncient ecclesiasticall authors and hauing a more godly zeale to the triall out of the truth than are these two both being crafty sophisters the one by art and the other by nature both also being drowned in the dregges of papistry brought vp and confirmed in the same the one by Duns and Dorbell and such like Sophisters the other by the Popish Canon law wherof by his degree taken in the uniuersity he is a professor And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester I will declare his craftye Sophistications in myne aunswere vnto his booke But doctour Smith as it appeareth by the title of his preface hath craftely deuised an easy way to obtayne his purpose that the people being barred from the serching of the truth might be stil kept in blindnes and errour as wel in this as in al other matters wherin they haue bene in times past deceaued He seeth full well that the more diligently matters be serched out and discussed the more clearly the craft and falsehode of the subtill Papistes will appeare And therfore in the preface to the reader he exhorteth all men to leaue disputing and resoning of the fame by learning and to giue firme credite vnto the church as the title of the sayd preface declareth manifestly As who should say the truth of any matter that is in question might be tryed out without debating and reasoning by the word of God wherby as by the true touchstone all mens doctrines are to be tryed and examined But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light and to be tryed to the vttermost For as pure golde the more it is tryed the more pure it apeareth so is all manner of truth Where as on the other side all maskers counterfayters and false deceiuors abhorre the light and refuse the triall If all men without right or reason would geue credite vnto this Papist and his Romish church agaynst the most certayne word of God and the olde holye and Catholicke Churche of Christ the matter should be soone at an end and out of all controuersie But for as muche as the pure word of God and the first church of Christ from the beginning taught the true catholike fayth and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the cleane contrary the chaffe can not be tryed out from the pure corne that is to say the vntruth discerned from the very truth without threshing windowing and fanning serching debating and reasoning As for me I ground my beleefe vpon gods word wherin can be no errour hauing also the consent of the primatiue church requiring no man to beleue me further then I hane gods word for me But these Papistes speake at their pleasure what they lift and would be beleeued without godes word bicause they beare men in hand that they be the church The church of Christ is not founded vpon it selfe but vppon Christ and his word but the Papistes build their church vpon them selues deuising new articles of the fayth from tyme to tyme without any scripture and founding the same vpon the Pope and his cleargy monkes and fryers and by that meanes they be both the makers and Iudges of their fayth themselues Wherfore this Papist like a politike man doth right wisely prouide for himselfe and his church in the first entry of his booke that all men should leaue searching for the truth and sticke hard and fast to the church meaning himselfe and the church of Rome For from the true catholike church the Romish church which he accomteth catholike hath varied and dissented many yeares passed as the blindest that this day do liue may well see and perceaue if they will not purposely winke and shut vp their eyes This I haue written to answere the title of his preface NOw in the beginning of the very preface it selfe when this great doctor should recite the wordes of Ephesine counsell he translateth them so vnlearnedly that if a young boy that had gone to the grammer schole but thre yeres had done no better he should scant haue escaped some scholemasters handes with sixierkes And beside that he doth it so craftily to serue his purpose that he cannot be excused of wilfull deprauation of the wordes calling celebration an offering and referring the participle made to Christ which should be referred to the word partakers and leauing out those wordes that should declare that the sayd counsell spake of no propiciatory sacrifice in the Masse but of a sacrifice of laud and thankes which christen people geue vnto God
viii chap. prouing by authority of the oldest authors in Christs church that he called bread his body and wine his bloud And agayne in the ix x. xi and xii chapters I haue so fully intreated of such figuratiue speaches that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speake of any more but I referre the reader to those places And if M. doctor require a further answere herein let him looke vpon the late bishop of Winchesters booke called the detection of the diuels sophistry where he writeth plainly that when Christ spake these wordes This is my body he made demonstration of the bread THan further in this prologue this Papist is not ashamed to say that I set the cart before the horses putting reason first and fayth after which lye is so manifest that it needeth no further proofe but onely to looke vpon my booke wherein it shall euidently appeare that in all my fiue bookes I ground my foūdation vpon gods word And least the Papistes should say that I make the expositions of the scripture my selfe as they commonly vse to do I haue fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs that were in the beginning of the church and many yeares after vntill the Antichrist of Rome rose vp and corrupted altogither And as for naturall reason I make no mention therof in all my v. bookes but in one place onely which is in my second booke speaking of Transubstantiation And in that place I set not reason before fayth but as an handmayden haue appoynted her to do seruice vnto fayth and to wayte vpon her And in that place she hath done such seruice that D. Smith durst not once looke her in the face nor find any fault with her seruice but hath flylye and craftely stolen away by her as though he saw her not But in his owne booke he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christes owne wordes putting the wordes behind that goe before the wordes before that goe behind that except a shameles Papist no man durst be so bolde to attempt any such thing of his owne head For where the Euangelist and S. Paule rehearse Christes wordes thus Take eate this is my body he in the confutation of my second booke turneth the order vpside downe and sayth This is my body take eate After this in his Preface hee rehearseth a great number of the wonderfull workes of God as that God made all the world of nought that he made Adam of the earth and Eue of his side the bush to flame with fire and burne not and many other like which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture And vpon these he concludeth most vainly and vntruly that thing which in the scripture is neyther expressed nor vnderstanded that Christ is corporally in heauen and in earth and in euery place where the sacrament is And yet D. Smith sayth that Gods word doth teach this as playnly as the other vsing herein such a kind of sophisticall argumēt as all Logitiās do reprehend which is called petitio principij whē a mā taketh that thing for a supposition and an approued truth which is in controuersy And so doth he in this place when he sayth Doth not Gods word teach it thee as playnly as the other Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be graunted him as a truth which he ought to proue and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in questiō that is to say whether it be as playnly set out in the scripture that Christes body is corporally in euery place where the sacrament is as that God created all thinges of nothing Adam of the earth and Eue of Adams side c. This is it that I deny and that he should proue But he taketh it for a supposition saying by interrogation doth not the word of God teach this as playnly as the other Which I affirme to be vtterly false as I haue shewed in my third boobe the xi and twelfe chap. where I haue most manifestly proued as well by Gods word as by aūcient authors that these wordes of Christ This is my body and This is my bloud be no playne speaches but figuratiue THen forth goeth this papist vnto the vi chap. of S. Thou saying Christ promised his disciples to geue them such bread as should be his owne very naturall flesh which he would geue to death for the life of the world Can this his promise sayth M. Smith be verified of common bread Was that giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world Wherto I answer by his owne reason Can this his promise be verified of sacramentall bread was that geuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world I meruayle here not a little of M. Smithes eyther dulnes or maliciousnes that cannot or will not see that Christ in this chap. of S. Ihon spake not of Sacramentall bread but of heauenly bread nor of his flesh onely but also of his bloud and of his godhead calling them heauenly bread that giueth euerlasting life So that he spake of him selfe wholy saying I am the bread of life He that cōmeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleueth in me shall not thirst for euer And neyther spake he of common bread nor yet of sacramentall bread For neyther of them was giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world And there can be nothing more manifest then that in this vi chap. of Ihon Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh but of his very flesh And that aswell for that the sacrament was not then instituted as also that Christ sayd not in the future tense the bread which I will giue shal be my flesh but in the present tense the bread which I will geue is my flesh which sacramentall bread was neyther then his flesh nor was then instituted for a Sacrament nor was after giuen to death for the life of the world But as Christ when he sayd vnto the woman of Samaria The water which I will geue shall spring into euerlasting life he ment neyther of materiall water nor of the accidents of water but of the holy ghost which is the heauenly fountayne that springeth vnto eternall life so likewise when he sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world he ment neyther of the materiall bread neither of the accidents of bread but of his owne flesh Which although of it selfe it auayleth nothing yet being in vnity of persō ioyned vnto his diuinity it is the same heauenly bread that he gaue to death vpon the crosse for the life of the world But here M. Smith asketh a question of the tyme saying thus When gaue Christ that bread which was his very flesh that he gaue for vs to death if he did it not at his last supper when he sayd This is my
vntill the Papistes did transforme and transubstantiate the chiefe articles of our christen fayth Thus is an aunswere made vnto the false calumniations of Smith in the preface of his book or rather vnto his whole booke which is so full of bragging boasting slaundering misreporting wrangling wrasting false construing and lying that those taken out of the booke there is nothing worthy in the whole book to be aunswered Neuertheles in answering to the late byshop of Winchesters book I shall fully aunswere also D. Smith in all points that require aunswere And so with one answere shal I dispatch them both And in some places where one of thē varieth from an other as they do in many great matters in the chiefe and principall poynts I shall set them together Bithum cum Bachio Esernium cum Pacidiano to try which of them is more stout and valiaunt to ouerthrow the other ¶ Here endeth the aunswere vnto the Preface of M. Smithes booke which he wrote agaynst the defence of the true and catholicke doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST Matters wherein the Byshop of Winchester varyed from other Papistes OTher say That the body of Christ is made of bread He sayth that the body of Christ is not made of bread nor was neuer so taught but is made present of bread pag. 72. lin 14. pag. 178. lin 10. He sayth that Christ made the demonstratiō of the bread and called it his body when he sayd This is my body pag 257. lin 27. And in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. Other say contrary And Smith fol. 53. He sayth that This is my body is asmuch to say as this is made my body And so he taketh Est for fit pag. 295. lin 35. Other say that Est is taken there substantiue that is to say onely for is and not for is made Marcus Antonius fol. 171. facie 2 consideratione 6. He sayth that Christ is present in the Sacrament after the same maner that hee is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. Other say contrary that hee is in heauen after the maner of quantitie and that hee is not so in the Sacrament He sayth that where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man and that when we speake of Christ is body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie pag. 71. lin 37. Smith sayth that Christes body in the Sacrament hath not his proper forme and quantitie fol. 106. He sayth we beleue simply that Christes body is naturally and corporally in the Sacrament wihout drawyng away his accidences or addyng pag. 353. lin 1. Smith sayth we say that Christes body is in the Sacrament agaynst nature withall his qualities and accidentes fol. 105. He sayth that Gods workes be all seemelynes without confusion although he cā not locally distinct Christes head frō his foote nor his legges from his armes pag. 70. lin 27. Other say that Christes head and foote and other partes be not in deed loccally distinct in the Sacrament but be so confounded that where soeuer one is there be all the rest They teach that the body of Christ is made of bread he sayth it was neuer so taught pag. 79. lin 6. c. He sayth that Christes body is the Sacrament sensibly naturally carnally and corporally pag. 159. lin 9. c. Other say contrary Smith fol. 39. Other say that Christes feete in the Sacrament be there where his head is He sayth that who soeuer say so may be called mad pag. 61. lin 34. He sayth that Christes body is in the Sacrament naturally and carnally pag. 156. lin 6. Other say that corporally Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke and no further He sayth contrary pag. 52. lin 36. He saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in him that receiueth the Sacrament worthely so long as hee remaineth a member of Christ pag. 53. lin 1. pag. 56. lin 31. c. Other say contrary but that Christ flyeth vp into heauen so soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke Smith fol. 64. pag. 65. lin 2. 25. He sayth that no creature can eate the body of Christ but onely man pag. 66. lin 30. Other say cleane contrary He saith that an vnrepentaunt sinner receauyng the Sacrament hath not Christes body nor spirite within him pag. 225. lin 36. Smith saith that he hath Christes body and spirite within him fol. 136. He sayth that of the figure it may not be said Adore it worship it that is not to be Adored which the bodily eye seeth pag. 178. lin 40. pag. 239 lin 32. Marcus Antonius fol. 176. fa. 2. Smith sayth contrary fol. 145. fa. 2. He sayth that reason will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well inough pag. 264. lin 47. Smith sayth that Transubstantiation is agaynst reason and naturall operation fol. 60. Other say that wormes in the Sacrament be gendred of accidences He sayth that the be wrong borne in hand to say so pag. 355. lin 3. He sayth that the accidences of bread and wine do mould sowre and waxe vineger pag. 265. lin 11. 355. lin 8. And Marcus fol. 168. fa. 1. Smith sayth thus I say that the consecrated wine turneth not into vineger nor the consecrated bread mouleth nor engendreth wormes nor is burned nor receiueth into it any poyson as long as Christes body bloud are vnder the formes of them which do abide there so long as the naturall qualities properties of bread wine tary there in their naturall disposition and condition that the bread and wine might be naturally there if they had not bene chaunged into Christes body and bloud and also as long as the hoste and consecrated wine are apt to be receiued of man and no longer but goe and depart thence by Gods power as it pleaseth hym And then a new substaunce is made of God which turneth into vineger engendreth wormes mouleth is burned feedeth men and myse receiueth poyson c. fol. 64. 105. He sayth euery yea conteineth a nay in it naturally so as who soeuer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine For in the rule of common reason the graunt of one substaunce is the deniall of an other And therfore reason hath these conclusions throughly what soeuer is bread is no wyne what soeuer is wine is no milke c. So Christ saying This is my body sayth it no bread pag. 256. lin 38. pag. 265. lin 5. Smith sayth a boye which hath onely learned the Sophistry will not dispute so fondly fol. 77. Other say that the Masse is a sacrifice satisfactory by deuotion of the Priest and not by the thyng that is offered He sayth otherwise pag. 80. lin 43. He saith that the onely immolation 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. 437. lin 1.2 31. Smith sayth what
the spirite doe onely blesse or say well how shall he that occupieth the place of a priuate person say Amen to thy thanksgeuing for he perceiueth not what thou sayth Thou doost geue thankes well but the other is not edifie◠And not onely the ciuill law and all other writers a thousand and fiue hundred yeares cōtinually together haue expounded S. Paule not of preaching onely but of other Seruice sayd in the church but reason also geueth the same that if men be commaunded to heare any thing it must be spoken in a language which the hearers vnderstād or els as S. Paule sayth what auayleth it to heare So that the pope geuing a contrary commaundement that the people comming to the church shall heare they wer not what and aunswere they know not whereto taketh vpon him to commaunde not onely agaynst reason but also directly agaynst God And agayne I sayd whereas one sauiour Christ ordayned the Sacrament of his moste precious body and bloud to be receiued of all Christian people vnder the formes both of bread and wine and sayd of the cup drinke ye all of this the Pope geueth a cleane contrary commaundement that no lay man shall drinke of the cup of their saluation as though the cup of Saluation by the bloud of Christ pertayneth not to lay men And wherefore as Theophilus Alexandrinus whose works S. Hierome did translate about eleuē hundred yeares passed sayth that if Christ had bene crucified for the Deuils his cup should not be denied them yet the Pope denieth the cup of Christ to christen people for whome Christ was crucified so that if I should obay the Pope in these thinges I must needes disobay my sauior Christ. But I was aūswered hereto as commonly the Papistes do aūswere that vnder the forme of bread is whole Christs flesh and bloud so that whosoeuer receiueth the forme of bread receiueth aswell christes bloud as his flesh Let it be so yet in the forme of breade onely Christs bloud is not drunken but eaten nor receiued in the cup vnder forme of wine as Christ commaunded but eaten with the flesh vnder forme of bread and moreouer the bread is not the sacrament of his bloud but of his flesh only nor the cup is not the sacramēt of his flesh but of his bloud onely and so the pope keepeth from all lay persons the sacrament of their redemption by Christes bloud which Christ commaunded to geue vnto thē And furthermore Christ ordayned the sacrament in two kindes the one seperated from the other to be a representation of his death where his bloud was separated from his flesh which is not represented in one kind alone so that lay people receiue not the whole sacrament whereby Christes death is represented as he commaunded Moreouer as the pope taketh vpon him to geue the temporall sword or royall and imperiall power to kinges and princes so doth he likewise take vpon him to depose them frō their imperiall states if they be disobedient to him and commaundeth the subiectes to disobay their princes assoyling the subiects aswell of their obedience as of their lawfull othes made vnto their true Kinges and princes directly contrary to Gods commaundement who commaundeth all subiectes to obay their kinges or other rulers vnder them One Iohn Patriarche of Constātinople in the time of S. Gregory claymed superiority aboue all other bishops to whom S. Gregory writeth that therein he did iniury to his iii. brethren which were equall with him that is to say the bishop of Rome of Alexandria and of Antiochia which iii. were Patriarchall seas aswell as Constantinople and were brethren one to an other But sayth S. Gregory if any one shall exalt himselfe aboue all the rest to be the vniuersall Byshop the same passeth in pride but now the bishop of Rome exalteth himselfe not onely aboue all Byshops but also aboue all Kinges and Emperours and aboue the whole world taking vpon him to geue and take away to set vp and put downe as he shall thinke good And as the deuill hauing no such authority yet tooke vpon him to geue vnto Christ all the kingdomes of the world if he would fall down and worship him in like manner the Pope taketh vpon him to geue Empyres and Kingdomes being none of his to such as will fall downe and worship him and kisse his feete And moreouer his Lawyers and glosers so flatter him that they say he may commaund Emperours and Kinges to hold his stirrop when he lighteth vpon his horse and to be his footemen and that if any Emperour or King geue him any thing they geue him nothing but that is his owne and that he may dispense agaynst Gods word against the old and new Testament agaynst S. Paules Epistles and agaynst the Gospell And furthermore whatsouer he doth although he draw innumerable people by heapes with himselfe into hell yet may no mortall mā reproue him because he being iudge of all men may be iudged of no man and thus he sitteth in the temple of God as he were a God and nameth himselfe Gods Uicar and yet be dispenseth agaynst God If this be not to play Antichristes part I cānot tell what is Antichrist which is no more to say but Christs enemy and aduersary who shall sit in the temple of God aduauncyng himselfe aboue all other yet by hipocrisy and fayned Religion shall subuert the true Religion of Christ and vnder pretense and colour of Christian religion shall worke agaynst Christ and therefore hath the name of Antichrist Now if any man lift him selfe higher then the Pope hath done who lifteth him selfe aboue all the world or can bee more aduersary to Christ then to dispense agaynst Gods lawes and where Christ hath geuen any commaundement to cōmaunde directly the contrary that man must needes be taken for Antichrist But vntill the tyme that such a person may bee founde men may easly coniecture where to finde Antichrist wherefore seyng the Pope thus to ouerthrow both Gods lawes and mans lawes taketh vppon him to make Emperours and Kyngs to be vassals and subiectes vnto him specially the crowne of this Realme with the lawes and customes of the same I see no meane how I may cōsent to admit this vsurped power within this Realme contrary to myne othe myne obedience to Gods law myne allegeaunce and duetie to your Maiestie and my loue and affection to this Realme This that I haue spokē agaynst the power authoritie of the Pope I haue not spokē I take God to record and iudge for any malice I owe to the Popes person whom I know not but I shall pray to God to geue him grace that he may seeke aboue all thynges to promote Gods honour and glory and not to follow the trade of his predecessours in these latter dayes nor I haue not spoken it for feare of punishmēt and to auoyde the same thinkyng it rather an occasion to aggrauate then to diminish my trouble but I
catholica firmiter paragrapho vna The second is of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament De coÌ„secra dist 1. Ego Beâ—eng Lege Roffen contra Oerol in proaemio lib. 3. corroborat 5. Christ is not corporally in earth Iohn 6. Math. 26. Mark 24. Actes 3. Coloss. 3. 1. Cor. 11. The third is that euill men eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. The fourth is of the dayly sacrifice of Christ. Ibacuk 2. D. Smith Some say that Christ in naturally in the sament A manifest falshoode in the printing of the Byshoppes booke Some say that Christ is rent and torne with teeth in the sacrament Why the order of my booke was changed by the Bishop Untrue report The teaching hetherto euen at this day of the church of England agreeth with that this author calleth papistes Crafty conueiance of spech by this Author Worthy receauing of Christs precious body bloud 1. Cor. 6. A difference should be of contraries Chap. 1. The presence of Christ in the sacrament Christ corporally is ascended into heauen Act. 3. Cap. 2. The difference betwene the true and papisticall doctrine concerning the preseÌ„ce of Christes body The first coÌ„parison Misreport of bread and wine for the formes figures of them Smyth Tee booke of common prayer The secoÌ„d part The difference Repugnaunce The 1. comparison I sect reproued that were called Stercoranists The booke of common prayer That the Papiste say that Christ goâ— in no â—â—rther theÌ„ the mouth or stomacke Thomas Bonauentura Read Smith Fol. 64 Hugo Innocentius 3 li. ca. 25. The secoÌ„d part Innocent 3. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. whether Christ be receaued in the mouth The difference August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. Iohn 13. 1. Cor. 10. The fourth comparyson Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Christ is the body of all the figures Really that is in deede Cyrillus ad Calosyrium episcopum Hesychius in Leuit. li 3. ca. 3. Christ beyng present in the sacrament is at the same tyme present in heauen Truely Really Substantially Augustin Psal. 33. What is found in a blind glose may not be takeÌ„ for the teaching of the church yet I neuer red of flyng It is in man daÌ„gerous to affirme or deny extreamyties although they be be true for it maketh him suspect of presumtion How long christ taryeth with the receyuour of the sacrament Metonymia The Fathers in the old law receiued the same things in their sacrameÌ„ts that we do in ours Reseruation Cyrill Hesichius De consecrat d. 2. Tribus gradibus The benefite comfort in this sacrament Iohn 5. The maner of presence Math. 18. Math. 6. The comparisoÌ„ The 5. comparison Pugnat cum alijs Papistis What is receued of all christen meÌ„ hath therein a manifest token in truth It is a folly to answere a corious demaunder Quintus Curtius maketh mention of this faith of Alexander Fath of God his work can not by mans deuise haue any qualification Sabellians Arrians Bernard super Cant. ser. 31. It is good at al times to coÌ„uert from error to truth 1. Tim. 1. The booke of common praier The Papists say that whole Christ is in euery part of the coÌ„secrated bread Thomas 3. part sum q. 76. art 3. Innocentius 3. lib. 4. cap. 8. A subtil sleight Wanton reason True christian men A Dialog What is to be wondered at in the SacrameÌ„t Sabellius Arrius The contrary hereof is noted for a doctrine Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Whether a bird or â—east eat the body of Christ. Lib. 4. distinct 13. In erroribus fol 134. b. Vide Marcum Constantium fol. 72. obiect 94. Thomas 3. part sum q. 80. art 3. Peryn A demurre vpoÌ„ this Issue August contra litteras Pe til lib. 20. Marcus constaÌ„tius dicit quod Ethnici ideÌ„ fortasse sumunt quod bruti i. sacrameÌ„tumtantuÌ„ The word very may make wrangling A demurre whether euill men eat the body of Christ. Iohn 6. 1. Cor. 11. August contra lit Petil. li. 2. cap 37. Truthes fained frends Very August in Ioh. tra 59. Smyth The 8. comparison 3. Manner of eatinges Cause of error Gods promises annexed to his Sacraments We must in teaching exalt the Sacraments after their dignity 3. Manner of eatinges True sacrameÌ„tall eating 1. Cor. 11. Whether Christ be really eaten without the sacrament The comparisoÌ„ Really Smyth Christes body is vnderstanded of his humanity I meruailous saying of this â—â— ther without Scripture Christ in thinstitution of the Sacrament spake of his humanity saying This is my body Phil. 4. There Note this contrariety in the Author The coÌ„parison Theodoret. dialog 1. D. Smith Whether in the Sacrament Christes body hath his proper forme and quantity D. Smith Iohn 16. Mark 16 Luke 24. â—Act 1. All. There A riddle may coÌ„taine truth of nay and pea being in appearaÌ„ce two contraries Augustinus I speciall difference in S. Augustine â—â—ne of Kentes 〈◊〉 Nouelty of speech The fathers did eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud The diuersitie of the sacrameÌ„ts of the new and olde testament August in Ioan. Tract 26. The Fathers did eate Christs body and drinke his bloud before he was borne 1. Cor. 10. August de vtil paeniten August in psal 77. August in IoaÌ„ Tract 26. August contra Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. 20. cap 21. August in psal 73. Iohn 1. August de fide ad Pet. cap. 19. Bertram Smyth Ione of Kent The 11. comparison The booke of common prayer in this Realme Christes body in the sacrament is not made of the matter of bread The booke of common prayer Prouerb 23. Rom. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Cor. 2. Iac. 8. Esay 1. Math. 22. 1. Pet. 2. Iohn 11. Domin 3. post Trin. Secret Muneram libidinem quibus oblata sanctifica vt tui nobis vnigeniti corpus saÌ„guis fiant ad medelaÌ„ Whether the body of Christ be made of bread Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Making by conuersion Gen. 2. Iohn 2. D. Smith Christ is our satisfaction How Christ satisfied Christes wiâ—â— Christes once offering Phil. 1. Rom. 12. Truthes linked together Emissenus Christ is the inuisible priest 1. Cor. 4. Errors One offering of Christ not many 1. Iohn 2. Mala. 1. Errors The whole church by the minister the priest offereth Christ present as a sacrifice propitiatory wherin is shewed our Lords death Iacob 5. Whether the Masse be satisfactory by the deuotioÌ„ of the priest Thom. part 3. qâ— 79. art 5. Ioh. 11. The declaration of Christes will to die was not a sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Heb. 11. * Math. 5. Gen. 22. 2. Reg. 12. Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iohn 2. Iohn 6. Iohn 10. Heb. 2. Rom. 6. Heb. 7. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 3. Heb. 9. Ibidem Phil. 2. Cyprianus lib. 2. epi. 3. August ad Bonifacium epist. 23. Heb. 10. 1. Cor. 11. A chaine of errours Malac. 14. Esay 53. Heb.
7. The 13. comparyson Really substaÌ„tially truely corporally Maner of presence The true simple docerme of the presence of Christs body in the sacraments Gods mâ—steries cannot be throrowly 〈◊〉 by similitudes Bucerus Bucerus in Mat. cap. 26. August serm de tempore 159. A concord in the spirituall presence The presence of the Sonne M. Bucerâ— Gal. 3. Thre partes made of two The true mother of the childe Cap. 3. Christ corporally is in heauen not in earth The proofe thereof by our profession in our commune Creede Cap. 4. The profe herof by the scripture Ioh. 16. Mat. 16. Mat. 24. Mar. vl Colos. 3. Heb. 8. Heb. 10. Cap. 5. The proofe thereof by auncient authors Origen in Nath. ho. 33. August ad Dar. dan. epist. 57. In Iohan. Tract 30. Tracta 50. De essentia diuinitatis Cyrillus in Iohan. li. 6 cap. 14. Libro 6. cap. 11. Ambrosius in Lucam li. 12. ca. 24. Gregorius in Ho. Paschatis Chap. 6. One body can not be in diuers places at one tyme. Ad Dardanum Cyrillus de Trin. li. 2. Didymus de spiritu sancto li. 1. c. 1. Basilius de spiritu sancto ca. 22 Fulgentius ad Trasimundum Regem li. 2. Vigilius contra EutyccheÌ„ lib. 1. Iohn 14. Iohn 16. Actu 1. Math. vl Contra EuticeÌ„ lib. 4. Christ ascentioÌ„ the end of his conuersation in earth sleight A sleight to auoyd aunswering Smith Origen Augustin Smithes vaine distinction How both these sayinges may be true that Christ is with vs and also gone from vs. The sume of thold authors wryting in this matter Cap. 7. An aunswere to the Papists alleaging for them these wordes This is my body The argumet of the Papists The aunswere The interpretation of these wordes This is my bodye Chap. 8. Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud Ireneus contra Valent. lib. 4. ca 32. cap. 34. cap. 57. Lib. 5. Turtulli aduersus Iudaeos Cyprian ad Magnum lib. â— epist. 6. Epiphan in Ancoprato Hiero ad Hedibiam Augu de trin lib. 3. cap. 4. De verbis apostol 〈◊〉 Cyâ—ill in Ioanne lib. 4. 〈…〉 Rom. 4. Chrisost. in epist a. Ro. cap. 4. Tertulian aduersus Marnonem lib. 4. Ciprianus de cena Domini An issue Another sleight Rom. 4. Whether Christes calling be making Ioh. 15. Ioh. 19. Ioh. 15. Mat. 16. Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Whether bread be called Christes body Conuersion 2. maner of waiess Iohn 2. Christes body made of bread Iohn 1. Whether Christ called bread his body Smyth Mine Issue Smyth Math. 14. Marc. 6. Luc. 9. Iohn 6. Smith Cap. 9. Bread to my body Wyne to my bloud be figuratiue speaches Cha. 10. To eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud be figuratiue speaches 1. Cor. 20. The eating of Christes body is not with teeth Luk. 19. Iohn 6. Nycolas the second De consecr dist 2. Ego Origen in Leuit Ho 7. Iohn 6. Origenes Chrisostome in IohaÌ„nem Hom. 46. Chrisostome Augustine de doctrina Christ. li. 3. De catech rudi ca. 26. Contra aduersar legis Prophe li. 2. ca. 9. Augustinus Contrary Iohn 6. August de verbis domini serm 33. In Io. tract 25. Cha. 11. This is my body this is my bloud be figuratiue speaches The bread representeth Christes body and the wine his bloud Tertulianus contra Martionem Lib. 1. Tertulianus The author had left out the same Tertullian saith not an only figure Ciprianus lib. 2. Epistola 3. De vnctionâ— Chrismati Chris in Psa. 22 Iero. in Mat. 26. Ambros de his qui misterijs initiantur cap. vlt. De sacramentis lib. 6. cap. 3. Lib. 4. cap. 4. Lib. 4. cap. 5. 1. Cor. 15. Signes and figures haue the names of the thinges which they signify Cyprianus Chrysostom Hieronym Ambrosius No author sayth an onely figure Hjeronimus Represent Really Augustimus ad Bonefacium Episto 23. Super LeuiticuÌ„ quest 15. Leuit. 57. Gen. 41. 1. Cor. 10. Contra adamantium cap. 12. Leuit. 17. Math. 16. Contra Maximinum li. 3. cap. 22 In lib. sententiarum Prosperi de consecrat dist 2 Hoc est Bucerus Authors for doctrine should be red where they expound the matter without contention M. Bucer The trew presense of Christ. Really Albertus Pighius Theodoretus in dialogis In the first dialogue Iohn 12. Math. 16. Mark 14. Luc. 22. Ioh. 15. Ioh 12. Math. 16. Ioh. 15. Gen. 46. Ioh. 6. Dial. 20 Christes body glorified hath his forme bignes and quantitie Act. 17. Act. 1. Math. 24. Theodoretus P. Marter Adoration of the sacrament Apo. 13. Psal. 83. 2. Pet. 3. Augustus de doct Christ. li. 3. cap. 9. Chap. 12. Figuratiue speches be not strange 2. Re. 4. 2. Re. 7. Christ himselfe vsed figuratiue speches Mat. 13. a Mat. 11. 17. b Iohn 16. c Iohn 6. d Iohn 15. e Math. 3. f Iohn 4. g Iohn 6. h Iohn 10. i Math. 15. k Iohn 10. l Iohn 6. Math. 12 Iohn 4. Qui biberet ex aqua quam ego dabo c. IbideÌ„ Ego cibuÌ„ habeo manducare queÌ„ vos nescitis Act. 1. Math. 3. Ioh. 4. Iohn 4. Rom. 6. Gala. 3. The Pascall Lambe The Lords supper Math. 26. 1 Cor. 11 Exod. 12. Math. 26. What figuratiue speaches were vsed at Christes last supper Math 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. Melancthon The speech in scripture wher God commandeth or ordereth is spiritually to be considered Figuratiue spech by custom made proper Cap. 15. Answere to the authorities and arguments of the Papists Cap. 14. One brief answere to all Really Carnally Corporally August de ciuitaâ— dei Gregor Nazianzen de baptismo Now Christ may be sayd to be corporally carnally in heauen Christ is present in the sacrament as he is in heauen Really Carnally and corporally Grossely Augustinus Nazianzenus Phil. 3. whether christ be in heaueÌ„ but after a spiritual manner An issue Figuratiuely Cap. 15. The answere to Clement Episto 2. Clement Iustin. apol 2. Cyrillus ad Calosyrium Linnehood wrot a commet of the constitutions prouinceall of England Peter Martyr A marueilous spech of Peter Martyr vnles he be a sacrameÌ„tary and theÌ„ he speaketh like himselfe An issue Act. 6. 1. Cor. 10. 1 Tim. 3. Clements epistles fayned Apoc. 2. Clement spake of bread Calling of bread is materiall Of reseruation Receiuing with feare and trembling Aug. 50. homiliarum hom 26. The causes of feare trembling Math. 8. Luc. 5. The people receyued with the priestes The Paschall Lamb. 〈◊〉 aduersus Iouinianum lib. 1. Minâ— issue Bare significacions Ignatius in episto ad Ephesianos Irenaeus lib 5. contra Valentin Ignatius Irenaeus Philip. Melanct Theodoret. Dialogo 3. Sleight Irene Why bread is called Christes body and wine his bloud Smyth Ephe. 5. Ephe. 1. and 4. Coloss. 1. 1. Cor. 15. Peter Martyr The aunswere to Dionysius de eccles Hierarch cap. 3. Dionysius Chrisostomus de Sacerdo li. 3. Really and sensybly be not fouÌ„d in any old author Smyth Holines in the sacraments Christ in our hands Augustinus de verbis domini sermone
but to be often remeÌ„bred The body and bloud of Christ is the onely sacrifice propritiatory for all the sinnes of the world Christes body is the christen mans sacrifice An issue De sacrificio lege Roffen Oecol lib. 3. cap. 2. 3. The sacrifice propitiatory not christes very body but hys death in that same body Chap. 1. The sacrifice of the Masse Chap. 2. Heb. 9. The difference betwene the sacrifice of Christ of the priestes of the old lawe Heb. 10. Heb. 7. Chap. 3. Two kindes of sacrifices The sacrifice of Christ. The sacrifices of the Church Psal. 50. 1. Pet. 2. Heb. 13. Chap. 4. A more playne declaration of the sacrifice of Christ. Heb. 8. Chap. 5. The sacrifice of the old law Heb. 9. Chap. 6. The Masse is not a sacrifice propitiatory Heb. 7. Heb. 8. Chap. 7. A confutatioÌ„ of the Papistes cauillation Chap. 8. The true sacrifice of all Christen people Galath 5. Chap. 5. The Popish Masse is detestable idolatry vtterly to be vanished from all christen congregations Cap. 10. Euery manne ought to receiue the sacrament himself and not one for an other Acc. 2. Math. 26. Cap. 11. The difference betwene the priest the lay man Chap. 12. The aunswere to the Papists Heb. 5. Malac. 1. Chap. 13. An aunswere to the Authours Augustinus ad Bonifa De Ciuita Lib. 10. cap. 5. Lombardus Lib. 4. Dist. 12. Chrisostom ad Heb. Hom. 17. Chap. 14. The lay persons make a sacrifice as well as the Priest Chap. 15. The Papisticall Masse is neither a sacrifice propitiatory nor of thaÌ„ks geuyng Luke 16. Chap. 16. There was no Papisticall Masses in the Primitiue Church Consilium Nicenum cap. 14. Canones Apostolorum cap. 8. Chap. 17. The caused meanes howe Papisticall Masses entred into the church The abuses of the Papisticall Masses Chap. 18 which Church is to be folowed A short instruction to the holy CommunioÌ„ Myne Issue Nicene counsell Priestes sacrificers An issue Iohn 1. De conse dist 2. cap. Semel est prosperj Semel Immolatus c. christus in semetipso tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento glosa ibidem id est eius immolatio representatur fit memoria passionis Gal. 3. Petrus Lombardus Immolatur 71 ante The diuersity of Christes sacrifice and ours The sacrifice of Christ. Heb. 7.8 Heb. 7.8 The sacrifice of the church Actes 1. Ephe. 4. Penaunce The Masse is a sacrifice propitiatory Good woorkes sacrifices propitiatory The Masse is a sacrifice satisfactory Rome 3. 1. Iohn 2. The difference betwene a sacrifice propitiatory gratificatory Psal. 49. Heb. 13. Rom. 3. 5. Actes 4. Satisfactory Masses Priestes in the Mas offer that is shewed forth Christes death Heb. 7. Christ is offred really not his sacrifice remembred or represented onely The effect of Christes sacrifice is both to geue life and to continue the same Ihon. 10. Gala. 2. Cyril in Ephesine counsell What is and wherin staÌ„deth the sacrifice of the church The sacrifice of the church geueth life Cyrill Mala. 1. Inconstancy Falshood feareth the light but light desireth to be tryed Fayth ought to be grounded vp on Gods word but the Papists ground their faith vpon them selues Ephesine couÌ„cell Cyrill the author of the words in the counsell Smith beleueth the counsell Smith belieth me twise in one place The first lye The second ly Smith sayth that Christ called not bread his body Luke 12. 1. Cor. 10. Setting of the cart before the Horses Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11. Of the woÌ„derfull workes of God Iohn 6. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. The place of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. Master Peter Martyr 1. Cor. 13. The ArgumeÌ„t of the doore and Sepulchre Math. 28. Mar. 16. Iohn 20. Actes 5. The appearyng of Christ in his Ascention Actes 13. S. Augustine Math. 3. 17. Actes 7. The Church The true fayth was in the Church froÌ„ the begynnyng and was not taught first by Berengarius What Churche it is that caÌ„ not erre Sâ—p 5. Psal. 7. 2. Ti. 2. â— Tim. 3. Luke 12. Gene. 7. Gene. 12. Eccle. 49. 3. Reg. 19. Iere. 25. and. 29 Act. 14. Math. 13. Math. 26. Mar. 24. 3. Reg. 19. Contrary in this deuils sophistry 27. 70. Contrary in the deuils sophistry 5. Falsa Falsum Falsum Falsum Nota. Concessum Concessum Concessum Sacramenta in signis fuerunt diuersa si in re paria Nota. Concessum etiaÌ„ Concessum Concessum ConcessuÌ„ etiam Concessum Concessum The kyng and Queene make themselues no better then subiectes in complaining of their owne subiect to an outwarde iudge as thogh they had no power to punishe him The first cause why hee would not make aunswere to the Popes Commissary is to auoyde periury The second cause is for that the Popes lawes are contrary to the crowne and lawes of England The Othe of the Kyng and Iustices and the duety of subiectes The Popes lawes and the lawes of England are contrary The Papistes to set vp a kingdome of their owne dissemble the knowne truth and are false to the crowne The third cause why he could not allow the Pope The Popes Religion is against Christes Religion Why Latin seruice ought not to be restored in English 1. Cor. 14. The Pope coÌ„maundeth both agaynst God naturall reason The Sacrament ought to be receaued in both kyndes of all Christians The deuill and the Pope are like The Pope is Antichrist that is Christs enemy Wherfore the Pope is Antichrist Luke 12. Math. 10. The Sacraments haue the names of those thinges wherof they are Samentes The Papistes make Christ two bodyes They put to hym three questions but they suffred him not to aunswere fully in one Behold SathaÌ„ sleepeth not Their cruell desire to reueÌ„ge could abide no delay This was D. Thornton afterward a cruell murderer of Gods Saints of whose horrible end read in the booke of Martyrs in the last Edition Fol. 1990. Col. 1. This ConstaÌ„tius was Stephen Gardiner as constant in deede as a wethercocke who thus named him selfe writyng agaynst this good Father Math. 3. Iohn 4. Math. 5. 1. Cor. 2.
water And when the rodde was tourned into a serpent and water into bloud the earth into a man and his ribbe into a woman Were not the woman man bloud and serpent made of the matter of the ribbe the earth the water and the rodde And is not euery thing made of that which is tourned into it As bread is made of Corne wine of grapes beare of water hoppes and mault and so of all thinges like And when you haue confessed your selues so many yeares passed that Christ is made of bread in the sacrament what moueth you now to say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread except that eyther you will say that the priest doth it and not Christ which were an intollerable blaspheme or that the truth is of such a nature that euen the very aduersaries therof sometime vnwares acknowledge it or els that force of argumentes constrayneth you to confesse the truth agaynst your will whē you see none other shift to escape But if you take vpon you to defend the receaued doctrine of the Papistes you must affirme that doctrine which they affirme and say that bread in the Sacrament is the matter wherof Christes body is made wherof must than nedes follow ex consequenti that he hath from tyme to tyme a new body made of new bread besides the body which was incarnated and neuer but once made nor of none other substaunce but of his mother So that it is but a vayne cauilation onely to elude simple people or to shift of the matter to say as you do that Christ is not made of the breade but is made to be present there For than should he haue sayd There is my body and not This is my body And to be present requireth no new making but to be present by conuersion requireth a new making As the wine that was bought at the mariage in the Cane of Galilee if there were any such was present without conuertion and so without new making but the wine that was made of water was present by conuertion which could not be without new making And so must Christes body be newly made if it be present by corporall conuertion of the substaunce of bread into the substaunce of it And now I referre to euery indifferent reader to iudge betwene vs both which of vs is most snarled Now let vs examine the other authors following in my booke And the same is to be aunswered vnto all that the aduersaries bring of S. Augustine Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus Gregorius and other concerning the eating of Christ in the Sacrament Which thing can not be vnderstanded playnly as the wordes sound but figuratiuely and spiritually as before is sufficiently proued and hereafter shal be more fully declared in the fourth parte of this booke Winchester Bicause this author who hitherto hath answered none substancially would neuerthelesse be seene to aunswer all he windeth vp sixe of them in one fardell S. Augustine Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus and Gregorius and dispatcheth them all with an ut supra and among them I think he would haue knitte vp all the rest of the learned men of all ages amonges whome I know none that write as this Author doth of the Sacrament or impugneth the Catholique fayth as this author doth by the enuious name of Papistes Sence Christes time there is no memory more than of sixe that haue affirmed that doctrine which this author would haue called now the Catholike doctrine and yet not writtē by them of one sorte neither receiued in beleefe in publique profession But secretly when it hapned begunne by conspiration and in the ende euer hitherto extincte and quenched First was Bertrame then Berengarius then Wicleffe and in our time Decolampadius Zwinglius and Ioachimus Uadianus I will not recken Peter Martir bicause such as know him sayth he is not learned nor this author bycause he doth but as it were translate Peter Martir sauing he roueth at solutions as liketh his phantasie as I haue before declared Whyche mater being thus it is a strange title of this Booke to call it the trewe Catholique doctrine Caunterbury ALl that you haue these many yeres gathered togither for your purpose or that can be gathered may be well trussed vp in a very small fardell and very easely borne and caried away For any weight that is therin For your doinges bee like to him that would fayne seme to haue some thing and hauing nothing els filleth a great male full of strawe that men should thynke he caried some thing where indeed a litle bouget had ben sufficient for so much in value And as for your owne doctrine it is so straunge that neither it agreeth with the scripture nor with the old catholike churche nor yet with the later church or congregation of the Papistes but you stand poste alone after the fall of the Papisticall doctrine as sometime an old poste standeth when the building is ouerthrowen And where you say that since Christes tyme there is no mo but syxe that haue affirmed the doctrine that I haue taught all that haue been learned and haue redde the olde authors of the catholike church may euidently see the contrary That sithens Christes tyme the doctrine of my booke was euer the catholike and publike receaued fayth of the church vntill Nicholas the secondes tyme who cōpelled Berengarius to make such a deuilish recantation that the papistes thē selues be now ashamed of it And since that tyme haue many thousandes been cruelly persecuted onely for the profession of the true fayth For no maune myght speake one worde agaynst the byshope of Romes determination herein but he was taken for an heretike and so condemned as Wiclieffe Husse and an infinite numbre mo And as for Bertram he was neuer before this tyme detected of any errour that euer I redde but onely now by you For all other that haue written of him haue spoken much to his commendation and prayse But I know what the matter is he hath written against your mynde which is a fault and errour great inough As for Doctour Peter Martyr he is of age to aunswer for him selfe but concerning him that told you that he was not learned I would wish you to leaue this olde rooted fault in you to be light of credite For I suppose that if his lernyng that tolde you that lye and yours also wer set both togither you should be farre behind Master Peter Martyr Marye in wordes I think that you alone would ouerlay two Peter Martyrs he is so sobre a man and delighteth not in wasting of wordes in vayne And none do say that he is not lerned but such as know hym not or be not lerned themselues or els be so malicious or enuious that they wittingly speake agaynst theyr owne consciēce And no doubt that man bringeth hym selfe out of the estimation of a learned man which hath heard him reason and reade and sayth that he is