backe the people that were ready to depart to Prayers Brethren sayd hee lest any man should doubt of this mans earnest conuersion and repentaunce you shall heare him speake before you and therfore I pray you Maister Cranmer that you will now performe that you promised not long agoe namely that you would openly expresse the true and vndoubted profession of your fayth that you may take away all suspition from men and that all men may vnderstand that you are a Catholicke in déede I will do it sayd the Archbyshop and with a good will who by and by rising vp and putting of his cap began to speake thus vnto the people I desire you well beloued brethren in the Lord that you will pray to God for me to forgeue me my sinnes which aboue all men both in number and greatnes I haue committed but among all the rest there is one offence whiche of all at this tyme doth vexe and trouble me wherof in processe of my talke you shall heare more in his proper place and then puttyng his hand into his bosome he drew forth his Prayer whiche he recited to the people in this sense ¶ The Prayer of Doct. Cranmer Archb. of Cant. at his death GOod Christen people my dearely beloued brethren and sisters in Christ I beséech you most hartely to pray for me to almightie God that he will forgeue me all my sinnes and offēces which be many without number and great aboue measure But yet one thyng gréeueth my conscience more then all the rest wherof God willyng I entend to speake more hereafter But how great and how many soeuer my sinnes be I beséech you to pray God of his mercy to pardon and forgeue them all And here knéelyng downe he sayd O Father of heauen O Sonne of God redeemer of the world O holy Ghost three persons and one God haue mercy vpon me most wretched caitiffe and miserable sinner I haue offended both against heauen and earth more then my toung can expresse Whether then may I goe or whether should I flye To heauen I may be ashamed to lift vp myne eyes and in earth I finde no place of refuge or succour To thee therfore O Lord do Irunne to thee do I humble my selfe saying O Lord my God my sinnes be great but yet haue mercy vpon me for thy great mercy The great mistery that God became mā was not wrought for litle or few offēces Thou diddest nor geue thy sonne O heauenly Father vnto death for small sinnes onely but for all the greatest sinnes of the world so that the sinner returne to thee with his whole hart as I do here at this present Wherfore haue mercy on me O God whose property is alwayes to haue mercy haue mercy vpon me O Lord for thy great mercy I craue nothyng O Lord for myne owne merites but for thy names sake that it may be halowed thereby and for thy deare sonne Iesus Christ sake And now therfore our Father of heauen halowed by thy name c. And then he rising sayd Euery man good people desireth at that tyme of their death to geue some good exhortation that other may remember the same before their death and be the better thereby so I beseech God graunt me grace that I may speake some thyng at this my departyng whereby God may bee glorified and you edified First it is an heauie case to see that so many folke be so much doted vpon the loue of this false world and so carefull for it that of the loue of God or the world to come they seeme to care very litle or nothyng Therefore this shal be my first exhortation that you set not your myndes ouer much vpon this glosing world but vpon God and vpon the world to come and to learne to know what this lesson meaneth whiche S. Iohn teacheth That the loue of this world is hatred agaynst God The second exhortation is that next vnder God you obey your Kyng and Queene willingly and gladly without murmuryng or grudgyng not for feare of them onely but much more for the feare of God knowyng that they be Gods Ministers appointed by God to rule and gouerne you and therefore who soeuer resisteth them resisteth the ordinaunce of GOD. The third exhortation is that you loue altogether lyke brethren and sisters For alas pitie it is to see what cōtention and hatred one Christen man beareth to an other not takyng ech other as brother and sister but rather as straungers and mortall enemyes But I pray you learne and beare well away this one lesson to doe good vnto all men asmuch as in you lyeth to hurt no man no more then you would hurt your owne naturall louyng brother or sister For this you may be sure of that who soeuer hateth any person and goeth about maliciously to hinder or hurt him surely and without all doubt God is not with that mā although he thinke him selfe neuer so much in Gods fauour The fourth exhortation shal be to them that haue great substaunce and riches of this world that they will well consider and wey three sayinges of the Scripture One is of our Sauiour Christ him selfe who sayth It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen A sore saying and yet spoken of him that knoweth the truth The second is of S. Iohn whose saying is this He that hath the substaunce of this world and seeth his brother in necessitie and shutteth vp his mercy from him how can he say that he loueth God The thyrd is of S. Iames who speaketh to the couetous rich mā after this maner Weepe you and howle for the miserie that shall come vppon you your riches doe rotte your clothes be moth eaten your gold and siluer doth canker and rust and their rust shall beare witnesse agaynst you and consume you like fire you gather a horde or treasure of Gods indignation agaynst the last day Let them that be rich ponder well these three sentences for if euer they had occasion to shew their charitie they haue it now at this present the poore people beyng so many and victuals so deare The description of Doct. Cranmer how he was plucked downe from the stage by Friers and Papistes for the true Confession of his Fayth First I beleue in God the Father almightie maker of heauen and earth c. And I beleue euery Article of the Catholicke fayth euery word and sentence taught by our Sauiour Iesus Christ his Apostles and Prophetes in the new and old Testament And now I come to the great thyng that so much troubleth my conscience more thē any thyng that euer I did or sayd in my whole life and that is the settyng abroad of a writyng contrary to the truth which now here I renounce and refuse as thynges written with my hand contrary to the truth which I thought in my hart written for feare of
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
These be the wordes of Saynct Cyrill Sainct Ambrose also sayth that we must not seeke Christ vpon earth nor in earth but in heauen where he sitteth at the right hand of hys father And likewise saynct Gregory writeth thus Christ sayth he is not here by the presence of hys flesh and yet he is absent no where by the presence of hys Maiesty What subtilty thinkest thou good reader can the Papistes now imagin to defend their pernitious errour that Christ his humayn nature is bodyly here in earth in the consecrated bread and wine seeing that all the olde Churche of Christ beleued the contrary and all the old authors wrote the contrary For they all affirmed and beleued that Christ being but one person hath neuerthelesse in him two natures or substances that is to sav the nature of his Godhead and the nature of his manhood They saye furthermore that Christ is both gone hence from vs vnto heauen and is also here with vs in earth but not in his humaine nature as the Papistes would haue vs to beleue but the olde authors say that he is in heauen as concerning his manhode and neuertheles both here and there and euery where as concerning his Godhead For although his diuinitie be such that it is infinite without measure compasse or place so that as concerning that nature he is circumscribed with no place but is euery where and filleth all the worlde yet as concerning his humaine nature he hath measure compasse and place so that when he was here vpon earth he was not at the same tyme in heauen and now that he is ascended into heauen as concerning that nature he hath now forsaken the earth and is onely in heauen For one nature that is circūscribed cōpassed measured can not be in diuers places at one time That is the fayth of the old Catholick church as appeareth as well by the authors before rehearsed as by these that hereafter followeth Sainct Augustine speaking that a body must needes be in some place saith that yf it be not within the compasse of a place it is no where And yf it be no where than it is not And Sainct Cirill considering the proper nature of a very body sayd that yf the nature of the Godhead were a body it must needes be in a place and haue quantitie greatnesse and circumscription If than the nature of the Godhead must needes be circumscribed if it were a body much more must the nature of Christes manhood be circumscribed and contayned within the compasse of a certaine place Didimus also in his booke De spiritu sancto which Sainct Hierom did translate proueth that the holy Ghost is very God because he is in many places at one tyme which no creature can be For sayth he all creatures visible and inuisible be circumscribed and inuironed either within one place as corporall and visible thinges be or within the proprietie of their owne substance as aungels and inuisible creatures be so that no Angell sayth he can be at one tyme in two places And forasmuch as the holy ghost is in many men at one tyme therefore sayth he the holy ghost must needes be God The same affirmeth Sainct Basil That the Angell which was with Cornelius was not at the same tyme with Phillip nor the Angell which spake to Zachary in the altare was not the same tyme in his proper place in heauē But the holy Ghost was at one tyme in Abacuck and in Daniell in Babilon and with Ieremy in prison and with Ezechiell in Chober whereby he proueth that the holy ghost is God Wherefore the Papistes which say that the body of Christ is in an infinite number of places at one tyme doo make his body to be God and so confound the two natures of Christ attributing to his humain nature that thing which belōgeth onely to his diuinitie which is a most heinous detestable heresie Agaynst whome wryteth Fulgētius in this wise speaking of the distinction and diuersitie of the two natures in Christ. One and the selfe same Christ sayth he of mankinde was made a man compassed in a place who of his father is God without measure or place One and the selfe same person as concerning his mans substaunce was not in heauen whan he was in earth and for sooke the earth when he ascended into heauen but as concerning his godly substaunce which is aboue all measure he neyther left heauen when he came from heauen nor he left not the earth when he ascended into heauen which may be knowen by the most certain word of Christ himself who to shew the placing of his humanitie said to his disciples I ascend vp to my father and your father to my God and your God Also when he had sayd of Lazarus that he was dead he added saying I am glad for your sakes that you may beleeue for I was not there But to shew the vnmeasurable compasse of his diuinitie he sayd to his disciples behold I am with you alwayes vnto the worldes end Now how did he goe vp into heauen but because he is a very man conteined within a place Or how is he present with faithful people but because he is very God being without measure Of these words of Fulgentius it is declared most certainly that Christ is not here with vs in earth but by his Godhead and that his humanitie is in heauen onely and absent from vs. Yet the same is more plainly shewed if more plainly can be spoken by Vigilius a bishoppe and an holy martyr He writeth thus against the heretick Eutyches which denyed the humanitie of Christ holding opinion that he was only God and not man Whose error Vigilius confuting proueth that Christ had in him two natures ioyned together in one person the nature of his Godhead and the nature of his manhoode Thus he wryteth Christ sayd to his disciples if you loued me you would be glad for I go vnto my father And again he sayd It is expedient for you that I go for if I goe not the comforter shall not come vnto you And yet surely the eternall word of God the vertue of God the wisdome of God was euer with his Father and in his Father yea euen at the same time when he was with vs aud in vs. For whē he did mercifully dwell in this world he left not his habitation in heauen for he is euery where wholl with his Father equall in diuinitie whom no place can containe for the Sonne filleth all thinges and there is no place that lacketh the presence of his diuinitie From whence then and whether did he say he would goe Or how did he say that he went to his Father from whom doubtles he neuer departed But that to goe to his Father and from vs was to take from this world that nature which he receaued of vs. Thou seest therfore that it was the propertie of that nature to
be taken away and goe from vs which in the end of the world shall be rendered again to vs as the angels witnessed saying This Iesus which is taken from you shall come agayn like as you saw him going vp into heauen For looke vpon the miracle looke vpon the mistery of both the natnres the Sonne of God as cōcerning his humanitie went frō vs as concerning his diuinity he said vnto vs Behold I am with you all the dayes vnto the worldes end Thus farre haue I rehearsed the wordes of Vigilius and by and by he concludeth thus He is with vs and not with vs. For those whom he left and went from them as concerning his humanitie those he left not nor forsooke them not as touching his diuinitie For as touching the forme of a seruaunt which he tooke away from vs into heauen he is absent from vs but by the forme of God which goeth not from vs he is present with vs in earth and neuertheles both present and absent he is all one Christ. Hetherto you haue heard Vigilius speake that Christ as concerning his bodely presence and the nature of his manhode is gone from vs taken from vs is gone vp into heauē is not with vs hath left vs hath forsaken vs. But as concerning the other nature of his Deitie he is still with vs so that he is both with vs and not with vs with vs in the nature of his Deitye and not with vs in the nature of his humanity And yet more cleerely doth the same Vigilius declare the same thing in another place saying If the word and the flesh were both of one nature seeyng that the word is euery where why is not the flesh then euery where For when it was in earth then verely it was not in heauen and now when it is in heauen it is not surely in earth And it is so sure that it is not in earth that as concerning it we loke for him to come from heauen whom as concerning his eternall word we beleue to be with vs in earth Therefore by your doctrine saith Vigilius vnto Eutiches who defended that the diuinity and humanity in Christ was but one nature either the word is conteyned in a place with his flesh or els the flesh is euery where with the word For one nature cannot receiue in it selfe two diuers and contrary thinges But these two thinges be diuers and farre vnlike that is to say to be conteyned in a place aud to be euery where Therfore in as much as the word is euery where and the flesh is not euery where it appeareth plainly that one Christ himselfe hath in him two natures And that by his diuine nature he is euery where and by his humain nature he is contayned in a place that he is created and hath no beginning that he is subiect to death and cannot dy Wherof one he hath by the nature of his word wherby he is God and the other he hath hy the nature of his flesh wherby the same God is man also Therfore one sonne of God the selfe same was made the sonne of man and he hath a beginning by the nature of his flesh and no beginning by the nature of his Godhead He is created by the nature of his flesh and not created by the nature of his Godhead He is comprehended in a place by the nature of his flesh and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead He is inferior to angels in the nature of his flesh and is equall to his Father in the nature of his Godhead He dyed by the nature of his flesh and dyed not by the nature of his Godhead This is the faith and catholick confession which the Apostles taught the Martirs did corroborate and faithfull people keepe vnto this day Al these be the sayinges of Vigilius who according to al the other authors before rehearsed and to the faith and catholick confession of the Apostles Martyrs all faithfull people vnto his time saith that as concerning Christs humanitie when he was here on earth he was not in heauen and now when he is in heauen he is not in earth for one nature cannot be both conteined in a place in heauen and be also here in earth at one time And for as much as Christ is here with vs in earth and also is conteined in a place in heauen he proueth therby that Christ hath two natures in him the nature of a man wherby he is gone from vs and ascended into heauen and the nature of his Godhead wherby he is here with vs in earth So that it is not one nature that is here with vs and that is gone from vs that is ascended into heauen and there conteined and that is permanent here with vs in earth Wherfore the papists which now of late yeares haue made a new faith that Christes naturall body is really and naturally present both with vs both here in earth sitteth at the right hand of his Father in heauen doe erre in two very horrible heresies The one that they confound his two natures his Godhead and his Manhode attributing vnto his humanitie that thing which appertaineth onely to his diuinity that is to say to be in heauē earth and in many places at one time The other is that they deuide and seperate his humain nature or his body making of one body of Christ two bodies and two natures one which is in heauen visible and palpaple hauing all members and proportions of a most perfect naturall man and an other which they say is in earth here with vs in euery bread and wine that is consecrated hauing no distinction forme nor proportion of members which contrarieties and diuersities as this holy Martyr Vigilius saith cannot be together in one nature Winchester These differences end in the xlviii leafe in the second columne I entend now to touch the further matter of the booke with the manner of handlyng of it and where an euident vntruth is there to ioyne an issue and where sleight and craft is there to note it in the whole The matter of the book from thēce vnto the lvi leafe touching the being of Christ in heauen and not in earth is out of purpose superfluous The article of our Créed that Christ ascended to heauen and sitteth on the right hand of his father hath béene and is most constantly beleeued of true Christian men which the true fayth of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament doth not touch or empayre Nor Christ being whole God man in the Sacrament is therby eyther out of heauen or to be said conuersant in earth because the conuersation is not earthly but spirituall and godly being the ascention of Christ the end of his cōuersation in earth and therefore al that reasoning of the author is clearely voyde to trauayle to proue that is not denyed onely for a sleyght to make it seeme as though it were denyed Caunterbury HEre
is such a sleight vsed by you as is worthy to be noted of all men For I goe not onely about to proue in this place onely that Christ as concerning his humain nature is in heauē which I know you deny not but I proue also that he is so in heauen that he is not in earth which you vtterly deny and it is the chiefe point in contention betwene vs. But by this crafte of appeaching me of sleight that I goe about to proue that thing which you deny not which is vntrue you haue vsed such a sleight that you passe ouer 8. leaues of my booke together wherin I proue that Christ as concerning his corporall presence is not here in earth and you answere not one word to any of my argumentes And I pray thee note good Reader what a strange manner of sleight this is to passe ouer eight leaues together cleerely vnanswered and that in the chief point that is in variance betweene vs vnder pretence that I vse sleight where in deede I vse none but proue plainly that Christ is not bodely in heauen and in eareh both at one time If he had but touched mine argumēts glauncing by them it had been somewhat but vtterly to fly away and not once to touch them I think thou wilt iudge no smal sleight and craft therin And me think in good reason the matter ought to be iudged against him for default of answere who being preseut answereth nothing at all to the matter wherof he is accused seeing that the Law sayth Qui tacet consentire videtur Yet Smith is to be commended in respect of you who attempteth at the least to see what shiftes he could make to auoyd my profes and busyeth himself rather thē he would stand mute to say somthing to them And yet in deede it had been as good for him to haue said nothing at all as to say that which is nothing to the purpose First to the Scriptures by me alleadged particularly he vtterly answereth nothing To Origen and S. Augustine by name and to all the other Authors by me alleadged he maketh this brief answere in generall that whatsoeuer those authors say they meane no more but that Christ is not here in earth visibly naturally by circumscriptiō and yet neuerthelesse he is in the sacrament aboue nature inuisibly and without circumscription This suttle distinction hath Smith deuised or rather followeth other Papistes therin to answere the Authors which I haue alleadged And yet of Smithes own distinction it followeth that Christ is not in the sacrament carnally and corporally For if Christ be in the Sacrament but supernaturally inuisibly without circumscription then he is not there carnally and corporally as S. Augustine reasoneth ad Dardanum But yet Smith onely saith that the Authors so meant and proueth not one word of his saying supposing that the old holy writers be like to the Papistes which write one thing and when they list not or cannot defend it they say they meane another For those Authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of affirming diuers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in diuers respectes but their distinction is of the two natures in Christ that is to say the nature of his Godhead and the nature of his manhode And they affirme plainly that the diuersity wherof they spake cannot be in one nature as you say it is but must needes argue proue diuersity of natures And therfore by that diuersity and instinctiō in Christ they proue against the heretickes that Christ hath two natures in him which were vtterly no proofe at all if one nature in diuers respectes might haue that diuersity For the heretickes should haue had a ready answere at hand that such diuersitie proueth not that Christ had two natures for one nature may haue such diuersity if it be true that Smith saith And so Smith with other papists which saith as he doth putteth a sword in the hereticks hands to fight against the catholick faith This good Reader thou shalt easely perceiue if thou doe no more but read the authors which I haue in this place alleadged And yet for thy more ready instruction I shall make a brief rehearsal of the chief effect of them as concerning this matter To aunswere this question how it can be sayd that Christ is a stranger and gone hence into heauen and yet is also here with vs in earth Smith and other Papistes resolue this matter by diuers respectes in one nature of Christ but the old catholick wryters which I alleadged resolue the matter by two natures in Christ affirming most certainly that such two diuers thinges can not haue place both in one nature And therfore say they that Christ is gone hence and is absent in his humanitie who in his Deity is still here with vs. They say also that as concerning his mannes nature the Catholicke profession in our Creede teacheth vs to beleeue that he hath made it immortall but not changed the nature of a very mannes body for his body is in heauen and in one certain place of heauen because that so requireth the measure and compasse of a very mannes body It is also say they visible and hath all the members of a perfecte mannes body And further they say that if Christes body were not conteyned within the compasse of a place it were no body in so much that if the Godhead were a body it must needes be in a place and haue quantitie bignes and circumscription For all creatures say they visible and inuisible be circumscribed and conteyned within a certain compas ether locally within one place as corporall and visible thinges be or els within the property of their own substance as angels and inuisible creatures be And this is one strong argument whereby they proue that the holy Ghost is God because he is in many places at one time which no creature can be as they teach And yet they say moreouer that Christ did not ascend into heauen but by hys humanitie nor is not heare in earth but by hys diuinitie which hath no compasse nor measure And finally they say that to go to hys father from vs was to take from vs that nature which he receaued of vs and therfore when hys body was in earth then surely it was not in heauen and now when it is in heauē surely it is not in earth For one nature can not haue in it selfe two sundry and contrary thinges All things here rehearsed be written by the old auncient authors which I haue alleadged and they conclude the whole matter in this wise that this is the fayth and Catholique confession which the Apostles taught the Martyres did corroborate and faythfull people keepe vnto this day Wherby it appeareth euidently that the doctrine of Smyth and the Papistes at that day was not yet sprong nor had taken no roote Wherfore diligently ponder and way I besech thee gentle
from the begynnyng hee tooke occasion by and by to turne his tale to Cranmer and with many hoâ—e wordes reproued him that once he beyng endued with the fauour and féelyng of holesome and Catholicke doctrine fell into the contrary opinioÌ„ of pernitious errour which he had onely defended by writynges and all his power but also allured other men to the like with great liberalitie of giftes as it were appointyng rewardes for errour and after he had allured them by all meanes did cherish them It were to long to repeate all thyngs that in long order were then pronounced The summe of this tripartite declamation was that hee sayd Gods mercy was so tempered with his Iustice that he did not altogether require punishment according to the merites of offenders nor yet sometymes suffered the same altogether to goe vnpunished yea though they had repeÌ„ted As in Dauid who wheÌ„ he was bidden chuse of thrée kyndes of punishments which he would he had chosen Pestilence for thrée dayes the Lord forgaue gaue him halfe the tyme but didnt release all And that the same thyng came to passe in hym also to whom although pardon and reconciliation was due accordyng to the Canons seyng hee repented from his errours yet there were causes why the Quéene and the Counsell at this tyme iudged hym to death of whiche lest hee should maruell to much he should heare some First that beyng a traytour he had dissolued the lawfull Matrimonie betwene the kyng her father and mother besides the driuyng out of the Popes authoritie while he was Metropolitane Secondly that he had bene an hereticke from whom as from an Authour and onely fountaine all hereticall doctrine and schismaticall opinions that so many yeares haue preuailed in England did first rise and spryng of which he had not bene a secret fauourer onely but also a most earnest defender euen to the end of his life sowyng them abroad by writynges and Argumentes priuately and openly not without great ruine and decay of the Catholicke Church And further it séemed méete accordyng to the law of equalitie that as the death of the Duke of Northumberland of late made euen with Thomas More Chauncellour that dyed for the Churche so there should be one that should make euen with Fisher of Rochester and because that Ridley Hoper Farrar were not able to make euen with that man it séemed méete that Cranmer should be ioyned to them to fill vp this part of equalitie Beside these there were other iust weightie causes which séemed to the Quéene the Counsell whiche was not méete at that tyme to be opened to the common people After this turnyng his tale to the hearers he bad all men beware by this mans example that among men nothyng is so high that can promise it selfe safetie on the earth and that Gods vengeauÌ„ce is equally stretched agaynst all men spareth none therfore they should beware and learne to feare their Prince And seyng the Quéenes Maiestie would not spare so notable a man as this much lesse in the like cause she would spare other men that no man should thinke to make thereby any defence of his errour either in riches or any kynde of authoritie They had now an example to teach them all by whose calamitie euery man might consider his owne fortune who from the top of dignitie none being more honorable then he in the whole Realme and next the kyng was fallen into so great miserie as they might now sée beyng a man of so high degrée sometyme one of the chiefest Prelates in the Church and an Archbishop the chief of the CouÌ„sell the second person in the Realme of long tyme a man thought in greatest assurauÌ„ce hauyng a kyng on his side notwithstandyng all his authoritie and defence to be debased from high estate to a low degrée of a Counsellour to become a caitiffe and to be set in so wretched a state that the poorest wretch would not chaunge condition with him briefly so heaped with miserie on all sides that neither was left in him any hope of better fortune nor place for worse The latter part of his Sermon he conuerted to the Archbishop whom he comforted and encouraged to take his death well by many places of Scripture as with these and such like hiddyng him not mistrust but he should incontinently receiue that the théefe did to whom Christ sayd Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso that is This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise And out of S. Paule he armed him agaynst the terrour of the fire by this Dominus fidelis est non sinet vos tentari vltra quà m ferre potestis that is The Lord is faythful which will not suffer you to be tempted aboue your strength by the example of the thrée children to whom God made the flame to séeme like a pleasaunt dew addyng also the reioysing of S. Andrew in his Crosse the patience of S. Laurence on the fire assuryng him that God if he called on him and to such as dye in his fayth either would abate the furie of the flame or geue him strength to abide it He glorified God much in his conuersion because it appeared to be onely his worke declaryng what trauell and conference had bene with him to conuert him and all preuayled not till that it pleased God of his mercy to reclayme him and call him home In discoursing of which place he much commended Cranmer and qualified his former doynges thus temperyng his iudgement and talke of him that while the tyme sayd he he flowed in riches and honour he was vnworthy of his lyfe and now that he might not liue he was vnworthy of death But lest he should cary with him no comfort he would diligently labour hee sayd and also hee did promise in the name of all the Priestes that were present immediately after his death there should be Diriges Masses and funerals executed for him in all the Churches of Oxford for the succour of his soule Cranmer in all this meane tyme with what great grief of mynde he stoode hearyng this Sermon the outward shewes of his body and countenaunce did better expresse theÌ„ any man can declare one while liftyng vp his handes and eyes vnto heauen and then agayne for shame lettyng theÌ„ downe to the earth A maÌ„ might haue sene the very image and shape of perfite sorrow liuely in him expressed More then twentie seuerall tymes the teares gushed out aboundantly dropped downe marueilously from his fatherly face They which were present doe testifie that they neuer saw in any child more teares theÌ„ brast out from him at that tyme all the Sermon while but specially when hee recited his Prayer before the people It it is marueilous what commiseration and pitie moued all mens hartes that beheld so heauie a countenaunce and such aboundaunce of teares in an old man of so reuerend dignitie Cole after he had ended his Sermon called
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
seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request it is not like that he would write against the receiued doctrine of the church in those daies And if he had it is without all doubt that some learned man either in his tyme or fithens would haue written against him or at the least not haue commended him so much as they haue done Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish recantation as I haue declared in my first booke the 17. chapter And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple boasting himselfe as god hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres And as touching Martin Luther it semeth you be sore pressed that be faine to pray aide of him whom you haue hitherto euer detested The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift or to run for succour vnto a beast which he most hateth And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse more seuerely and earnestly then doth Martin Luther But it appeareth by your conclusion that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike that you haue forgotten your logike For this is your argumeÌ„t Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not Berengarius attempted the same and failed in his purpose Wickliffe enterprised the same whose teaching god prospered not therefore god hath not prospered fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching I will make the like reason The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of god to bring them from their abhominable superstitions and idolatry Ioell Amâ—s and Mitheas attempted the same whose doctrine preuailed not god prospered not their teaching among those people but they were condemned with their doctrine therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching If you will aunswer as you must nedes do that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not was by reason of the aboundant superstition idolatry that blinded their eies you haue fully answered your own argument and haue plainly declared the cause why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares the church of Rome which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry therfore might not abide to heare of the truth And the true doctrine of the sacrament which I haue set out plainly in my booke was neuer condemned by no councell nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second with his monkes and friers to condemne the truth and confirme these your heresies And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prosperous successe in this matter the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while persecute the truth And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife For he perceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those dayes to idolatry hypocrisie and superstition through traditions of Phariseis and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine religion which was approued by God least in so doing they should not onely resist the Apostles but God himselfe which counsail if you had marked followed you would not haue done so vnsoberly in many things as you haue done And as for the prosperitie of them that haue professed Christ his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes as S. Iohn Baptist prospered with Herode and our sauiour Christ with Pilate Annas and Caiphas Now which of these prospered best say you Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same Winchester But all this set apart and putting aside all testimonies of the olde church and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to search out an vnderstanding and in doyng therof to forget what hath bene taught hitherto How shall this author establish vpon scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is there in scripture that enâ—ountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body wherby to alter the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper verily and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God exclodeth that repugnance which mans reason would déeme of Christes departyng from this world and placing his humanitie in the glory of his Father Caunterbury THe Scripture is playne and you confesse also that it was bread that Christ spake of when he sayd This is my body And what nede we any other scripture to encounter with these words seyng that all men know that bread is not Christes body the one hauing sense and reason the other none at all Wherfore in that speach must nedes be sought an other sence meanyng then the wordes of themselues do geue which is as all olde writers do teach and the circumstances of the text declare that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christes body And yet as he geueth the bread to be eaten with our mouthes so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith And therfore I say that Christ geueth himselfe truely to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with fayth not with mouth And yet you would beare me in hand that I say that thing which I say not that is to say that Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body And because you be not able to confute that I say you would make me to say that you can confute As for the great power and omnipotency of God it is no place here to dispute what God can do but what he doth I know that he can do what he will both in heauen and in earth no man is able to resist his wil. But the question here is of his will not of his power And yet if you caÌ„ ioyne together these two that one nature singuler shal be here and not here both at one time and that it shal be gone hence when it is here you haue some stroÌ„g syment and be a cunning Geometrician but yet you shall neuer be good Logician that woulde
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
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
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
manner which we say not but in a spirituall maner and therefore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such maner as God onely knoweth yet dooth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence exceding our capacitie to comprehend the maner how This is the very true teaching to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament euen of the same body that suffred in playne simple euident termes and wordes such as can not by cauilation be mistaken and construed so néere as possibly mans infirmitie permitteth and suffreth Now let vs consider in what sort the author and hys company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the Sacrament who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne which sonne this author sayth is euer corporally in heauen and no where els and yet by operation and vertue is here in earth so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any language of man able to expresse God and hys mysteryes For and thinges that be sene or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible misteryes the nature wherof is that they can not throughly be expressed they were no misteries and yet it is true that of thinges visible wherein God worketh wonderfully there may be great resemblances some shadowes and as it were inductions to make a man astonied in consideration of thinges inuisible when he séeth thinges visible so wonderfully wrought and to haue so maruaylous effectes And diuers good catholicke deuoute men haue by diuers naturall things gone about to open vnto vs the mistery of the trinitie partely by the sonne as the author doth in the Sacrament partely by fyre partely by the soule of man by the Musitians science the arte the touch with the players fingers and the sound of the cord wherein wil hath all trauailed the matter yet remayneth darke ne can not be throughly set forth by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the sonne whiche sonne this author sayth is onely corporally in heauen and no where els and in the earth the operatiō and vertue of the sonne So as by this authors supposall the substance of the sonne should not be in earth but onely by operation and vertue wherein if this author erreth he doth the reader to vnderstande that if he erre in consideration of naturall thinges it is no maruayle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I will not of my selfe begin the contention with this author of the naturall worke of the Sonne I will bryng forth the saying of Martin Bucer now resident at Cambridge who vehemently and for so much truly affirmeth the trew reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament For he sayth Christ sayd not This is my spirite this is my vertue but This is my body Wherefore he sayth we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hang vpon the crosse our Lord hym selfe whiche in some parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the sonne for hys purpose to proue Christes body present really and substancially in the sacramēt where this author vseth the same similitude to proue the body of Christ really absent I will wryte in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin expounding the xrvi chapiter of Saynte Mathew and then I will put the same in english Bucers wordes bée these Vt Sol vere vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est radys tamen suis praesens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substantialiter quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini simbolis quam oculi vident habent Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res sidei non sunt igitur huc admittende cogitationes de presentatione corporis quae constar ratione huius vitae etiamnum patibilis fluxae Verbo Domini simpliciter inhaerendum est debet fides sensuum de fectui praebere supplimentum Which is thus much in English As the sonne is truely placed determinately in one place of the visible heauē and yet is truely and substantially present by meanes of hys beames els where in the world abroad So our Lord although he be comprehended in one place of the secrete and diuine heauen that is to say the glory of hys father yet neuerthelesse by hys word and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man and therfore in substance in his holy supper which presence mans mind geuing credite to his words and tokens with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see and haue the sonne presente exhibited and shewed with his corporally lyght This is a deep secrete matter and of the new testament and a matter of fayth and therfore herein thoughtes be not to be receiued of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of thys life transitorie and subiect to suffer We must simply cleaue to the word of Christ and fayth must releue the default of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his minde whereunto because the similitude of the sonne doth not aunswere in all partes he noteth wisely in th ende howe this is a matter of faith and therefore vpon the foundation of faith we must speake of it thereby to supply where our sences fayle For the presence of Christ and whole Christe God and man is true although we can not thinke of the maner how The chiefe cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shew how in hys iudgement we haue not onely in earth the operation and vertue of the sonne but also the substance of the sonne by incane of the sonne beames which be of the same substaunce with the sonne and can not be deuided in substance from it and therfore we haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sonne not onely the operation and vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sort yet the beames that touch the earth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papiste and yet for the reall and substantiall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pithely and playnly and here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the sonne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the sacrament which is one of the high misteries in our religiō And this may
also in the middest of them that know him not and thus he reasoneth If he be here among vs still how can he be gone hence as a straunger departed into another countrey wherunto he answereth that Christ is both God and man hauing in him two natures And as a man he is not with vs vnto the worldes end nor is present with all his faihtfull that be gathered together in his name But his diuine power and spirite is euer with vs. Paule saith he was absent from the Corinthes in his body when he was present with thē in his spirite So is Christ sayth he gone hence and absent in his humanitie which in his diuine nature is euery where And in this saying sayth Origen we diuide not his humanitie ` for S. Iohn writeth that no spirite that deuideth Iesus can be of God but we reserue to both his natures their own properties In these wordes Origen hath playnly declared his mynd that Christes body is not both present here with vs and also gone hence and estranged from vs. For that were to make two natures of one body and to deuide the body of Iesus forasmuch as one nature can not at one tyme be both with vs and absēt from vs. And therefore sayth Origen that the presence must be vnderstanded of his diuinitie and the absence of his humanitie And according hereunto S. Austine writeth thus in a pistle Ad dardanum Doubt not but Iesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there from whence he shall come And remember well and beleeue the profession of a christian man that he rose frō death ascended into heauen sitteth at the right hand of his father and from that place and none other shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead And he shall come as the Aungels sayd as he was seene go into heauen that is to say in the same forme and substance vnto the which he gaue immortallytie but chaunged not nature After this forme sayth he meaning his mans nature we may not thynke that he is euery wher For we must beware that we doe not so stablish his diuinity that we take away the veritie of his body These be S. Augustines playne wordes And by and by after he addeth these wordes The Lord Iesus as God is euery where and as man is in heauen And finally he concludeth this matter in these few wordes Doubt not but our Lord Iesus Christ is euery where as God and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God and he is in a certain place in heauen because of the measure of a very body And agayne S. Augustin writeth vpon the Gospel of S. Iohn Our sauiour Iesus Christ sayth S. Augustine is aboue but yet his truth is here His body wherein he arose is in one place but his truth is spred euery where And in an other place of the same booke S. Augustine expounding these wordes of Christ. You shall euer haue poore men with you but me you shall not euer haue saith that Christ spake these words of the presence of his body For saith he as concerning his diuine maiesty as concerning his prouidence as concerning his infallible and inuisible grace these words be fulfilled which he spake I am with you vnto the worldes ende But as concerning the fleshe which he tooke in his carnation as concerning that which was borne of the virgine as concerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vpon a tree and taken downe frō the crosse lapped in linnen clothes and buried and rose againe and appered after his resurrection as concerning that flesh he sayd You shall not euer haue me with you Wherefore senig that as concerning his flesh he was conuersant with his disciples forty dayes and they accompanying seeing and not following him he went vp into heauen both he is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet he is here for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his diuine Maiesty As concerning the presence of his Maiesty we haue Christ euer with vs but as concerning the presence of his flesh he said truely to his disciples ye shall not euer haue me with you For as concerning the presence of his flesh the church had Christ but a few dayes yet now it holdeth him fast by faith though it see him not with eyes All these be S. Augustines wordes Also in an other booke intitled to S. Augustine is written thus We must beleeue and confesse that the Sonne of God as concerning his diuinitie is inuisible without a body immortall and in circumscriptible but as concerning his humanitie we ought to beleeue and confesse that he is visible hath a body and it contayned in a certayn place and hath truely all the members of a man Of these wordes of S. Augustine it is most cleere that the profession of the catholick faith is that Christ as concerning his bodely substance and nature of man is in heauen and not present here with vs in earth For the nature and property of a very body is to be in one place and to occupy one place and not to be euery where or in many places at one time And though the body of Christ after his resurrectiō and ascention was made immortall yet this nature was not taken away for then as S. Augustine saith it were no very body And further S. August sheweth both the maner fourme how Christ is here present with vs in earth how he is absent saying that he is present by his diuine nature and maiesty by his prouidence by grace But by his humain nature and very body he is absent from this world and present in heauen Cyrillus likewise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn agreeth fully with S. Augustin saying Although Christ tooke away from hence the presence of his body yet in Maiestie of hys Godhead he is euer here as he promised to his disciples at his departing saying I am with you euer vnto the worldes end And in an other place of the same booke saynct Cyrill sayth thus Christian people must beleeue that although Christ be absent from vs as concerning hys body yet by his power he gouerneth vs and all thinges and is present with all them that loue hym Therfore he sayd Truely truely I say vnto you where so euer there be two or three gathered together in my name there am I in the middes of them For lyke as when he was conuersant here in earth as a man yet then he filled heauen and did not leaue the company of angelles euē so beyng now in heauen with hys flesh yet he filleth the earth and is in them that loue hym And it is to be marked that although Christ should go away onely as concerning hys flesh for he is euer present in the power of hys diuinitie yet for a little time he sayd he would be with hys disciples
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
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
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
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
popish diuines but the true worshippers of Christ worship him in spirite sitting in his high glory and Maiesty and pluck him not downe from thence corporally to eate him with their teeth but spiritually in hart ascend vp as S. Chrisostō sayth and feede vpon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his father To which spirituall feding is required no bodely presence nor also mouth nor teeth and yet they that receaue any sacrament must adore Christ both before and after sitting in heauen in the glory of his father And this is neyther as you say it is a cold nor grosse teaching of S. Augustine in this place to worship the flesh and humanity of Christ in heauen nor your teaching is not so farre from all doubtes but that you seeme so afrayd your selfe to stand to it that when you haue sayde that Christ is to be worshipped in his humanity as it were to excuse the matter agayne you say you speake not properly And this doctrine of S. Augustine was very necessary for ij considerations One is for the exposition of the Psalme which he tooke in hand to declare where in one verse is commaunded to worship the earth being gods fotestole and this he sayth may be vnderstād in the flesh of Christ which flesh being earth and the foode of faythfull christen people is to be worshipped of all that feede and liue by him For notwithstanding that his flesh is earth of earth and a creature and that nothing ought to be worshipped but God alone yet is found out in Christ the explication of this great doubt and mistery how flesh earth and a creature both may and ought to be worshipped That is to say when earth and flesh being vnited to the godhead in one person is one perfect Iesus Christ both God and man And this is neyther a cold nor grosse saying of S. Augustine but an explication of the diuine and high mistery of his incarnation The other cause why it is necessary both to teach and to exhort men to honor Chistes flesh in heauen is this that some know it not and some doe it not For some heretikes haue taught that Christ was but a man and so not to be honored And some haue sayd that although he be both God and man yet his diuinity is to be honored and not his humanity For extirpation of which errors it is no grosse nor cold saying that Christes flesh in heauen is to be honored And some know right well the whole Christ God and man ought to be honored with one entier and godly honor and yet forgetting them selfe in theyr factes do not according to their knowledge but treading the sonne of God vnder their feete and despising the bloud wherby they were sanctified crucifie agayne the sonne of God and make him a mocking stocke to all the wicked And many professing Christ yet hauing vayne cogitatiōs and phātasies in their heades do worship and serue Antichrist and thinking them selues wise become very fooles in deed And count you it then a cold and a grosse saying that Christ in heauen is to be honored wherin so many olde authors haue trauayled and written so many bookes and wherin all godly teachers trauayle from tyme to tyme And yet bring you here nothing to proue that S. Augustine spake of the reall presence of Christes flesh in the sacramēt and not of Christ being in heauen but this your cold and grosse reason And this will serue to answere also the place here following of S. Ambrose who spake not of the worshipping of Christ onely at the receauing of the sacrament but at all tymes and of all resonable creatures both men and angels Winchester And for the more manifest confirmation that S. Augustine ought thus to be vnderstanded I shall bring in S. Ambrose saying of whome it is probable S. Augustine to haue learned that he writeth in this matter Saynt Ambrose wordes in his booke De spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. be these Non mediocris igitur quaestio ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum Legimus enim alibi Coelum ucihi thronus terra autem scabellum pedum meorum Sed nec terra adoranda nobis quia creatura est dei Videamus tamen ne terrà m illam dicat adorandam Propheta quam Dominus Iesus in carnis assumptione suscepit Itaque per scabellum terrae intelligitur per terram antem caro christi quam hodie quoque in misterys adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu ut supra diximus adorarunt neque enim diuisus Christus sed vnus Which wordes may be englished thus It is therfore no meane question and therfore we should more diligently consider what is the foote stoole For we read in an other place heauen is my throne and the earth the foote stoole of my feete But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of vs bicause it is a creature of God And yet let vs see though least the prophet means that earth to be worshipped which our Lord Iesus tooke in the taking of flesh So then by the footestoole let the earth be vnderstanded and then by the earth the flesh of Christ which we do now worship also in the misteries and which the Apostles as we haue before sayde worshipped in our Lord Iesu for Christ is not deuided but one Hitherto S. Ambrose wherby may appeare how S. Ambrose and S. Augustine tooke occasion to open their fayth and doctrine touching adoration vpon discussion of the selfe same words of the prophet Dauid And S. Ambrose expressely noteth our adoration in the misteries where we worship Christes flesh inuisibly present as the Apostles did when Christ was visibly present with them And thus with these so playne wordes of S. Ambrose consonant to those of S. Augustine and the opening of S. Augustines wordes as before I trust I haue made manifest how this Author trauayleth agaynst the streame and laboreth in vayne to writh S. Augustine to his purpose in this matter The best is in this author that he handleth S. Augustine no worse then the rest but all after one sort bycause they be al of like sort agaynst his new catholique fayth cōfirme the old true Catholique fayth or do not improue it For of this high mistery the authors write some more obscurely and darkely thē other and vse diuersities of speaches and wordes wherwith the true doctrine hath bene of a very few impugned but euer in vayne as I trust in God this shall be most in vayne hauing this author vttered such vntruthes with so much blinde ignorāce as this worke well wayed cōsidered that is to say who made it when he made it of like how many were or might haue bene should haue bene of coūsayle in so great a matter who if they were any be al reproued in this one worke all such circūstāces cōsidered this booke may do as much good to releaue
deuise wayward answers to the externall actes of Christ as now a dayes they delude the miraculous entring of Christ to his disciples the dores being shutte Our fayth of the true manbode in Christ is truely beleued by true preaching thereof and by the scriptures not by the outward sences of men which altogither we must confesse could be no certayne ineuitable profe thereof And therfore Christ appearing to his disciples going into â—â—â—â—us opened the scriptures to them for the profe of his death that he suffred as very man and yet he vsed also in some part to preach to their sences with sensible exhibition of him selfe vnto them And so all Christes doinges which were most true doe beare testimony to the truth but in their degree of testimony and the feeling of S. Thomas being as S. Gregory sayth miraculous serueth for profe of an other thing that gods worke in miracle doth not empayre the truth of the thing wrought and so S. Thomas touched then Christ as truely by miracle after his resurrection in his body glorified as if he had touched his body before glorification Finally in Christes actes or his ordinances be no illusions all is truth and perfect truth and our sences in the visible fourmes of bread and wine be not illuded but haue their proper obiectes in those accidents and reason in carnall vnderstanding brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth doth in the estimation of the host consecrate yelde to fayth according wherunto we confesse truely the same to be the body of Christ. Where this Author would all the Papistes to lay all their headers togither c I know no such Papistes but this I say without farther counsayle which this author with all his counsayle shall not auoyde we beleue most certaynly the resurrection of our flesh and be perswaded by Catholique teaching that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament shal be made incorruptible and yet after the iudgemeÌ„t of our sences and conclusions gathered of them considering the manner of the continuall wasting of the sayd bodies appeare the vtter consumption whereof some philosophers haue at length after their reason declared their mynde whome Christen men contemne withall the experience of sences which they alleadge being vehement in that matter we reade in Scripture of the feeding of Angels when Loth receaued them Caunterbury AS in your answere to the iii. chapiter of my booke you haue doone nothing but dalied and trifled euen so do you likewise in the iiii Chapiter and yet farre more vnsemely then in the third For doth it become a christen Bishop of a matter of religion and a principal article of our fayth to make a matter of bread and chese And of the holy supper of the Lord to make a resemblance of a dinner of hogges flesh And yet for perswatioÌ„ of your purpose you make as it were a play in a dialogue betwene a rude man and a learned scholler wherin the matter is so learnedly handeled that the simple rude man sheweth himselfe to haue more knowledge then both you and your learned scholler And why you should bring in this matter I know not except it be to shew your ignoraunce to be as great in logike and philosophy as it is in diuinity For what an ignorance is this to say that a man can know no difference betwene one substance and an other and that substances be not iudged by any sences And that all naturall thinges be of these .ii. partes of substances and accidents and that their accidents be part of their substances and be called their substances their natures and matters Was there euer any such learning vttered before this tyme May not all men now euidently perceaue unto what a straight your errour hath driuen you that you haue none other defence but to flie to such absurdities as be agaynst the iudgement of the whole world Would you make men beleue that they know not the substance of the bread from drincke nor of chalke from chese Would you leade the world into this errour that Christ was neuer indede sene heard nor felt when he walked here with his apostles Did he not proue the truth of his very flesh and bones by sight saying A spirite hath not flesh and bones as you see me haue And although substances be not seene and knowne to our sences but by their accidents yet be they indede knowne and properly knowne and truely knowne by their accidentes and more properly seene then their accidents bee For the accidents be rather the meanes to know the substaunce by then the thinges that be knowne Is not wine knowne from beare by the taste and mustard from suger Is not one man knowen by his voyce from another And a shalme from a drumme And is not a man discerned from a beast and one from an other by sight But when you tourne vp all speaches all reason and all manner of knowledge it is lesse to be meruayled that you tourne vp diuinity also wherin you can lesse skill then in the rest And where you say that the sences can no skill of substances bicause they mâ—â—be deceaued therin so may they also be in the accidents For doe not the sunne and moone sometyme looke redde by meanes of the vapors betwene vs and them And doth not spectacles make althinges looke of the same colour that they be of And if you hold vp your finger directly betwene your eyes and a candell looking full at the candell your finger shall seeme two and if you looke full at your finger the candell shal seeme two And an age we maketh swete thinges seeme bitter and that is swete to one is bitter to an other And if a man hauing very hote handes and an other very colde if they handle both one thing the one shall thinke it hote and the other colde So that the sences may erre aswell in the accidents as in the substances and can not erre in the substances except they erre also in the accidents But in speaking of substance you declare such a substance as neuer was nor neuer shal be phantasiyng substance by your imagination to be a thing in it selfe separated from all accidents and so confounding the substances of all thinges and mixting heauen and earth togither you make all substances but one substance without any differeÌ„ce And where almighty God hath taught by his word that there be heauenly bodyes and earthly bodyes and that euery seede hath his owne proper body and that all flesh is not one flesh but the flesh of men of beastes of fish and of foule be diuers you teach by your wordes that all flesh is one flesh and all substances one substance and so confound you all flesh with hogges flesh making an hotche potche like vnto him that made a greate variety of dishes all of hogges flesh For take away the accidentes and I pray you what difference is betwene the bodely substance of the
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
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
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
fayth to snare them rather thē to saue them But what skilleth that to the Papistes how many men perish which seeke nothing elles but the aduaūcement of their Pope whom they say no man can finde fault withall For though he neither care for his own soules health nor of his christen brother but draw innumerable people captiue with him into hell yet say the Papistes no man may reprehēd him nor aske the question why he so doth And where you speake of the sobernesse and deuotion of the schoole authors whom before you noted for boasters what sobernesse and deuotion was in them being all in manner monkes and fryers they that be exercised in them do know wherof you be none For the deuotion that they had was to their God that created them which was their Pope by contention sophistication and all subtle meanes they could deuise by their witte or learning to confirme and establish whatsoeuer oracle came out of theyr Gods mouth They set vp their Antichrist directly agaynst Christ and yet vnder pretence of Christ made him his vicar generall giuing him power in heauen earth and in hell And is not then the doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the reall and sensuall presence of Christ in the sacrament to be beleued trow you seing that it came out of such a gods mouth was set abroad by so many of his Aungels And is not this a simple and playne doctrine I pray you that visible formes and substances be transubstantiated and yet accidents remayn A playne doctrine be you assured which you confesse your selfe that the simple and playne people vnderstand not nor your selfe with the helpe of all the Papistes is not able to defend it where the true doctrine of the first catholick christian fayth is most playne cleare and comfortable without any difficulty scruple or doubt that is to say that our Sauiour Christ although he be sitting in heauē in equality with his father is our life strēgth◠food and sustenaunce who by his death deliuered vs from death and daily nourisheth and increaseth vs to eternall life And in tokē hereof he hath prepared bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken of vs in his holy supper to put vs in remembrance of his sayd death and of the celestiall feeding nourishing increasing and of all the benefites which wee haue thereby which benefites through fayth and the holy ghost are exhibited and geuen vnto all that worthely receiue the sayd holy supper This the husbandman at his plough the weauer at his loume and the wife at her rocke can remember and geue thankes vnto God for the same This is the very doctrine of the Gospel with the consent wholly of al the old ecclesiastial doctors howsoeuer the Papistes for their pastime put vysers vpon the sayd doctors and disguise them in other coates making a play and mocking of them Now followeth the second absurdity Secondly these Transubstantiatours do say contrary to all learning that the accidentes of bread and wine doe hang alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And what can be sayd more foolishly Winchester The Mayster of the sentences shewing diuers mens sayings in discussion as they can of this mistery telleth what some say that had rather say somewhat then nothing which this author rehearseth as a determination of the church that indéede maketh no doctrine of that poynt so but acknowledgeth the mistery to exéede our capacity And as for the accidentes to be stayd that is to say to remayne without their naturall substaūce is without difficulty beleued of men that haue fayth considering the almighty power of Christ whose diuine body is there present And shall that be accounted for an inconuenience in the mistery that any one man saith whose saying is not as a full determination approued If that man should encounter with this author if he were aliue so to do I think he would say it were more tolerable in him of a zeale to agrée with the true doctrine to vtter his conceit fondly then of a malice to dissent from the true doctrine this author so fondly to improue his saying But if he should appose this author in learning and aske him how he will vnderstand Fiat lux in creation of the world where the light staied that was then create But I will proceed to peruse the other differences Caunterbury THe doctrine that euen now was so simple and playne is now agayne waxed so full of ambiguities and doubtes that learned men in discussing therof as they can be fayne to say rather some thing than nothing and yet were they better to say nothing at all then to say that is not true or nothing to purpose And if the master of the sentences saying in this poynt vary from the cōmon doctrine of the other Papists why is not this his errour reiected among other wherin he is not commonly helde And why do your selfe after approue the same saying of the Master as a thing beleeued without difficultie that the accidents be stayed without their naturall substāce And then I would know of you wherin they be stayed seeing they be not stayed in the ayre as in their substance nor in the bread and wine nor in the body of Christ For eyther you must appoynt some other stay for them or els graunt as I say that they hange alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And eyther I vnderstand you not in this place you speake so diffusely or els that thing which the Master spake and your self haue here affirmed you cal it a tollerable conceit fondly vttered And where as to answere the matter of the staying of the accidents you aske wherin the light was stayed as the creation of the world this is a very easy opposall and soone answered vnto For first God created heauen and earth and after made light which was stayed in them as it is now although not deuided from the darkenes in such sort as it was after Now followeth the third absurdity Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there really corporally and naturally present without any accidents of the same And so the Papistes make accidents to be without substances and substances to be without accidents Winchester How Christes body is in circumstance present no man can define but that it is truly present and therfore really present corporally also and naturally with relation to the truth of the body present and not to the maner of presence which is spirituall exceeding our capacitye and therefore therein without drawing away accidentes or adding wee beleeue simplye the trueth howesoeuer it liketh this author without the booke to terme it at his pleasure and to speake of substaunce without accidentes and accidents without substance which perplexity in wordes can not iest out the truth of the catholike beleefe And this is on the authors part nothing but iesting with a wrong surmise and supposall as
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
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
that tyme ouerflowing the world For the which and other mine offences in youth I do dayly pray vnto God for mercy and pardon saying Delicta inuentutis meae ignorantias meas ne memineris Domine Good Lord remember not mine ignorances and offences of my youth But after it had pleased God to shew vnto me by his holy word a more perfect knowledge of his sonne Iesus Christ from tyme to tyme as I grew in knowledge of him by little and little I put away my former ignorance And as God of his mercy gaue me light so through his grace I opened myne eyes to receaue it and did not wilfully repugne vnto God and remayne in darkenes And I trust in gods mercy and pardon for my former errors bicause I erred but of frailnes and ignoraunce And now I may say of my selfe as S. Paule sayd When I was like a babe or childe in the knowledge of Christ I spake like a childe and vnderstood like a child But now that I come to mans estate and growing in Christ through his grace and mercy I haue put away that childishnes Now after that D. Smith hath thus vntruely belyed both me and master Peter Martir he falleth into his exclamations saying O Lord what man is so mad to beleue such mutable teachers which chaūge their doctrine at mens pleasure as they see aduauntage and profit They turne and will turne as the winde turneth Do you not remember M. Smith the fable how the olde crab rebuked her young that they went not straight forth and the common experience that those that look a squint sometimes find fault with them that look right You haue turned twise retracted your errours and the third time promised and breaking your promise ran away And find you fault with me and M. Peter Martyr as though we for mens pleasures turne like the winde as we see aduauntage Shall the wethercocke of Paules that turneth about with euery wind lay the fault in the church say that it turneth I will not here aunswere for my selfe but leaue the iudgement to God who seeth the bottome of all mens hartes and at whose onely iudgement I shall stand or fall sauing that this I will say before God who is euery where present and knoweth all thinges that be done that as for seeking to please men in this matter I thinke my conscience cleare that I neuer sought herein but onely the pleasure and glory of God And yet will I not iudge my selfe herein nor take D. Smith for my iudge but will refer the iudgement to him that is the rightfull iudge of all men But as for D. Peter Martyr hath hee sought to please men for aduauntage who hauing a great yearly reuenue in his owne countrey forsooke all for Christes sake and for the truth and glory of God came into straunge countries wher he had neither land nor frendes but as God of his goodnes who neuer forsaketh them that put their trust in him prouided for him BUt after this exclamation this papist returneth to the matter saying Tell me why may not Christes body be as well in the sacrament in heauē both at once as that his body was in one proper place with the bodye of the stone that lay still vpō his graue whē he rose from death to life as his body was in one proper place at once with the body of the doore or gate whē the same being shut he entred into the house where the Apostles were Make you these two thinges all one M. Smith diuers bodies to be in one place and one body to be in diuers places If Christs body had bene in one place with the substaūce of the stone or doore and at the same time thē you might well haue proued thereby that his body may as well be in one place with the substāce of bread wine But what auayleth this to proue that his body may be in diuers places at one time which is nothing like to the other but rather cleane contrary Marry when Christ arose out of the sepulchre or came into the house when the dores were shut if you can proue that at the same time he was in heauen then were that to some purpose to proue that this dodye may bee corporally in heauen and earth both at one tyme. And yet the controuersy here in this matter is not what may bee but what is God can do many thinges which he neither doth nor will doe And to vs his will in thinges that appear not to our sences is not known but by his word Christes body may be aswell in the bread and wine as in in the dore and stone and yet it may be also in the dore and stone and not in the bread and wine But if we will stretch out our faith no further thē Gods word doth lead vs neither is Christs body corporally present in one proper place with the bread and wine nor was also with the stone or doore For the Scripture sayth in no place that the body of Christ was in the doore or in the stone that couered the Sepulchre but it sayth playnly that an Aungell came downe from heauen and remoued away the stone from the Sepulchre the womē that came to see the Sepulchre foūd the stone remoued away And although the Gospell say that Christ came into the house when the doore was shut yet it sayth not that Christes body was within the doore so that the doore and it occupyed both but one place But peraduenture M. Smith will aske me this question How could Christ come into the house the doore being shut except he came through the doore that his body must be in the doore To your wise questiō M. Smith I will aunswere by an other question Could not Christ come aswell into the house whē the doore was shut as the Apostles could go out of prison the doore beyng shut Could not God worke this thyng except the Apostles must go through the doore occuyy the same place that the doore did Or could not Christ do so much for his own selfe as he did for his Apostles But M. Smith is so blynd in his owne phantasies that he seeth not how much his owne examples make agaynst him selfe For if it be lyke in the Sacrament as it was in the stone and doore and Christes body was in one propre place with the body and substaunce of the stone and doore then must Christes body in the Sacramēt be in one propre place with the body and substaunce of bread and wine And so he must then confesse that there is no Transubstantiation THen from the doore and sepulchre Doct. Smith commeth to the Reuelations of Peter and Paule which saw Christ as he sayth bodily vpon earth after his Ascention Whiche declareth that although Christ departed hence at the tyme of his Ascention into heauen and there sitteth at the right hand of his father yet he
may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar I am not so ignorant but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paule and sayd to him Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes that euer he speake vpon earth And yet we finde that Christ speaketh sayth he but in heauen and from heauen and not vpon earth For he spake to Paule from aboue saying Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me The head was in heauen and yet he sayd why doest thou persecute me bycause he persecuted his members vpon earth And if this please not Maister Smith let him blame S. Augustin and not me for I fayne not this my selfe but onely alledge S. Augustin And as the father spake from heauen whan he sayd This is my beloued sonne in whom I am pleased and also S. Stephen saw Christ sittyng in heauen at his fathers right hand euen so ment S. Augustin that S. Paule and all other that haue sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention haue sene and heard him from heauen NOw when this Papist goyng forward with his woorkes seeth his building so feeble weake that it is not able to stand he returneth to his chief foūdation the Church and Councels generall willyng all men to stay thereupon to leaue disputyng reasonyng And chiefly he shoareth vp his house with the Councell Lateranence whereat sayth he were xiij hundred Fathers xv But he telleth not that viij hundred of them were Monkes Friers and Chanons the Byshop of Romes owne deare deare-lynges chief champions called together in his name not in Christes From which broode of vypers Serpentes what thyng can be thought to come but that dyd proceede frō the spirite of their most holy father that first begat them that is to say from the spirite of Antichrist And yet I know this to bee true that Christ is present with his holy Churche whiche is his holy elected people and shall be with them to the worldes end leadyng gouernyng them with his holy spirite teachyng them all truth necessary for their saluation And when so euer any such be gathered together in his name there is he among them he shall not suffer the gates of hell to preuaile agaynst them For although he may suffer them by their owne frailenes for a tyme to erre fall and to dye yet finally neither sathan hell sinne nor eternall death shall preuaile agaynst them But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome whiche accompteth it selfe to be the holy Catholicke Churche and the Byshop therof to be most holy of all other For many yeares ago Sathan hath so preuailed agaynst that stinkyng whore of Babylon that her abhominations be knowen to the whole world the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her dronkennes and poyson haue all nations tasted AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius Almericus Carolostadius Oecolampadius Zuinglius affirmyng that the Church euer sithens Christes tymes a thousand fiue hūdreth yeares and moe hath beleued that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament and neuer taught otherwise vntill Berengarius came about a thousand yeares after Christ whom the other folowed But in my booke I haue proued by Gods word the old auncient Authors that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally but is bodily corporally ascended into heauen there shall remaine vnto the worldes end And so the true Church of Christ euer beleued from the beginnyng with out repugnaunce vntill Sathan was let louse and Antichrist came with his Papistes which fayned a new and false doctrine contrary to Gods word and the true Catholicke doctrine And this true fayth God preserueth in his holy church still and will doe vnto the worldes end maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell And almighty God from time to time hath strēgthened many holy Martirs for this fayth to suffer death by Antichrist and the great harlot Babilon who hath embrewed her handes and is made drunken with the bloud of Martyrs Whose bloud God will reuēge at length although in the meane time he suffer the patiēce and fayth of his holy Saynts to be tried ALl the rest of his Preface contayneth nothing els but the authority of the Church which Smith sayth cannot wholy erre and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same that he preferreth it aboue Gods word affirming not onely that it is the piller of truth and no lesse to bee beleued then holy scripture but also that we should not beleue holy scripture but for it So that he maketh the word of men equall or aboue the word of God And truth it is in deed that the church doth neuer wholy erre for euer in most darcknes God shineth vnto his elect and in the midst of all iniquity he gouerneth them so with his holy word and spirite that the gates of hell preuayle not agaynst them And these be knowne to him although the world many times know them not but hath them in derision and hatred as it had Christ and his Apostles Neuerthelesse at the last day they shal be knowen to all the whole world when the wicked shal wonder at their felicity and say These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked We fooles thought their liues very madnes and their end to be without honour But now loe how they be accounted among the children of God and theyr portion is among the sayntes Therfore we haue erred frō the way of truth the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vnto vs we haue wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world that no mā can discerne it but God alone who onely searcheth the hartes of all men knoweth his true children from other that be but bastardes This church is the piller of trueth because it resteth vpon Gods word which is the true and sure foundation wil not suffer it to erre fall But as for the opē knowne church the outward face therof it is not the piller of truth otherwise thē that it is as it were a register or treasory to keepe the bookes of Gods holy will testament to rest onely thereupon as S. Augustine and Tertullian meane in the place by M. Smith alleadged And as the register keepeth all mens wils and yet hath none authority to adde change or take away any thing nor yet to expound the wils further then the very words of the will extend vnto so that he hath no power ouer the will but by the will euen so hath the church no further power ouer the holy scripture which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god but onely to keepe it and to see it obserued and kept For if the Church proceede further to make any new Articles of the fayth besides the Scripture
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