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
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
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
which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine which was the doctrine of Luther but the true faith is that Christes most precious body and bloud is by the might of his word and determination of his will which he declareth by his word in his holy Supper present vnder forme of bread and wine The substance of which natures of bread and wine is conuerted into his most precious body bloud as it is truely beleeued taught in the Catholick church of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant So as the Author of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittingly against his conscience to say they teach calling them papists that Christ is in the bread and wine but they agrée in forme of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holy Communion in that it is there said the body and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wine And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong vntrue report of the faith of the Catholick Church made of this Author in the setting forth of this difference on that parte which it pleaseth him to name Papistes And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference such as no Catholick man would deny For euery Catholick teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament vnles he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him For otherwise such one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condemnation Christ cannot be receued worthely but into his own temple which be ye S. Paul saith and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him is not his As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecration in substance Wherefore appeareth how the Author of this booke in the lieu and place of a difference which he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholick man must néedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud or the bread and wine as this Author speaketh But as this Author would haue speaken plainly and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges he should in the second parte haue said from what contrary to that the Catholick Church teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaration of the second parte to say that repugneth not to the first matter and that no Catholicke man will deny considering the said two teachinges be not of one matter nor shoote not as one might say to one marke For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely as before is sayd which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy so both the differences thus taught make but one Catholick doctrine Let vs sée what the Author saith further Caunterbury NOw the craftes wiles and vntruthes of the first booke being partly detected after I haue also answered to this booke I shall leaue to the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answere I shall rehearse the wordes of mine owne thirde boke which you attēpt next out of order to impugne My words be these Now this matter of Transubstantiatiō being as I trust sufficiently resolued which is the first part before rehearsed wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth order requireth next to intreate of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacramēt thereof wherin is no lesse cōtentiō thē in the first part For a plain explication whereof it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people that our Sauiour Christ being perfecte God and in all thinges equall and coeternall with his Father for our sakes became also a perfect man taking flesh and bloud of his blessed mother and virgin Mary sauing sinne being in all thinges like vnto vs adioyning vnto his diuinity a most perfect soul of man And his body being made of very flesh and bones not onely hauing all members of a perfect mannes body in due order and proportion but also being subiect to hunger thirst labour sweate werines cold heate and all other like infirmities and passions of a manne and vnto death also and that the most vile and painfull vpon the crosse and after his death he rose againe with the self same visible and palpable body and appeared therewith and shewed the same vnto his Apostles and specially to Thomas making him to put his handes into his side and to feele his woundes And with the selfe same body he forsooke this world and ascended into heauen the Apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father there shall remaine vntill the last day when he shall come to iudge the quick dead This is the true Catholick faith which the Scripture teacheth and the vniuersall Church of Christ hath euer beleeued from the beginning vntill within these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares last passed that the Bishop of Rome with the assistance of his Papistes hath set vp a new faith and beleefe of their own deuising that the same body really corporally naturally and sensibly is in this worlde still and that in an hundred thousand places at one time being inclosed in euery pixe and bread consecrated And although we doe affirme according to Gods word that Christ is in all persons that truly beleeue in him in such sort that with his flesh and bloud he doth spiritually nourish and feede them and geueth them euerlasting life doth assure them thereof as well by the promise of his word as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper which he did institute for the same purpose yet we doe not a little vary from the hainous errors of the Papists For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine but we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the bread wine Here it pleaseth you to passe ouer all the rest of my sayinges and to aunswere onely to the difference betweene the Papists and the true Catholicke faith Where in the first ye finde fault that I haue vntruely reported the Papisticall faith which you
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
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
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
in the sacrament I graunt that he is really present after such sort as you expound really in this place that is to say indede and yet but spiritually For you say your selfe that he is but after a spirituall maner there and so is he spiritually honored as S Augustine sayth But as concerning heat of disputation marke well the wordes of S. Augustine good reader cited in my booke and thou shalt see clerely that all this multiplication of wordes is rather a iugling then a direct answer For saynt Augustine writeth not in heate of disputation but temperatly and grauely to a learned Bishop his deare frend who demanded a question of him And if Saynt Augustine had aunswered in heate of disputation or for any other respect otherwise then the truth he had not done the part of a friend nor of a learned and godly Bishop And who so euer iudgeth so of Saynt Augustine hath small estimation of him and sheweth him selfe to haue litle knowledge of Saynt Augustine But in this your answer to saynt Augustine you vtter where you learned a good part of your diuinitie that is of Albertus Pighius who is the father of this shift and with this fleight eludeth Saynt Augustin when he could no otherwise answer As you do now shake of the same Saynt Augustine resembling as it were in that poynt the liuely countenauÌ„ce of your father Pighius Next in my booke foloweth Theodoret And to this purpose it is both pleasaunt comfortable and profitable to read Theodoretus in his Dialogs where he disputeth and sheweth at length how the names of things be chaunged in scripture and yet thinges remayne still And for example he proueth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vayle or coueryng sometime a cloth sometyme a vestment and sometyme a stole the bloud of the grape is called Christes bloud and the names of bread and wine and of his flesh and bloud Christ doth so chaunge that sometyme he calleth his body corne or bread and sometime contrary he calleth bread his body And likewise his bloud sometime he calleth wine and sometime contrary he calleth wine his bloud For the more playne vnderstanding wherof it shall not be amisse to recite his owne sayings in his foresayd dialogs touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud The speakers in these dialogs be Orthodoxus the right beleuer and Eranistes his companyon but not vnderstanding the right fayth Orthodoxus saith to his companion Doost thou not know that god caleth bread his flesh Eran. I know that Orth. And in an other place he calleth his body corne Eran. I know that also for I haue heard him say The houre is come that the sonne of man shal be glorified c. Except the grayne of come that falleth in the ground dye it remayneth sole but if it dye then it bringeth forth much fruite Orth. When he gaue the mysteries of sacraments he called bread his body and that which was mixt in the cup he called bloud Eran. So he called them Orth. But that also which was his naturall body may well be called his body and his very bloud also may be called his bloud Eran. It is playne Orth. But our sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to the body the name of the signe or token and to the token he gaue the name of the body And so wheÌ„ he called himself a vyne he called bloud that which was the token of bloud Eran. Surely thou hast spokeÌ„ the truth But I would know the cause wherfore the names were changed Orth. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments should not set their mindes vpon the nature of the things which they see but by the changing of the names should beleue the things which be wrought in them by grace For he that called that which is his naturall body corne and bred and also called himselfe a vyne he did honor the visible tokeÌ„s and signes with the names of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not Ortho. Seyng then that it is certayne that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell and that now we be entred to speak of godly sacraments tell me truely of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a tokeÌ„ and figure of Christes diuinity or of his body and bloud Eran. It is cleare that it is the figure of those thinges whereof it beareth the name Orth. Meanest thou of his body and bloud Eran. Euen so I meane Orth. Thou hast spoken as one that loueth the truth for the Lord when he tooke the token or signe he sayd not This is my diuinity but This is my body this is my bloud And in an other place The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whiche I will geue for the life of the world Eran. These things be true for they be Gods words All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue ' And in the second he writeth the same in effect yet in some thing more playnly agaynst such heretiques as affirmed that after Christes resurrection ascention his humanity was changed from the very nature of man turned into his diuinity Agaynst whom thus he writeth Orth. Corruption healeth sicknes and death be accedents for they goe come Era. It is meet they be so called Orth. Mens bodies after their resurrection be delyuered from corruption death mortalitie and yet they lose not theyr proper nature Eran. Truth it is ' Orth. The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption death and is impassible immortall glorified with the glory of God is honored of the powers of heauen and it is a body hath the same bignes that it had before Era. Thy saying seeme true according to reason but after he was ascended vp into heauen I thinke thou wilt not say that his body was not tourned into the nature of his godhead Orth. I would not so say for the persuation of mans reason nor I am not so arrogant and presumptious to affirme any thing which scripture passeth ouer in silence But I haue heard S. Paule cry that God hath ordayned a day when he will iudge all the world in iustice by that man which he appoynted before performing his promise to all men and raysing him from death I haue learned also of the holy angels that he will come aâ—ter that fashion as his disciples saw him goe to heauen But they saw a nature of a certayn bignesse not a nature which had no bignes I heard furthermore the lord say You shall see the sonne of man come in the cloudes of heauen And
yet for the tyme of the receauing it hath the licour in it And how can Christ departe from an vnpenitent sinner as you say he doeth if he haue him not at all And because of myne ignoraunce I would fayne leran of you that take vpon you to be a man of knowledge how an euill man receauing Christes very body and whole Christ God and man as you say an euell man doth and Christes body being such as it cannot be deuided from his spirite as you say also how this euell man receauing Christes spirite should be an euell man for the tyme that he hath Christes spirit within him Or how can he receaue Christes body and spirite according to your saying and haue them not in him for the tyme he receaueth them Or how can Christ enter into an euell man as you confesse and be not in him into whome he entreth at that present tyme These be matters of your knowledge as you pretend which if you can teach me I must confesse myne ignoraunce And if you cannot for so much as you haue spoken them you must confesse the ignoraunce to be vpon your owne part And S. Paule sayth not as you vntruely recite him that in him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation but that he eateth and drincketh condemnation And where you say that S. Paules wordes playnly import that those did eate the very body of Christ which did eate vnworthely euer still you take for a supposition the thing which you should proue For S. Paule speaketh playnly of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not one word of eating of the body and drincking of the bloud of Christ. And let any indifferent reader looke vpon my questions and he shall see that there is not one word answered here directly vnto them except mocking and scorning be taken for aunswere And where you deny that of your doctrine it should follow that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell you can not deny but that your owne teaching is that Christ entreth into euell men when they receaue the sacrament And if they be his temple into whome he entreth then must euell men be his temple for the tyme they receaue the sacrament although he tary not long with them And for the same tyme they be euell men as you say and so must nedes be the temple of the deuell And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching that at one tyme a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the deuell And in your figure of Christ vpon earth although he taryed not long with euery man that receaued him yet for a tyme he taried with them And the word of God tarieth for the tyme with many which after forget it and kepe it not And then so must it be by these examples in euell men receauing the sacrament that for a tyme Christ must tary in them although that tyme be very short And yet for that tyme by your doctrine those euell men must be both the temples of God and of Beliall And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authoritie of S. Paule it is no small contumely and iniury to S. Paule to asscribe your fayned and vntrue glose vnto him that taught nothing but the truth as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mentiō of the eating and drincking of the bread and cuppe but not one word of the eating and drincking of Christes body and bloud Now followeth in my booke my answer to the Papistes in this wise But least they should seme to haue nothing to say for them selues they alleadge S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth where he sayth He that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh and bloud as it is manifest to euery man that will reade the text For these be the wordes of S. Paule Let a man examin him selfe and so eat of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body In these wordes S. Paules mynd is that for asmuch as the bread and wine in the Lordes supper do represent vnto vs the very body and bloud of our sauiour Christ by his owne institution and ordinance therfore although he sit in heauen at his fathers right hand yet should we come to this misticall bread and wine with fayth reuerence purite and feare as we would do if we should come to see and receaue Christ him selfe sensibly present For vnto the faythfull Christ is at his own holy table presēt with his mighty spirite grace and is of them more fruitfully receaued then if corporally they should receaue him bodely present and therfore they that shall worthely com to this Gods boord must after due triall of them selues consider first who ordeined this table also what meat and drincke they shall haue that come therto and how they ought to behaue them selues therat He that prepared the table is Christ him selfe The meat and drincke wherwith he fedeth them that come therto as they ought to do is his own body flesh and bloud They that com therto must occupy theyr myndes in considering how his body was broken for them and his bloud shed for theyr redemption and so ought they to approch to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart and godlynes of mynd as to the table wherin Christ hym selfe is giuen And they that come otherwise to this holy table they come vnworthely and do not eat drincke Christes flesh and bloud but eat and drincke theyr own damnation bicause they do not duely consider Christes very flesh and bloud which be offred there spiritually to be eaten and drinken but dispising Christes most holy supper do come therto as it were to other common meates drinckes without regarde of the Lordes body which is the spirituall meat of that table Winchester In the .97 leafe and the second columne the Author beginneth to trauerse the wordes of S. Paule to the Corinthians and would distinct vnworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament receyued which can not be For our vnworthines can not alter the substance of Gods sacrament that is euermore all one howsoeuer we swarue from worthynes to vnworthynes And this I would aske of this Author why should it be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when he is taught yf this authors doctrine be true that it is not there at all If the bread after this authors teaching be but a figure of Christes body it is then but as Manna was the eating wherof vnworthily and vnfaythfully was no gift of Christes body Erasmus noteth these wordes of S. Paule to be gylty of
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
Gods worke in the sacrament but to exclude carnall imagination from musing of the manner of the worke which is in mistery such as a carnall man can not comprehend In which matter if S. Augustine had had such a fayth of the visible sacrament as the author sayth him selfe hath now of late and calleth it catholicke S. Augustine would haue vttered it as an expositor playnly in this place and sayd there is but a figure of Christes body Christes body and flesh is in heauen and not in this visible sacrament Christes speach that was estemed so hard was but a figuratiue speach And where Christ sayd This is my body he ment onely of the figure of his body which manner of saying S. Augustine vseth not in this place and yet he could speake playnly and so doth he declaring vs first the truth of the flesh that Christ geueth to be eaten that is to say the same flesh that he tooke of the virgine And yet bicause Christ giueth it not in a visible manner nor such a maner as the Capernaites thought on nor such a maner as any carnall man can conceaue being also the flesh in the sacrament giuen not a common flesh but a liuely godly and spirituall flesh Therfore S. Augustine vseth wordes and speach wherby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ which we did see and of the bloud that was shed so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen and the same not to be giuen the mistery should be thus farre opened that for the truth of the thing giuen it is the same and touching the manner of the giuing and the quality of the flesh giuen it is not the same And bicause it is the same S. Augustine sayth before we must worship it and yet bicause it is now an hidden godly mistery we may not haue carnall imaginations of the same but godly spiritually and inuisibly vnderstand it Caunterbury AS concerning the wordes of S. Augustine which you say I do wrong report let euery indeferēt reader iudge who maketh a wrong report of S. Augustine you or I. For I haue reported his wordes as they be and so haue not you For S. Augustine sayth not that Christes body is eaten in the visible sacrament as you report but that Christ hath giuen vs a sacrament of the eating of his body which must be vnderstand inuisibly and spiritually as you say truly in that poynt But to the spirituall eating is not required any locall or corporall presence in the sacrament nor S. Augustine sayth not so as you in that poynt vniustly report him And although the worke of God in his sacraments be effectuall and true yet the working of God in the sacraments is not his working by grace in the water bread and wine but in them that duely receaue the same which worke is such as no carnall man can comprehend And where you say that if S. Augustine had ment as I do he would in this place haue declared a figure and haue sayd that here is but a figure and we eate onely a figure but Christ himselfe is gone vp into heauen and is not here it is to much arrogancy of you to appoynt S. Augustin his wordes what he should say in this place as you would lead an hound in a line where you list or draw a beare to the stake And here still you cease not vntruly to report me For I say not that in the Lordes supper is but a figure or that Christ is eaten only figuratiuely but I say that there is a figure and figuratiue eating And doth not S. Augustine sufficiently declare a figure in Christes wordes when he sayth that they must be vnderstād spiritually And what man can deuise to expresse more playnly both that in Christes speach is a figure and that his body is not corporally present and corporally eaten then S. Augustine doth in a thousand places but specially in his epistle ad Bonifacium ad Dardanum ad Ianuarium De doctrina Christiana De catechisandis rudibus in quest super leuit De ciuitate Dei Contra Adamatium contra aduersarium legis prophetarum In epistolam Euangelium Iohannis In sermone ad infantes De verbis apostoli The flesh of Christ is a true flesh and was borne of a woman dyed rose agayne ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father but yet is he eaten of vs spiritually and in the maner of the eating there is the mistery and secret and yet the true worke of God And where you vnderstand the inuisible mistery which S. Augustin speaketh of to be in the diuersity of the body of Christ seene or not seene you be farre deceaued For S. Augustine speaketh of the mistery that is in the eating of the body and not in the diuersity of the body which in substaūce is euer one without diuersity The meaning therfore of S. Augustine was this that when Christ sayd Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in you he ment of spirituall and not carnall eating of his body For if he had entended to haue described the diuersity of the maner of Christes body visible and inuisible he would not haue sayd this body which you see but this body in such maner as you see it or in such like termes you shall not eate But to eate Christes flesh sayth S. Augustine is fructifully to remember that the same flesh was crucified for vs. And this is spiritually to eate his flesh and drincke his bloud Winchester And bicause S. Hierome who was of S. Augustines tyme writeth in his commentaries vpon S. Paule ad Ephesios that may serue for the better opening hereof I will write it in here The wordes be these The bloud and flesh of Christ is two wayes vnderstanded either the spirituall and godly of which him selfe sayd My flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drincke And vnles ye eate my flesh drincke my bloud ye shall not haue euerlasting lyfe Or the flesh which was crucified and the bloud which was shed with the spere According to this diuision the diuersity of flesh and bloud is taken in Christes sayntes that there is one flesh that shall see the saluation of God an other flesh and bloud that cannot possese the kingdome of heauen There be S. Hieromes wordes In which thou reader seest a deniall of that flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten that was crucified but the flesh geuen to be eaten to be a godly and spirituall flesh and a distinction made betwen them as is in our flesh of which it may be sayd that the flesh we walke in here shall not see God that is to say as it is corruptible according to the text of S. Paule flesh and bloud shall not possesse heauen and yet we must beleue and hope with Iobe truly that the same our flesh shall see God
in heauen after which diuision likewise we receaue not in the sacrament Christes flesh that was crucified being so a visible and mortall flesh But Christes flesh glorified incorruptible and impassible a Godly and spirituall flesh And so that is but one in substance and alwayes so that same one is neuerthelesse for the alteration in the maner of the being of it deuided and so called not the same wherin S. Hierom and S. Augustine vsed both one maner of speaking and S. Hierom resembling the diuision that he reherseth of Christes flesh to the diuision of our flesh in the resurrection doth more playnly open how the same may be called not the same bicause we beleue certaynly the resurrection of the same flesh we walke in and yet it shall be by the garmēt of incorruptibility not the same in quality and so be verefied the scriptures that flesh shall not possesse heauen and I shal see God in my flesh and here I will note to the reader by the way S. Hierome writeth this distinction of Christes flesh as a matter agreed on and then in catholique doctrine receaued not of his inuention but in the catholique fayth as a principle established which declareth the belyfe to haue bene of that very godly and spiritual flesh geuen really in the sacrament for els to eate onely in fayth is specially to remember Christes flesh as it was visibly crucified wherin was accomplished the oblation for our sinne and S. Paule willeth vs in the supper to shew forth and professe the death of Christ for so Christ would haue his death continually expressed till his coming and if S. Hierome with other should haue ment of the eating of Christ as he sitteth in heauen reigning this destinction of Christes flesh were an idle matter and out of purpose to compare the distinction in it to be like distinction of oure flesh to enter into heauen and not to enter into heauen the same and not the same And thus I say that this place of S. Hierome sheweth so euedently both his and S. Augustines fayth that wrot at the same tyme as there cannot be desired a more euident matter Caunterbury TO what purpose you should bring in here this place of S. Hierome making much agaynst you and nothing for you I cannot conceaue For he declareth no more in this place but that as all men in this world haue passible bodyes subiect to much filthynes corruption and death and yet after our resurrection we shal be deliuered from corruption vilenes weakenes and death and be made incorruptible glorious mighty and spirituall so Christes body in earth was subiect vnto our infirmities his flesh being crucified and his bloud being shed with a spere which now as you truly say is glorified impassible incorruptible and a spirituall body but yet not so spirituall that his humanitie is turned into his diuinity and his body into his soule as some heretikes phantasy nor that the diuersity of his members be taken away and so left without armes and legges head and feete eyes and eares and turned into the forme and fashion of a bowle as the Papistes imagine The sunne and the mone the fier and the ayre be bodyes but no mans bodyes bycause they lacke hart and lungues head and feete flesh and bloud vaynes and sinewes to knit them togither When Christ was transfigured his face shyned like the sunne and with his mouth he spake to Moyses Helias And after his resurrection we read of his flesh and bones his handes and feete his side and woundes visible and palpable and with mouth tongue and teeth he did eate and speake and so like a man he was in all proportions and members of man that Mary Magdalene could not discerne him from a gardiner And take away flesh and skinne sinewes and bones bloud and vaynes and then remayneth no mans body For take away distinction and diuersitie of partes and members how shall Peter be Peter and Paule be Paule How shall a man be a man and a woman a woman And how shall we see with our eyes and heare with our eares grope with our handes and go with our feete For eyther we shal do no such thinges at all or see with euery part of our bodies and likewise heare speake and go if there be no diuersity of members This I haue spoken for this purpose to declare that S. Hierome speaking of Christes diuine and spirituall flesh excludeth not therby any corporall member that pertayneth to the substance of a mans naturall body but that now being glorified it is the same in all partes that it was before And that same flesh being fyrst borne mortall of the virgine Mary and now being glorifyed and immortall as well the holy fathers did eate before he was borne and his apostles and disciples whiles he liued with vs here in earth as we doe now when he is glorified But what auayleth all this to your purpose except you could proue that to a spirituall eating is required a corporall presence And where you say that S. Hierome and S. Augustine vse both one maner of speaking that is not true For S. Hierom speaketh of the diuersity of the body of Christ and S. Augustine of the diuersity of eating therof And yet here is to be noted by the way that you say we receaue not in the sacramēt Christes flesh that was crucified which your wordes seme to agree euill with Christes wordes who the night before he was crucified declared to his desciples that he gaue them the same body that should suffer death for them And the Apostles receaued the body of Christ yet passible and mortall which the next day was crucified and if we receaue not in the sacrament the body that was crucified then receaue we not the same body that the Apostles did And here in your idle talke you draw by force S. Hieroms wordes to the sacrament when S. Hierom speaketh not one word of the sacramēt in that place let the reader iudge And here for the conclusion of the matter you fantasy and imagine such nouelties and wrape them vp in such darke speaches that we had neede to haue Ioseph or Daniell to expound◠our dreames But to make a cleare answere to your darke reason The body of Christ is glorified and reigneth in heauen and yet we remember with thankfull myndes that the same was crucified and emptied of bloud for our redemption and by fayth to chaw and digest this in our 〈◊〉 is to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud But your brayne rolleth so in fantasies that you wot not where to get out and one of your sayinges impugneth an other For first you say that we receaue not in the sacrament the flesh that was crucified and now you say we receaue him not as he sitteth in heauen and is glorified and so must you nedes graunt that we receaue him not at all Winchester But to returne to S. Augustine touching adoration
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
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
body simulation and dissimulation wherin when you haue well practised your selfe in all your booke thorow at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue betweene Chrysostome Theodoret and me But Chrysostome Theodoret and I shall agree well enough for they tell not what in no wise may be but what was commonly vsed that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered what I wrote in my booke concerning figuratiue speaches and negatiues by cōparisō which you also haue allowed you should haue well perceiued your labor here spēt all in vaine For in all figures and sacramentes the signes remayning in their owne proper natures chaunge neuertheles their names and be called by the names of the more high and excellent thinges which they signify And both Chrysostome and Theodoret shew a cause thereof which is this that we should not rest in the sight of the sacramentes and figures but lift vp our mindes to the thinges that be thereby represented And yet in the sacramentes is neither simulation nor dissimulation except you will call all figuratiue speaches simulation and say that Christ simuled when he sayd he was a vine a dore a herdman the light of the world and suche like speaches But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit being now so sore trauailed with impugning of the truth to deuise a prety mery dialog of Quoth he and quoth he And if I were disposed to dally and trifle I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation of quoth he and quoth you euen betwene you and Christ. But as I haue declared before all thinges which be exalted to an hier dignity be called by the names of their dignity So muche the many times their former names be forgotten and yet neuertheles they be the same thinges that they were before although they be not vsually so called As the surnames of Kinges and Emperours to how many be they knowen or how many doe call them thereby but euery man calleth them by their royall and imperiall dignities And in like maner is it of fygures and sacramentes sauing that their exaltation is in a figure and the dignities royall and imperiall be reall and indeed And yet he should not offend that should call the princes by their original names so that he did it not in contempt of their estates And no more should he offend that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified And therefore Theodoret sayth not that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread and that he offendeth that so calleth it for he calleth it bread himselfe but with this addition of dignity calling it the bread of life which it signifieth As the cap of maintenāce is not called barely and simply a cap but with addition of maintenaunce And in like manner we vse not in common speach to call bread wine and water in the sacraments simple and common water bread and wine but according to that they represent vnto vs we call them the water of baptisme the water of life sacramentall water sacramentall and celestiall bread and wine the bread of lyfe the drinke that quencheth our thirst for euer And the cause Theodoret sheweth why they be so called that we hearing those names should lift vp our mindes vnto the thinges that they bee called and comfort our selues therewithall And yet neither in the sacraments iu the cap of maintenaunce nor in the imperiall or royall maiesties is any simulation or dissimulation but all be playn speaches in common vsage which euery man vnderstandeth But there was neuer man that vnderstood any author further from his meaning then you do Theodoret and Chrysostome in this place For they ment not of any reall calling by chaungyng of substances but of a sacramentall chaunge of the names remaining the substaunces For Theodoret sayth in playne wordes that as Christ called bread his body so he called his body corne and called himselfe a vine Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corne or he into a vine And yet this must needes follow of your saying if Christes calling were a putting away of the former substance according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation But that Theodoret ment not of any such chaunging of substances but of chaunging of names he declareth so playnely that no man can doubt of his meaning These be Theodorets owne wordes Our Sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body and yet sayth he they kept their former substaunce fashion and figure And the cause wherfore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of hys body to dignify so earthly a thing by so heauenly a name Theodoret sheweth to be this that the godly receiuers of the Sacrament when they heare the heauenly names should lift vp their mindes from earth vnto heauen and not to haue respect vnto the bread outwardly only but principally to looke vpon Christ who with his heauenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly But there was neuer such vntrueth vsed as you vse in this author to hide the trueth and to set forth your vntrueth For you alter Theodoretes wordes and yet that suffiseth not but you geue such new and straunge significations to wordes as before was neuer inuented For where Theodoret sayth that the sacramentes remayne you turne that into the visible matter and then that visible matter as you take it must signify accidents And where Theodoret sayth in playne termes that the substaunce remayneth there must substaunce also by your saying signify accidentes which you call here outward nature cōtrary to your own doctrine which haue taught hetherto that substaunce is an inward nature inuisible and insensible And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the trueth nor with your selfe in other places And all these cantelless and false interpretations altering of the words and corrupting of the sence both of all authors and also of scripture is nothing els but shameles shiftes to deceiue simple people and to draw them from the olde Catholicke fayth of Christes Churche vnto your newe Romish errors deuised by Antichrist not aboue foure or fiue hundred yeares passed And where you say that in the sacrament in euery part both in the heauenly earthly part is an whole perfect truth Now is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament if there be no bread there at all but the color and accidents of bread For if there be none other truth in the heauēly part of the sacrament then is not Christ there at all but onely his qualities and accidentes And as concerning your vniust gathering of mine owne wordes vpon S. Augustine I haue aunswered
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
serue God and dwell in hym and haue him euer dwellyng in you What can be so heauy a burden as an vnquiet conscience to be in such a place as a man can not be suffered to serue God in Christes true Religion I lye be loth to depart from your kin and frendes remember that Christ calleth them his mother sisters and brethren that do his Fathers will Where we finde therefore God truely honored accordyng to his will there we can lacke neither frend nor kin If you be loth to depart for slaunderyng of Gods word remember that Christ when his houre was not yet come departed out of his countrey into Samaria to auoyde the malice of the Scribes and Phariseis and commaunded his Apostles that if they were pursued in one place they should flye to an other And was not Paule let downe by a basket out at a window to auoyde the persecution of Areta And what wisedome and policie he vsed from tyme to tyme to escape the malice of his enemies the Actes of the Apostles doe declare And after the same sorte did the other Apostles albeit wheÌ„ it came to such a poynt that they could no longer escape daunger of the persecutours of Gods true Religion than they shewed them selues that their flyeng before came not of feare but of godly wisedome to doe more good that they would not rashly without vrgent necessitie offer them selues to death whiche had bene but a temptation of God Yea when they were apprehended and could no longer auoyde then they stoode boldly to the profession of Christ then they shewed how litle they passed of death how much they feared God more then men how much they loued and preferred the eternall life to come aboue this short and miserable lyfe Wherfore I exhort you aswell by Christes commaundement as by the example of him and his Apostles to withdraw your selfe from the malice of your and Gods enemyes into some place where God is most purely serued which is no slauÌ„dering of the truth but a preseruyng of your selfe to God and the truth and to the societie and comfort of Christes litle flocke And that you will doe do it with speede least by your owne follie you fall into the persecutours handes and the Lord send his holy spirite to lead and guide you where soeuer you goe and all that be godly will say Amen T. C. A short Table or Index after the order Alphabeticall notyng the place or page of euery principall matters comprised in this Booke A. ABrahams will is called a sacrifice 85 Accidentes remoued there is no difference of substaunce 275 Adoration confuted .2 238 Aduerbes in lye 161 AEpinus 3â—9 15 Articles sixe not consented vnto by diuerse learned men 252 Authours for doctrine how to be read 127 B. BAptisme iniured by the Papistes 9. 20. 30. why ordayned in water .38 the water how chaunged therein 330 Berengarius 6. 7 Bertram his booke 6.77 Body of Christ whether a beast or byrd may eate it 66. whether ill men eate it .68 215. his eaten three maner of wayes .70 whether it hath proper formes quantities in the Sacrament .72 whether it be made of bread .79 looke Bread is not the sacrifice .87 to eate it is a figuratiue speach .111 looke eatyng how it is carnall .183 whether it be made of the matter of bread .203 what maner of body it is .238 is not the substaunce of the visible Sacrament 260 This is my Body how expounded 104. 121 Looke Sacramentes and the word Christ. Our Bodyes how they shal be spirituall is the resurrection 183 Bonauentura 53 Bread in the SacrameÌ„t is not holy but an holy token .3.186.156 yet is no bare token .4.10.92.207 but is deliuered from his bare name .291 to whoÌ„ it is but a bare token .10 how it is a chaunged in the Sacrament .330 341. the conuersion therof into Christes body is spirituall .325 how it is Christes body .292 and fleshe .20 why called Christes flesh .133 why it is Christes body to the receauer .208 what foode it is to the worthy receauer .333 it remayneth but bread after sanctification .263 it beyng broken how Christ may be sayd to be whole in euery part therof 350 Breakyng signifieth the whole vse of the Supper 260 Bucer 15 C. CAllyng is not makyng 346.107 Chaunge of thynges remoueth not substaunces 345 Christ how present in the Sacrament .4.5.8.49 124. how eaten in the Sacrament .8.10.18.20 22. how he is verely geuen in it .19 what it is to dwell in hym .23 he called the materiall bread his body .24 euill men eate him not .25 he meant not to make the bread his body .25 his ambiguous speaches not alwayes opened in the EuaÌ„gelistes .33 be excelleth all corporall foode .37 he is not corporally on earth .43 but in heauen .49 95. 142. Papistes say hee goeth no further then the stomacke .53 he is not receiued with the mouth .55 how long he taryeth with the receiuer .57 Papistes say he is whole in euery part of bread .63 but once offered .87 the dedication of his will to dye was not a propitiatory sacrifice .85 his intercession is no sacrifice for sinne .89 hee is in his Supper as in his assembly .93 how he is with vs also gone froÌ„ vs .102 his calling is not makyng .246.107 his glorified body hath his forme quaÌ„tities .129 he vseth figuratiue speaches .136 how he is in our handes .456 how he dwelleth in vs naturally .168 169. how vnited vnto vs .166 192. 175. he is verely truely present in the Sacrament .192 how we eate his sensible flesh that was Crucified .234 to be honored in heaueÌ„ not in the SacrameÌ„t .245 239. his humanitie proued by visible conuersatioÌ„ .278 his substauÌ„ce in Baptisme and the Supper how .289 he is ioyned to the bread as the holy Ghost is ioyned to the water .327 his wordes chaunge the kyndes of elementes .341 his sacrifice propitiatory what it is .370.372 and the effect of his sacrifice 391 Looke the word Sacrament and Sacrifice Church of God how it dayly offereth Christ. 89.90 Churche which is to be followed .380 and whiche Church can not erre 405 Church of Rome a stepmother .12 13. the mother of Transubstantiation .15 looke Transubstantiation Clemens Epistles fayned 146 Communion a short introduction thereunto 380 Confusion of Natures what it is 321 Consecration what it is .184 the Papistes vary in it 262. Conuersion two wayes 107 Conuersion of earthly creatures into Christes substaunce how 187 Corporall thynges haue two Natures 363 Cuttill the nature therof 19 D. DOctrine wantyng generall successe is not therfore vntrue 7 E. EAtyng signifieth beleuyng 31 Eatyng spirituall how it is 40.218 Eatyng of Christes body three maner of wayes 70.214 Eatyng of Christes body is a spirituall speach 113. 118 Eatyng of Christes flesh what it is 163.217 Euill men eate not Christes body 68. 215. 216 F. FAyth Catholique what as Winchester sayth .4 how grounded by the
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
death and to saue my life if it might be and that is all such Billes and papers which I haue written or signed with my hand since my degradation wherein I haue written many thynges vntrue And for as much as my hand offended written contrary to my hart my hand shall first bee punished therefore for may I come to the fire it shal be first burned And as for the Pope I refuse him as Christes enemy and Antichrist with all his false doctrine And as for the Sacrament I beleue as I haue taught in my booke agaynst the Byshop of Winchester the whiche my booke teacheth so true a doctrine of the Sacrament that it shal stand at the last day before the Iudgement of God where the Papisticall doctrine contrary thereto shal be ashamed to shew her face Here the standers by were all astonyed maruailed were amased did looke one vpon an other whose expectation he had so notably deceiued Some began to admonish him of his recantation and to accuse him of falshode Briefly it was a world to sée the Doctours beguiled of so great an hope I thinke there was neuer crueltie more notably or better in tyme deluded and deceiued For it is not to bee doubted but they looked for a glorious victorie and a perpetuall triumph by this mans retractation Who as soone as they heard these thynges began to let downe their eares to rage fret and fume and so much the more because they could not reuenge their grief for they could now no longer threaten or hurt him For the most miserable man in the world can dye but once where as of necessitie he must néedes dye that day though the Papistes had bene neuer so well pleased now beyng neuer so much offended with him yet could he not be twise killed of them And so whē they could do nothing els vnto him yet lest they should say nothyng they ceassed not to obiect vnto him his falsehode and dissimulation Unto which accusation he aunswered Ah my Maisters quoth he do not you take it so Alwayes since I liued hetherto I haue bene a hater of falsehode and a louer of simplicitie and neuer before this tyme haue I dissembled and in saying this all the teares that remained in his body appeared in his eyes And when hee began to speake more of the Sacrament and of the Papacie some of them began to cry out yalpe and baule and and specially Cole cried out vpon him stop the heretickes mouth and take him away And then Cranmer beyng pulled downe from the stage was led to the fire accompanied with those Friers vexyng troublyng and threatnyng him most cruellie What madnes say they hath brought thée agayne into this errour by which thou wilt draw innumerable soules with thée into hell To whom he aunswered nothyng but directed all his talke to the people sauyng that to one troublyng him in the way he spake and exhorted him to get him home to his study and apply his booke diligently saying if he did diligently call vpon God by reading more he should get knowledge But the other Spanish barker ragyng and fomyng was almost out of his wittes alwayes hauyng this in his mouth Non fecisti diddest thou it not But when he came to the place where the holy Byshops and Martyrs of God Hugh Latymer Ridley were burnt before him for the confessiō of the truth knéeling down he prayed to God and not long tarying in Prayers puttyng of his garmentes to his shirt hee prepared him selfe to death His shirt was made long downe to his féete His féete were bare Likewise his head when both his cappes were of was so bare that not one heare could bee sene vpon it His beard was long and thicke coueryng his face with marueilous grauitie Such a countenaunce of grauitie moued the hartes both of his frendes and of his enemies Then the Spanish Friers Iohn and Richard of whom mention was made before began to exhort him and play their partes with him a fresh but with vayne and lost labour Cranmer with stedfast purpose abidyng in the profession of his doctrine gaue his hand to certaine old men and other that stoode by biddyng them farewell And when he had thought to haue done so likewise to Ely the sayd Ely drew backe his hand and refused saying it was not lawfull to salute heretickes and specially such a one as falsely returned vnto the opinions that he had foresworne And if hee had knowen before that he would haue done so he would neuer haue vsed his companie so familiarly and chid those Sergeauntes and Citizens which had not refused to geue him their handes This Ely was a Priest lately made and Student in Diuinitie beyng then one of the Fellowes of Brasennose Then was an yron chayne tyed about Cranmer whom when they perceiued to be more stedfast then that he could be moued from his sentence they commaunded the fire to be set vnto him And when the wood was kindled and the fire began to burne neare him stretchyng out his arme he put his right hand into the flame whiche he held so stedfast and immouable sauyng that once with the same hand he wiped his face that all men might sée his hand burned before his body was touched His body did so abide the burnyng of the flame with such constancie and stedfastnesse that standyng alwayes in one place without mouyng of his body hee séemed to moue no more then the stake to whiche he was bound his eyes were lifted vp into heauen and often tymes he repeated his vnworthy right hand so long as his voyce would suffer him and vsing often the wordes of Stephen Lord Iesus receiue my spirite in the greatnesse of the flame he gaue vp the Ghost This fortitude of mynde whiche perchaunce is rare and not vsed among the Spaniardes when Frier Iohn saw thinkyng it came not of fortitude but of desperation although such maner examples whiche are of the like constancie haue bene common here in England ran to the Lord Williams of Lame crying that the Archbyshop was vexed in mynde and dyed in great desperation But he whiche was not ignoraunt of the Archbyshops constancie beyng vnknowen to the Spaniardes smiled onely and as it were by silence rebuked the Friers tollie And this was the end of this learned Archbyshop whom lest by euill subscribyng he should haue perished by well recantyng God preserued and lest he should haue liued longer with shame and reproofe it pleased God rather to take him away to the glory of his name and profite of his Churche So good was the Lord both to his Church in fortifying the same with the testimonie bloud of such a Martyr and so good also to the man with this Crosse of tribulation to purge his offences in his world not onely of his recantatiō but also of his standyng agaynst Iohn Lambert and M. Allen or if there were any other
body from his spirite affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite and in the communion but his flesh And that Christes spirit renueth our life but increaseth it not and that his flesh increceth our life but geueth it not And agaynst all nature reasō and truth you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christes body and bloud in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all And against scripture and all comformity of nature you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacrament that you leaue no distinction proportion nor fashion of mannes body at all And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother of the true doctrine of Christ that thus vnnaturally speaketh deuydeth and confoundeth Christes body If Salomon were aliue he would surely geue iudgement that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh so vnnaturally and so vnlike his mother and be geuen to the true church of the faithful that neuer digressed from the truth of Gods word nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body but speake according to the same that Christes body although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body occupying one place and being of a certayne height and measure hauing all members distinct and set in good order and proportion And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye is not only the beginning but also the contynuance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life By him we be regenerated by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature as Christ doth in his without mixtion or confusion This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother and like a true and right beleeuing christian man Marye of that doctrine which you teach I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof which in scripture is called Babilō because of commixtion or confusion Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth superstition with religiō godlines with hipocrisie scripture with traditions that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant to confound all the doctrine of Christ yea Christ him selfe shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother and the true naturall mother of Antichrist And for the conclusion of your matter here I doubt not but the indifferent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts sleightes shiftes obliquities manifest vntruthes it may be easely iudged that what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet nothing is lesse intended then that truth should ether haue victory or appeare and be seene at all Winchester And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes which this author is not afraid to vtter a matter wonderfull considering his dignity if he that is named be the author in déede which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth First I will note vnto the reader how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament to be the faith of the papistes which saying what foundacion it hath thou mayest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish defended stoutly the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in England in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gospels professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany where Hosiander is chiefe preacher in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the word truly is there and as Buter saith that is substancially Which Catechisme was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from the beginning alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene Ciprian Chrisostome Hillary Cirill Ambrose and Theophilacte which authors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to idle wittes with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estéemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is published abroad in printe wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse and that in it is dispensed the true body true bloud of Christ which is plainly the same in essence that is to say substāce and the same bloud in essence signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye taken for no papist among vs to much estéemed as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Ciprian Hilary Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basill Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iudgement he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words this is my body rehearsed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what
intent by his will preached vnto vs by Scriptures and beleued vniuersally in his church But if it may now be thought séemely for vs to be so bold in so high a mistery to begin to discusse Christes intent What should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall signification as be rehearsed touching the mistery of this Sacrament First in the sixt of Iohn when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signifie beleeuing whereat was no murmuring that then he should enter to speak of geuing of his flesh to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say that he would geue a bread that is his flesh which he would geue for the life of the world In which wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therefore as we beleeue the gift of his flesh to the Iewes to be crucified so we must beléeue the gift of his flesh to be eaten and of that gifte liuery and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his promises faithfull as Christ is to be made in both And therefore when he sayd in his Supper Take eate this is my body he must néedes intend plainly as his words of promise required And these wordes in his Supper purporte to geue as really then his body to be eaten of vs as he gaue his body in deede to be crucified for vs aptly neuerthelesse and conueniently for ech effect and therefore in maner of geuing diuersly but in the substance of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare witnes the same and therefore sayd this is my body that shal be betraied for you expressing also the vse when he said take eate which words in deliuering of material bread had béen superfluous for what should men doe with bread when they take it but eate it specially when it is broaken But as Cyrill sayth Christ opened there vnto them the practise of that doctrine hée spake of in the sixt of S. Iohn and because he sayd he would geue his flesh for food which he would geue for the life of the world he for fulfilling of his promise sayd Take eate this is my body which wordes haue béen taught and beléeued to be of effect and operatory and Christ vnder the forme of bread to haue béen his very body According whereunto S. Paule noteth the receauer to be gilty when he doth not estéeme it our Lordes body wherewith it pleaseth Christ to féede such as be in him regenerate to the intent that as man was redéemed by Christ suffering in the nature of his humanitie so to purchase for man the kingdome of heauen lost by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitye geuing it to be eaten he ordayned it to nourish man and make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to enioy that kingdome And therefore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament and the same to be in déede deliuered Christ vsed playn wordes testified by the Euangelistes Saint Paule also rehearsed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the eleuenth to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuing as it were an exposition of the effect vseth the same proper wordes declaring the effect to be the communication of Christes body and bloud And one thing is notable touching the Scripture that in such notable spéeches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguity the Euangelists by some circumstance declared it or sometime opened it by playn interpretation as whē Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within thrée dayes build it agayne The Euangelist by and by addeth for interpretation This he sayd of the temple of his body And when Christ sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine The circumstaunce of the texte openeth the ambiguity But to shew that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the Euangelistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstaunces whereby to take away the proper signification of the wordes body and bloud so as the same might seeme not in déede geuen as the catholicke faith teacheth but in signification as the author would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ the Spirite geueth life the flesh profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ ech in their property a part considered but not as they be in Christs person vnited the mistery of which vniō such as beléeued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descention from heauen and after of his ascension thether agayn whereby they might vnderstand him very God whose flesh taken in the virgins wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs is as I haue before opened viuifike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes intent was to geue verely as he did in déede his precious body and bloud to be eaten and dronken according as he taught thē to be verely meate and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder forme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniētly and without horror of our nature receaue them Christ therein condescending to our infirmity As for such other wrangling as is made in vnderstanding of the words of Christ shall after he spoaken of by further occasion Caunterbury NOw we be come to the very pith of the matter and the chiefe pointe wherupon the wholl controuersie hangeth whether in these words this is my body Christ called bread his body wherin you and Smith agree like a man and a woman that dwelled in Lincolnshere as I haue heard reported that what pleased the one misliked the other sauing that they both agreed in wilfulness So do Smith and you agree both in this point that Christ made bread his body but that it was bread which he called his body when he sayd This is my body this you graunt but Smith denieth it And because all Smithes buildinges cleerely fall downe if this his chiefe foundation be ouerthrowen therfore must I first proue against Smith that Christ called the materiall bread his body the wine which was the fruite of the vine his bloud For why did you not prooue this my Lord sayth Smith would you that men should take you for a prophet or for one that could not erre in his sayinges First I alleadge against Smithes negation your affirmation which as it is more true in this point then his negation so for your estimation it is able to counteruail his saying if there were nothing els yet if Smith had well pondered what I haue written in the second chap. of my second booke and in the 7. and 8. chapters of my third book he should haue
proofe in Scripture to say God doth it because he can doe it For hee can doe many thinges which hee neither doth nor will doe He could haue sent moe then twelue Legions of Angels to deliuer Christ from the wicked Iewes and yet he would not doe it He could haue created the world and all thinges therin in one moment of time and yet his pleasure was to doe it in sixe dayes In all matters of our christen faith written in holy Scripture for our instruction and doctrin how farre so euer they seeme discrepant from reason we must represse our imaginations and consider Gods pleasure and will and yeald therto beleeuing him to be omnipotent And that by his omnipotent power such thinges are verelye so as holy scripture teacheth Like as we beleeue that Christ was borne of the blessed virgin Mary without company of man that our Sauyour Christ the third day rose agayn from death that he in his humanity ascended into heauen that our bodyes at the day of iudgement shall rise agayne and many other such like thinges which we all that be true christeÌ„ men do beleeue firmely because we finde these thinges written iu Scripture And therfore we knowing Gods omnipotency doe beleue that he hath brought some of the said things to passe already and those things that are yet to come he will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to passe Now if you can proue that your transubstantiatioÌ„ your fleshly presence of Christes body and bloud your carnall eating and drinking of the same your propitiatory sacrifice of the masse are taught vs as plainly in the scripture as the sayd articles of our faith be then I will beleeue that it is so in deede Otherwise neither I nor any man that is in his right wittes will beleeue your said articles because God is omnipotent and can make it so For you might so vnder pretence of Gods omnipotency make as many articles of our faith as you list if such arguments might take place that God by his omnipotent power can conuert the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of his flesh and bloud ergo he doth so in deede And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine yet Christ vsed not so many wordes in the mistery of his holy supper without effectual signification For he is effectually present and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine but in the godly receauers of them to whom he geeueth his own flesh spiritually to feede vpon and his own bloud to quench their great inward thirst And here I would wishe you to marke very wel one true sentence which you haue vttered by the way which is That Christ declared that eating of him signifieth beleeuing and start not from it an other time And marke the same I pray thee gentle Reader For this one sentence assoyleth almost all the argumentes that be brought by this Lawyer in his wholl booke against the truth And yet to the sayd true saying you haue ioyned an other vntruth haue yoaked them both together in one sentence For when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended froÌ„ heauen there was no murmuring thereat say you Which your saying I can not but wonder at to see you so farre deceaued in a matter so plaine and manifest And if I had spoaken such an euident and manifeste vntruth I doubt not but it should haue beene spoaken of to Rome gates For the text sayth there plainly Murmur abant Iudaei de illo qoud dixisset Ego sum panis vinus qui de coelo descendi The Iewes murmured at him because he sayd I am the bread of life that came from heauen But when you wrote this it seemeth you looked a litle to low and should haue looked higher And here by this one place the Reader may gather of your own wordes your intent and meaning in this your booke if that be true which you sayd before that euer where contention is on what parte the Reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lye there he may consider whatsoeuer excuse be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended An other vntruth also followeth incontinently that when Christ sayd The bread which I will geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world In these wordes say you Christ maketh mention of two gifts But what be those two giftes I pray you And by what wordes is the diuersitie of those two giftes expressed If the geuing as Smith sayth be geuing to death then those two giftes declare that Christ dyed for vs twise And if one of Christes giftes haue liuery and seisyn why hath not the other likewise And when was then that liuery and seisyn geuen And if eating of Christ be beleeuing as you sayd euen now then liuerey and seisyn is geuen when we first beleeue whether it be in baptisme or at any other time But what you mean by these wordes that Christ gaue in his supper his body as really to be eateÌ„ of vs as he did to be crucified for vs I vnderstand not except you would haue Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth as he was after crucified whipped and thrust to the hart with a speare But was he not then so really and corporally crucified that his body was rent and torne in peeces And was not he so crucified then that he neuer was crucified after Was he not so slayn then that he neuer dyed any more And if he were so eaten at his supper then did his Apostles teare his flesh at the supper as the Iewes did the day following And then how could he now be eaten agayn Or how could he be crucified the day following if the night before he were after that sort eaten all vp But aptly say you and conueniently Mary Sir I thanke you but what is the aptly and conueniently but spiritually and by faith as you said before not grosly with the teeth as he was crucified And so the manner was diuers I graunt and the substance all one But when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper as you say he did then what needed he after to dye that we might liue if he fulfilled his promise of life at his supper Why said the Prophets that he should be wouÌ„ded for our iniquities and that by his wounds we should be healed if we had life and were healed before he was wounded Why doth the catholick faith teach vs to beleue that we be redeemed by his blud sheading if he gaue vs life which is our redemâ—ion the night before hee shed his bloud And why sayth S. Paule that there is no remission without bloud sheading Yea why did he say Absit mihi
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
call the faith of the Church which teacheth not say you that Christ is in the bread and wine but vnder the formes of bread and wine But to aunswere you I say that the Papists do teach that Christ is in the visible signes and whether they list to call them bread and wine or the formes of bread and wine all is one to me for the truth is that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine nor in or vnder the formes figures of them but is corporally in heauen and spiritually in his liuelye members which be his tēples where he inhabiteth And what vntrue reporte is this when I speake of bread and wine to the Papistes to speak of them in the fame sence that the Papistes meane taking bread and wine for the formes and accidences of bread and wine And your selfe also doe teach to vnderstand by the bread and wine not their substances but accidentes And what haue I offended then in speaking to you after your own māner of speach which your self doth approue and allow by and by after saying these wordes As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name If a Catholick man forbeareth not that name and Catholick men be true men then true men forbeare not that name And why then charge you me with an vntruth for vsing that name which you vse your selfe and affirme Catholicke men to vse But that you be geuen altogether to finde faultes rather in other then to amend your own and to reprehend that in me which you allow in your selfe and other and purposely will not vnderstand my meaning because ye would seeke occasion to carpe and controll For els what man is so simple that readeth my booke but he may know well that I meane not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine For I know that you say ther is nether bread nor wine although you say vntruely therein but yet for as much as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine and say that in them is Christ therfore I reporte of you that you say Christ is in the bread and wine meaning as you take bread and wine the accidentes thereof Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent Reader of my booke then you in this place who vnderstoode my wordes as I meante and as the Papistes vse and therefore would not purposely calūniate and reprehend that was well spoaken But there is no man so dull as he that will not vnderstand For men know that your witte is of as good capacitie as D. Smithes is if your will agreed to the same But as for any vntrue reporte made by me herein willingly against my conscience as you vntruely report of me by that time I haue ioyned with you throughout your booke you shall right well perceiue I trust that I haue sayd nothing wittingly but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day in the sight of the euerliuing God and that I am able before any learned and indifferent iudges to iustifie by holy Scriptures and the auncient Doctors of Christes church as I will appeale the consciences of all godly men that be any thing indifferent ready to yealde to the truth when they reade and consider my booke And as concerning the forme of doctrine vsed in this church of Englād in the holy Communiō that the body and bloud of Christ be vnder the formes of bread and wine whē you shall shew the place where this forme of words is expressed then shall you purge your selfe of that which in the meane time I take to be a plain vntruth Now for the second parte of the difference you graunt that our doctrine is true that Christ is in them that worthely eate and drunke the bread and wine and if it differ not from youres then let it passe as a thing agreed vpon by both partes And yet if I would captiously gather of your wordes I could as well prooue by this second parte that very bread and wine be eatē and drunken after consecration as you could prooue by the first that Christ is in the very bread and wine And if a Catholick man call the bread wine as you say in the second parte of the difference what ment you then in the first parte of this difference to charge me with so hainous a crime with a note to the Reader as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost because I said that the Papistes doe teach that Christ is in the bread and wine doe not you affirme here yourselfe the same that I reporte that the Papistes which you call the Catholickes doe not forbeare to call the Sacrament wherein they put the reall and corporall presence bread and wine Let the Reader now iudge whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the successe of them that study to wrangle in wordes without any respecte of opening the truth But letting that matter passe yet we vary from you in this difference For we say not as you doe that the body of Christ is corporally naturally and carnally either in the bread and wine or formes of bread and wine or in them that eate and drinke thereof But we say that he is corporally in heauen onely and spiritually in them that worthely eate and drink the bread and wine But you make an article of the faith which the olde Church neuer beleeued nor heard of And where you note in this second parte of the difference a sleight and crafte as you note an vntruth in the first euen as much crafte is in the one as vntruth in the other being neither sleight nor vntruth in either of both But this sleight say you I vse putting that for a difference wherein is no difference at all but euery Catholick man must needes confesse Yet once againe there is no man so deafe as he that will not heare nor so blinde as he that will not see nor so dul as he that wil not vnderstand But if you had indifferent eares indifferent eyes and indifferent iudgement you might well gather of my wordes a plain and manifest difference although it be not in such tearmes as contenteth your mind But because you shall see that I meane no sleight nor crafte but goe plainly to worke I shall set out the difference truely as I ment and in such your own tearmes as I trust shall content you if it be possible Let this therfore be the difference They say that Christ is corporally vnder or in the formes of bread and wine We say that Christ is not there neither corporally nor spiritually but in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine he is spiritually and corporally in heauen Here I trust I haue satisfied as well the vntrue report wittingly made as you say in the first parte of the difference against my conscience as the crafte and sleight vsed
the very body of Christ but to the bread wherby hys body is represented And yet the booke of common prayer neyther vseth any such speach nor geueth any such doctrine nor I in no poynt improue that godly booke nor varye from it But yet glad I am to heare that the sayd booke lyketh you so well as noe man can mislike it that hath anye godlinesse in hym ioyned with knowledge But nowe to come to the very matter of this article it is maruell that you neuer redde that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke of that man that receaueth and no further being a lawyer and seing that it is written in the glose of the law De-consecrat dist 2. Tribus gradibus in these wordes It is certayne that assone as the formes be torne with the teeth so sone the body of Christ is gone vp into heauen And in the chapiter Non iste is an other glose to the same purpose And if you had redde Thomas de Aquino and Bonauenture great clearkes and holy Sainctes of the Popes own making and other schoole authors then should you haue knowne what the Papistee do say in this matter For some say that the body of Christ remayneth so long as the forme and fashion of bread remayneth although it be in a dog mouse or in the iakes And some say it is not in the mouse nor sakes but remayneth onely in the person that eateth it vntill it be digested in the stomacke and the fourme of bread be gone Some say it remayneth no longer then the Sacrament is in the eating and may be felt seene and tasted in the mouth And this besides Hugo sayth Pope Innocentius hym selfe who was the best learned and the chiefe doer in this matter of all the other Popes Red you neuer none of these authors and yet take vpō you the full knowledge of this matter Will you take vpon you to defend the Papistes and knowe not what they say Or do you know it and now be ashamed of it and for shame will deny it And seing that you teache that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes I pray you tell whether it go any further then the mouth or no and how farre it goeth that I may know your iudgement herein and so shall you be charged no further then with your own saying and the reader shall perceiue what excellent knowledge you haue in this matter And where you say that to teach that we receaue Christ at our mouth he goeth into our stomack and no further commeth out of the mouth of thē that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Here like vnto Caiphas you prophecy the truth vnwares For this doctrine commeth out of the mouth of none but of the Papistes which fight against the holy catholicke truth of the aūcient Fathers saying that Christ tarrieth no longer then the proper formes of bread and wine remaine which can not remain after perfect digestion in the stomacke And I say not that the Church teacheth so as you fayne me to say but that the Papistes say so Wherfore I should wish you to reporte my words as I say and not as you imagine me to say least you heare agayne as you haue heard heretofore of your wonderfull learning and practise in the Deuils Sophistrye Now as concerning the second parte of this comparison here you graūt that my saying therein is true and that euery Catholick man must needes and doth confesse the same By which your saying you must also condemne almost all the schoole authors and Lawiers that haue written of this matter with Innocent the third also as men not Catholick because they teach that Christ goeth no further nor taryeth no longer then the formes of bread and wine goe and remayn in their proper kinde And yet now your doctrine as farre as I can gather of your obscure wordes is this That Christ is receaued at the mouth with the formes of bread and wine and goeth with them into the stomack And although they goe no further in their proper kinds yet there Christ leaueth them and goeth him selfe further into euery parte of the mannes body and into his soule also which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange For I haue many times heard that a soule hath gone into a body but I neuer heard that a body went into a soule But I weene of all the Papistes you shal be alone in this matter and finde neuer a fellow to say as you doe And of these thinges which I haue here spoaken I may conclude that this comparison of difference is not made of an open vntruth and a truth disguised except you wil confesse the Papisticall doctrine to be an open vntruth Now the wordes of my third comparison be these They say that Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine We say that he is receaued in the hart and entreth in by faith Winchester Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on both sides and therfore here is by the Author in this comparison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauing of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is both with mouth and harte both in facte and faith After which sorte Saynte Peter in the laste Supper receaued Christes body where as in the same Iudas receaued it with mouth and in facte onely wherof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise Non dicuns ista nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt sicut Tetrus non iudicium sicut Indas tamē ipsa vtrique fuit vina sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi non erant vnum Which wordes be thus much to say That they say not so as was before intreated but such as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgement as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in them both bycause they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued which being receaued with the mouth only and Christ entring in mysterie onely doth not sanctifie vs but is the stone of stumbling and our iudgement and condemnation but if he be receaued with mouth and body with hart and fayth to such he bringeth lyfe and nourishment Wherfore in this comparison the author hath made no difference but with diuers tearmes the Catholicke teaching is deuided into two membres with a But fashioned neuertheles in another phrase of spéech then the church hath vsed which is so common in this Author that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte But let vs goe further Caunterbury THere is nothing in this comparyson worthy to be answered for if you can finde no difference therein yet euery indifferent Reader can For when I reporte the Papistes teaching that they
comparison They say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantitie We say that Christ is there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitye Winchester In this comparison is both sleight and crafte in the first parte of it which is that they say there is mention of the body of Christ which is proper of the humanity of Christ. In the second parte which is of we say there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body Now the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud and because the diuine nature in Christ continueth the vnity with the body of Christ we must néedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is wholl Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie and therefore such as confesse the true Catholick faith they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body which although it hath all those truthes of forme and quantity yet they say Christes body is not present after the manner of quantitie nor in a visible forme as it was conuersant in this present life but that there is truely in the Sacramēt the very true body of Christ which good men beléeue vpon the credit of Christ that sayd so and knowledge therwith the maner of that presente to be an high mistery and the maner so spirituall as the carnall man cannot by discourse of reason reach it but in his discourse shalt as this author doth think it a vanitie and foolishnes which foolishnes neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisedome of the world And thus haue I opened what they say on the Catholick part Now for the other parte whereof this author is and with his faith we say the words séeme to imploy that Christes humain body is not in the Sacrament in that it is sayd Christ to be there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitie which saying hath no Scripture for it For the Scripture speaketh of Christes body which was betraied for vs to be geuen vs to be eaten Where also Christes diuinity is present as accompanyng his humanity which humanitie is specially spoken of the presence of which humanitie when it is denyed then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinity specially that is to say other wise then it is by his omnipotency presēt euery where And to conclude this peece of comparyson this maner of speach was neuer I thinke red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity And S. Paule speaketh of a forme in the Godhead Qui quam in forma Dei esset Who when he was in the forme of God So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all forme then is he there neither as God nor man which is a straunger teaching then yet hath bene heare or red of but into such absurdities in déed do they fall who intreat irreuerently and vntruly this high mistery This is here worthy a spesyall note how by the maner of the spéech in the latter part of this difference the teaching semeth to be that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament because of the word there which thou reader mayest compare how it agréeth with the rest of this authors doctrine Let vs go to the next Caunterbury SUch is the nature of many that they can finde many knots in a playne rush and doubtes where no doubtes ought to bee found So fynd you sleight and craft where I ment all thinges symply and playnly And to auoyd such sleight and craft as you gather of my words I shall expresse thē plainly thus The Papistes say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantity We say that the body of Christ hath not his proper forme and quantity neither in the sacrament nor in them that receaue the Sacrament but is in the sacrament sacramentally and in the worthy receauers spiritually without the proper forme quantity of his body This was my meaning at the first and no mā that had loked of this place indifferently would haue taken the second part of this comparison to be vnderstanded of Christs diuine nature for the bread and wyne be sacraments of his body and bloud and not of his diuinitie as Theodoretus sayth and therfore his diuine nature is not sacramentally in the sacramēt but his humayne nature onely And what maner of spech had this ben to say of Christes diuine nature that it is in the sacrament without quantity which hath in it no manner of quantitie where so euer it be And where I set foorth these comparysons to shew wherein we vary from the Papists what variance had ben in this comparison if I had vnderstanded the first part of Christs humanitie and the second of his diuinitie The reader by this one place among many other may easyly discerne how captious you be to reprehend what so euer I say and to peruert euery thing into a wrong sense So that in respect of you Smith is a very indifferent taker of my wordes although in deed he farre passeth the bondes of honesty But to come directly to the matter if it be true that you say that in the sacrament Christes body hath all the formes and quantities of a naturall body why say you then that his body is not there present after the manner of quantitie Declare what difference is betweene forme and quantitie the manner of quantitie And if Christes body in the Sacrament haue the same quantitie that is to say the same length breadth and thicknes and the same forme that is to say the same due order and proportion of the mēbers and partes of his body that he had when he was crucified and hath now in heauen as he hath by your saying here in this place then I pray you declare further how the length bredth and thicknes of a man should be conteined in quantitie within the compasse of a peece of bread no lōger nor broader then one or two inches nor much thicker then one leafe of paper How an inch may be as long as an elle and an elle as short as an inch How length and roundnes shall agree in one proportion and a thicke and thin thing be both of one thicknes which you must warrant to be brought to passe if the forme and quantitie of Christes body be conteined vnder the forme and quantity of such bread and wine as we now vse But as Smyth in the last comparison did me good seruice against you so shall you in this comparison do me good seruice against him For among the fiue lyes wherewith he chargeth me in these comparisons he accompteth this for one that I report of the Papists that Christes body in the sacrament hath his proper forme and quantity which you say
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
the olde heresy denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ in the virgins wombe at the same tyme to reuiue When the true deliuerance of Christs flesh in the holy supper to be of vs eaten is also denied For as it is a meere trueth without figure and yet an high mistery Gods worke in the incarnation of Christ wherein our flesh was of Christ truely taken of the virgins substance So is it a meere trueth without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing yet an high mistery and Gods worke in the geuing of the same true flesh truely to be in the supper eaten When I exclude figure in the sacrament I mene not of the visible part which is called a figure of the celestial inuisible part which is truely there without figure so as by that figure is not impayred the truth of that presence which I ad to auoyd cauilation And make an end of this comparison this I say that this article declareth wantonnes to make a difference in words where none is in the sence rightly taken with a noueltie of spéech not necessary to be vttered now Caunterbury NOte well here reader how the cuttill commeth in with his darke coulours Where I speake of the substaunce of the thing that is eaten you turne it to the manner and circumstaunces thereof to blynde the simple reader and that you may make therof a riddle of yea and nay as you be wont to make blacke white and white blacke or one thing yea and nay black and white at your pleasure But to put away your darke coulours and to make the matter playne this I say that the fathers and prophets did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in promise of redemptiō to be wrought and we eat and drink the same flesh and bloud in confirmation of our faith in the redemption all ready wrought But as the fathers did eat and drinke so did also the Apostles at Christ his supper in promise of redemtion to be wrought not in confirmation of redēption already wrought So that if wrought and to be wrought make the diuersitie of presence and not presence then the Apostles did not eat and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ really present because the redemption was not then already wrought but promised the next day to be wrought And although before the crucifiyng of his flesh and effusion of his bloud our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken not onely of the Apostles at his last supper before hee suffered his passion but also of the holy Patriarkes and fathers before his incarnation aswell as he is now of vs after his ascention And although in the manner of signifiyng there be great difference between their sacraments and ours yet as S. Augustine saith both we and they receaue one thing in the diuersitie of Sacraments And our Sacraments contain presently the very things signified no more then theirs did For in their sacraments they were by Christ presently regenerated and fed as we be in ours although their sacraments were figures of the death of Christ to com and ours be figurs of his death now past And as it is al one Christ that was to be borne and to dye for vs and afterward was borne in deede and dyed in deede whose byrth and death be now passed so was the same Christ and the same flesh and bloud eaten and drunken of the faithfull fathers before he was borne or dead and of his Apostles after he was born and before he was dead and of faithfull christen people is now dayly eaten and drunken after that both his natiuity and death be passed And al is but one Christ one flesh one bloud as concerning the sustance yet that which to the fathers was to come is to vs passed And neuerthelesse the eating drinking is all one for neither the fathers did nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouthes but both the fathers did and we do eat spiritually by true and liuely faith The body of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to vs but corporally and locally he was yet borne vnto them from vs he is gone and ascended vp into heauē So that to neither he was nor is carnally substantially and corporally present but to them he was to vs he is spiritually present and sacramentally also and of both sacramētally spiritually and effectually eaten and drunken to eternall saluation euerlasting lyfe And this is plainly enough declared in the Scripture to them that haue willing mindes to vnderstand the truth For it is written in the old Testament Eccle. 24. in the person of Christ thus They that eat me shall yet hunger and they that drinke me shall yet be thirsty And S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians saying Our fathers did all eat the same spirituall meat and did all drink the same spirituall drinke and they drank of that spirituall rock that followed them which rock was Christ. These words S. Augustine expounding sayth What is to eat the same meat but that they did eate the same which wee doe Who so euer in Manna vnderstood Christ did eat the same spirituall meat that we do that is to say that meat which was receaued with fayth and not with bodyes Therefore to them that vnderstood and beleued it was the same meat and the same drinke So that to such as vnderstoode not the meate was onely Manna and the drinke onely water but to such as vnderstood it was the same that is now For thē was Christ to come who is now come To come and is come be diuers wordes but it is the same Christ. These be S. Augustines sayings And because you say that it is more agreable to the scripture to say that the fathers before Christs natiuity did not eat the body and drink the bloud of Christ I pray you shew me one scripture that so saith And shew me also one approued author that disalowed S. Augustines mind by me here alleaged because you say that all doe not agree to his vnderstanding And in the 77. Psalme S. Augustine saith also The stone was Christ. Therefore the same was the meat drinke of the fathers in the mistery wich is ours but in significatiō the same not in outward forme For it is one Christ him selfe that to them was figured in the stone and to vs manyfestly appeared in flesh And saint Augustine sayth playnely that both Manna and our Sacrament signifieth Christ and that although the Sacraments were dyuers yet in the thing by them ment and vnderstand they were both like And so after the mynd of S. Augustine it is cleare that the same thinges were geuen to the faithfull receiuers in the Sacraments of the old Testament that be geuen in the new the same to them was circumcisiō that to vs is baptisme and to
them by Manna was geuen the same thing that now is geuen to vs in the sacramentall bread And if I would graunt for your pleasure that in theyr sacrameÌ„ts Christ was promised and that in ours he is really geuen doth it not then followe aswell that Christ is geuen in the sacrament of Baptisme as that he is geuen in the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud And S. Augustin contra Faustum esteemeth them madde that think diuersity betweene the things signified in the old and new testament because the signes be diuers And expressing the matter playnely sayth that the flesh and bloud of our sacryfice before Christs comming was promised â— y sacryfices of similitudes in his passion was geuen indeed after his asâ—â—ntion is solemnly put in our memory by the Sacrament And the thing which you say S. Augustine noteth to be geuen in the sacraments of the new testament and to be promised in the sacramentes of the olde S. Augustine expresseth the thing which he ment that is to say saluation and eternall lyfe by Christ. And yet in thys mortall lyfe we haue not eternall lyfe in possession but in promise as the prophets had But S. Augustine sayth that we haue the promise because we haue Christ all ready come which by the Prophets was promised before that he should come therefore S. Iohn the Baptist was called more then a Prophet because he said Here is the lamb of God already preset which the Prophets taught vs to looke for vntill he came The effect therfore of S. Augustins words plainly to be expressed was this that the prophets in the old testament Promised a sauiour to come redeem the world which the sacraments of that tyme testified vntill hys comming but now he is already come and hath by his death performed that was promised which our sacramentes testifie vnto vs as S. Augustine declareth more playnely in his booke De fide ad Petrum the xix chapter So that S. Augustine speaketh of the geuing of Christ to death which the sacraments of the old testament testified to come and ours testify to be done and not of the geuing of him in the sacraments And forasmuch as S. Augustine spake generally of all the sacraments therefore if you will by his words proue that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy communion you may aswell proue that he is corporally in baptisme For saint Augustine speaketh no more of the one then of the other But where saint Augustin speaketh generally of al the sacraments you restrayne the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lords supper onely that the ignoraunt reader should thinke that saynt Augustine spake of the corporall presence of Christ in the sacramentes and that onely in the sacraments of bread and wine where as saynt Augustine himself speaketh onely of our saluation by Christ and of the sacraments in generall And neuerthelesse as the fathers had the same Christ and mediator that we haue as you here confesse so did they spiritually eat his fâ—esh and drinke his bloud as we doe and spiritually feed of him and by faith he was present with theÌ„ as he is with vs although carnally and corporally he was yet to come vnto theÌ„ and from vs is gon vp to his father into heauen This besides saynt Augustine is plainely set out by Bertrame aboue 6. hundreth yeares passed whose iudgement in this matter of the sacrament although you allow not because it vtterly coÌ„demneth your doctrine therein yet forasmuch as hytherto his teaching was neuer reproued by none but by you alone and that he is commeÌ„ded of other as an excellent learned man in holy scripture and a notable famous man aswell in liuing as learning and that among his excellent works this one is specially praised which he wrot of the matter of the SacrameÌ„t of the body and bloud of our Lord therfore I shall reherse his teaching in this point how the holy fathers and Prophets before the comming of Christ did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud So that although Bertrams saying be not estemed with you yet the indifferent reader may see what was written in this matter before your doctrine was inuented And although his authority be not receiued of you yet his words may serue against Smyth who herein more learnedly and with more iudgement then you approueth this author This is Bertrams doctrine S. Paule saith that all the old fathers did eat the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spiritual drink But peraduenture thou wilt ask Which the same Euen the very same that christen people do daily eat and drinke in the church For we may not vnderstand diuers things when it is one and the self same Christ which in times past did feed with his flesh and made to drink of his bloud the people that were baptised in the cloude and sea in the wildernes and which doth now in the church feed christen people with the bread of his body and giueth theÌ„ to drink the floud of his bloud When he had not yet taken mans nature vpon him wheÌ„ he had not yet tasted death for the saluation of the world not redemed vs with his bloud neuertheles euen then our forefathers by spiritual meat and inuisible drink did eat his body in the wildernes and drink his bloud as the Apostle beareth witnesse saying The same spiritual meat the same spiritual drink For he that now in the church by his omnipotent power doth spiritually conuert bread wine into the flesh of his body and into the floud of his owne bloud he did theÌ„ inuisibly so worke that Manna which came from heauen was his body and the water his bloud Now by the thinges here by me alledged it euidently appereth that this is no nouelty of speech to say that the holy fathers and Prophets did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud For both the scripture and old authors vse so to speake how much soeuer the spech mislike them that like no fashion but their own And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of Ione of Kent Is this a good argument The fathers did eat Christes flesh and drinke his bloud spiritually before he was borne ergo after he was not corporally borne of his mother Or because he was corporally borne is he not therefore dayly eaten spiritually of his faithfull people Because he dwelt in the world corporally from his incarnation vnto his ascention did he not therfore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that tyme and hath so done euer sithens and will do to the worldes end Or if he be eaten in a figure can you induce thereof that he was not borne without a figure Do not such kynde of argumentes fauour the errour of Ione of Kent Yea do they not manifestly approue her pestiferous heresy if they were to be alowed What man that meaneth the trueth would bring in such manner of resoning to deface the truth
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
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
his owne glose to exclude the truth of the eating of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to his speach the wordes grossely and carnally which wordes in such a rude vnderstanding be termes méeter to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery Wherein I will make the issue with this author that no catholike teaching is so framed with such termes as though we should eate Christs most precious body grossely carnally ioyning those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hillary vseth it but contrariwise speaking in the Catholique teaching of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spirituall maner of presence and yet there is present by gods power the very true naturall body and bloud of Christ whole God man without leauing his place in heauen and in the holy supper men vse their mouthes and téeth following Christes commaundement in the receiuing of that holy Sacrament being in fayth sufficiently instruct that they can not ne do not teare consume or violate that most precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuing it are cause of their owne iudgement and condemnation Caunterbury EAting and drinking with the mouth being so playne a matter that yong babes learne it and know it before they cā speake yet the Cut till here with his blacke colours and darke speaches goeth about so to couer and hyde the matter that neither yong nor olde learned nor vnlearned should vnderstand what he meaneth But for all his masking who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that eating in the propper and vsuall signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth And who knoweth not also that Christ is not so eaten Who can then be ignorant that here you speake a manifest vntruth when you say that Christes body to be eaten is of it selfe a propper speach and not figuratiue Which is by and by confessed by your selfe when you say that we do not eate that heauēnly meat as we do other carnall meates which is by chawing and deuiding with the mouth and teeth And yet we receaue with the mouth that is ordeined to be receiued with the mouth that is to say the Sacramentall bread and wine esteming them neuerthelesse vnto vs when we duly receiue them according vnto Christes wordes and ordinaunce But where you say that of the substaunce of Christes body no good man iudgeth carnally ne discusseth the vnfaythful question how you charge your selfe very sore in so saying and seeme to make demonstration vpon your selfe of whom may be sayd Ex ore tuo te iudico For you both iudge carnally in affirming a carnall presence and a carnall eating and also you discusse this question how when you say that Christes body is in the sacrament really substauncially corporally carnally sensible and naturally as he was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the cros And as concerning these wordes of Christ The wordes which I doe speake be Spirite and lyfe I haue not wrested them with myne owne glose as you misreport but I haue cited for me the interpretation of the catholik doctors and holy fathers of the church as I refer to the iudgement of the reader But you teach such a carnall grosse eating and drinking of Christes flesh bloud as is more meet to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to sette forth the high mistery of Christes holy supper For you say that Christes body is present really substauncially corporally and carnally and so is eaten and that we eate Christes body as eating is taken in common speach but in common speach it is taken for chawing and gnawing as doges do paunches wherfore of your saying it followeth that we do so eate Christes body as dogges eate paunches which all christian eares abhore for to heare But why should I ioyne with you here an issue in that mater which I neuer spake For I neuer read nor hard no man that sayd sauing you alone that we do eate Christ grossely or carnally or as eating is taken in common speach without any figure but all that euer I haue hard or read say quite cleane contrary But you who affirme that we eate Christ carnally and as eating is taken in common speach which is carnally grossely to chaw with the teeth must nedes consequently graunt that we eat him grossely and carnally as dogges eate paunches And this is a strange thing to heare that where before you sayd that Christ is present but after a spirituall maner now you say that he is eaten carnally And where you say that in the holy Supper men vse their mouth and teeth truth it is that they so do but to chawe the Sacramēt not the body of Christ. And if they doo not teare that most precious body and bloud why say you then that they eate the body of Christ as eatyng is taken in cōmon speech And wherefore doth that false Papisticall fayth of Pope Nicolas which you wrongfully call Catholike teach that Christs body is torne with the teeth of the faythfull De consecr dist 2. Ego Now folowe the particular authorities which I haue alleaged for the interpretation of Christes wordes which if you had well considered you would not haue sayd as you doe that I wrasted Christes wordes with mine owne glose For I beginne with Origene saying And Origene declaring the sayd eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud not to be vnderstand as the wordes doe sound but figuratiuely writeth thus vpon these wordes of Christ Except you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Consider sayth Origen that these thinges written in Godes bookes are figures and therefore examine and vnderstand them as spirituall and not as carnall men For if you vnderstand them as carnall men they hurt you and feede you not For euen in the Gospels is there foūd letter that killeth And not onely in the old Testament but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth hym that dooth not spiritually vnderstand that which is spoken For if thou follow the letter or wordes of this that Christ sayd Except you eat my flesh and drink my bloud this letter killeth Who can more playnely expresse in any wordes that the eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud are not to be taken in common signification as the wordes pretend and sound then Origene dooth in this place Winchester Now I will touch shortly what may be sayd to the particular authorities brought in by this author Origen is noted among other writers of the church to draw the text to all egories who doth not therby meane to destroy the truth of the letter and therefore whē he speaketh of a figure sayth not there is onely a figure which exclusiue only being away as it is not found by any author Catholick taught that the spéech
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
is in the bread and wine and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wine but really carnally and corporally he is onely in heauen You haue termed these my wordes as it liketh you but farre otherwise then I eyther wrote or ment or then any indifferent reader would haue imagined For what indifferent reader would haue gathered of my words that Christ in his diuine nature is not really in heauen For I make a disiunctiue wherein I declare a playn distinction betweene his diuine nature and his humaine nature And of his diuine nature I say in the first mēber of my diuision which is in the beginning of my aforesayd words that by that nature he is euery where And all the rest that followeth is spoken of his humayne nature wherby he is carnally and corporally onely in heauen And as for this word really in such a sense as you expound it that is to say not in phantasy nor imagination but verily and truely so I grant that Christ is really not onely in them that duely receaue the sacrament of the Lordes supper but also in them that duely receaue the sacrament of Baptisme and in all other true christian people at other times when they receiue no sacramēt For al they be the members of Christs body and Temples in whom he truely inhabiteth although corporally and really as the Papistes take that word really he be onely in heauen and not in the sacrament And although in them that duely receaue the sacrament he is truely and in deed and not by phansy and imagination and so really as you vnderstand really yet is he not in them corporally but spiritual◠as I say and onely after a spirituall manner as you say And as for these wordes carnally and corporally I defame them not for I meane by carnally and corporally none otherwise than after the form and fashion of a mans body as we shal be after our resurrectiō that is to say visible palpable and circumscribed hauing a very quantitie with due proportion and distinction of members in place and order one from an other And if you will deny Christ so to be in heauen I haue so playne and manifest scriptures agaynst you that I will take you for no christian man except that you reuoke that error For sure I am that Christes naturall body hath such a grossenes or stature and quantitie if you will so call it bicause the word grosenes grosely taken as you vnderstand it soundeth not well in an incoruptible and immortall body Marry as for any other grosenes as of eating drinking and grose auoyding of the same with such other like corruptible grosenes it is for grose heades to imagine or think eyther of Christ or of any body glorified And although S. Augustine may say that Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen yet he sayth playnly that his body is of such sort that it is circumscribed and conteined in one place And Gregory Nazianzene ment that Christ should not com at the last iudgement in a corruptible and mortall flesh as he had before his resurrection and as we haue in this mortall lyfe for such grosenes is not to be attributed to bodyes glorified but yet shal he come with with such a body as he hath since his resurrection absolute and perfect in all partes and members of a mans bodye hauing handes feete head mouth syde and woundes and all other partes of a man visible and sensible like as we shall all appeare before him at the same last day with this same flesh in substance that we now haue and with these same eyes shall we see God our Sauiour Marry to what fynes and purenes our bodyes shall be then changed no man knoweth in the perigrination of this world sauing that S. Paule sayth that he shall change this vile body that he may make it like vnto his glorious body But that we shall haue diuersity of all members and a due proportion of mens natural bodyes the scripture manifestly declareth what soeuer you can by a synister glose gather of Nazianzene to the contrary that glorified bodies haue no flesh nor grossenes But see you not how much this saying of S. Augustin that our resurrection shall not be carnally maketh agaynst your self For if we shal not rise carnally then is not Christ risen carnally nor is not in heauen carnally And if he be not in heauen how can he be in the Sacrament carnally and eaten and drunken carnally with our mouthes as you say he is And therfore as for the termes carnally and corporally it is you that defame thē by your grosse taking of thē and not I that speak of none other grossenes but of distinction of the naturall and substantiall partes with out the which no mans body can be perfect And wheras here in this processe you attribute vnto Christ none other presence in heauen but spirituall without all manner of grossenes or carnallity so that all manner of beyng is spirituall and none otherwise then he is in the sacramēt here I ioyn an issue with you for a ioynt and for the price of a faggot I wondred all this while that you were so ready to graunt that Christ is but after a spirituall manner in the sacrament and now I wonder no more at that seyng that you say he is but after a spirituall maner in heauen And by this meanes we may say that he hath but a spirituall manhod as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a spirituall body And yet some carnall thing and grossenes he hath in him for he hath flesh and bones which spirites lack except that to all this impietye you will adde that his flesh and bones also be spirituall thinges not carnall And it is not without some strange prognosticatiō that you be now waxed altogither so spirituall Now as concerning the word figuratiuely what need this any profe that christ is in the sacraments figuratiuely which is no more to say but sacramentally And you graunt your selfe fol. 28. that Christ vnder the figure of visible creatures gaue inuisibly his pretious body And fol. 80. you say that Christ sayd This is my body vsing the outward signes of that visible creatures And this doctrine was neuer reproued of any catholick man but hath at al times and of al men bene allowed without contradition sauing now of you allone Now followeth my answere to the authors particularly And first to Saynt Clement My wordes be these They alleadge S. Clement whose wordes be these as they report The sacraments of Gods secrets are committed to three degrees to a Priest a Deacon and a minister which with feare and trembling ought to kep the leauings of the broken peces of the Lordes body that no corruption be foūd in the holy place least by negligence great iniury be done to the portion of the Lordes body And by and by followeth So many hostes must
any reall and corporall conuersion of bread and wine vnto Christs body and bloud nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same but he speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wine and of a spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptisme as the same Eusebius playnly there declareth as he is in the Lordes table Which is not carnally and corporally but by fayth and spiritually But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstatiation Winchester This author sayth that Emissen is shortly aunswered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he sayth as Hylary was aunswered and Cyrill But els there can no short or long aunswere confound the true playne testimony of Emissen for the common true faith of the church in the Sacrament Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saying thus This is my bodye And aâ—ayne repeating the same sanctificatioÌ„ This is my bloud Wherfore as at the beck of him commauÌ„ding the heightes of heauens the depenes of the floudes and largenes of landes were founded of nothing by like power in spirituall Sacraments where vertue commaundeth the effect of the trueth serueth These bee Emissenes wordes declaring his fayth playnely of the Sacrament in such termes as can not be wrested or writhed who speaketh of a turning conuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body bloud he sayth not into the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud whereby he should meane a only sacramental conuersion as this author would haue it but he sayth into the substance of Christs body bloud to be in the sacrameÌ„t For the words substance and truth be of one strength shew a difference froÌ„ a figure wherein the truth is not in dede preseÌ„t but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle this Emissen represseth mans carnall reason and socoureth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of this world which were brought forth out of tyme by Emissene if Christes bodye were not in substaunce present as Emissenes wordes bee but in figure onely as this author teacheth And where this authour coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in eyther he putteth himselfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these misteries be both great and mans regeneration in baptisme is also a mistery and the secret worke of God and hath a great meruayle in that effect yet it differeth from the mistery of the sacrament touching the maner of Christes presence and the working of the effect also For in baptisme our vnion with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole Trinitie there working as author in whose name the sacrament is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body indede but in hope onely that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in baptisme bene buried with christ so we be assured to be partakers of his resurection And so in this sacrament we be vnite to Christes manhod by this deuinite But in the sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie which mistical vnion representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorification wherin body and soule shall in the generall resurection by a maruailous regeneration of the body be made both spirituall the speciall pledge wherof we receaue in this sacrament and therfore it is the sacrament as Hilary sayth of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious then the body and the nature of the godhead in Christ more excellent then the nature of man in him glorified and in baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passion and bloud Christes godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respectes the excelency of baptisme is great yet bicause the mistery of the sacrameÌ„t of the alter where Christ is present both man and God in the effectuall vnitie that is wrought betwene our bodies our soules and Christes in the vse of this sacrament signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurection which shall be the end and consumatioÌ„ of all our felicitie This sacrament of perfect vnitie is the mistery of our perfect estate when body and soule shal be all spirituall and hath so a degre of excelencie for the dignitie that is estemed in euery end and perfection wherfore the word spirituall is a necessary word in this sacrament to call it a spirituall foode as it is indede for it is to worke in our bodyes a spirituall effect not onely in our soules and Christes body and flesh is a spirituall body and flesh and yet a true body and very flesh And it is present in this sacrament after a spirituall maner graunted and taught of all true teachers which we should receaue also spiritually which is by hauing Christ before spiritually in vs to receaue it so worthely Wherfore like as in the inuisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnall but all spirituall taking the word carnall as it signifieth grossely in mans carnall iudgement So where the receiuers of that foode bring carnall lustes or desires carnall fansies or imaginations with them they receaue the same preciens foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condemnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christian fayth of the very presence of Christes body And this sufficeth to wipe out that this Author hath spoken of Emissen agaynst the truth Caunterbury I Haue so playnly aunswered vnto Emissene in my former booke partly in this place and partely in the second parte of my booke that he that readeth ouer those two places shall see most clearly that you haue speÌ„t a greate many of wordes here in vayne and nede no further answer at all And I had then such a care what I sayd that I sayd nothing but according to Emissenus owne mind and which I proued by his owne wordes But if you finde but one word that in speach soundeth to your purpose you sticke to that word tooth and nayle caring nothing what the authors meaning is And here is one great token of sleight and vntruth to be noted in you that you write diligently euery word so long as they seme to make with you And when you come to the very place
where Emissene declareth the meaning of his wordes there you leaue all the rest out of your booke which can not be without a great vntruth and fraud to deceaue the simple reader For when you haue recited these wordes of Emissene that the inuisible priest by the secret power with his word tourneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud and so further as serueth to your affection when you come euen to the very place where Emissen declareth these words there you leaue and cut of your writing But because the reader may know what you haue cut of and thereby know Emissens meaning I shall here rehearse Emisenes words which you haue left out If thou wilt know sayth Emissene how it ought not to seeme to thee a thing new and impossible that earthly and incorruptible things be tourned into the substance of Christ looke vpō thy self which art made new in baptisme When thou wast far from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast dead yet sodenly thou beganst an other new life in Christ and wast made new by holesome misteries and wast tourned into the bodye of the church not by seing but by beleuing of the child of damnatiō by a secret purenes thou wast made the sonne of God Thou visibly didst remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any encrease of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was mā made the sonne of Christ and Christ formed in the mind of man Therefore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receiue a new dignity not feling any chaunge in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not seene with thine eyes but beleued in thy minde so likewise when thou doost goe vp to the reuerend aulter to feed vpon the spirituall meat in thy fayth looke vpon the body and blud of him that is thy God honour hym touch him with thy minde take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man These be Emissens own wordes Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleadged For where you bring in these wordes that Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud straightwaies in these wordes by me now rehearsed he sheweth what maner of turning that is after what maner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ euē so saith he as it is in baptisme wherin is no Transubstantiation So that I gather his meaning of his own playne words and you gather his meaning of your own imagination deuisyng such phantasticall things as neither Emissen sayth nor yet be catholike And this word truth you haue put vnto the wordes of Emissen of your own head which is no true dealing For so you may proue what you lift if you may adde to the authors what words you please And yet if Emissē had vsed both the wordes substaunce and trueth what should that helpe you For Christ is in substaunce and truth present in baptisme aswell as he is in the Lords supper and yet is he not there carnally corporally and naturally I will passe ouer here to aggrauate that matter how vntruely you adde to my wordes this word onely in an hundred places where I say not so what true and sinsere dealing this is let all men iudge Now as concerning my coupling togither of the ii sacraments of baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ Emissene himself coupleth thē both together in this place sayth that the one is like the other without putting any difference euen as I truely recited him So that there appereth neither malice nor ignorāce in me but in you adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not to deceaue the simple reader and adding such your own inuentions as be neither true nor catholick appereth much shift and craft ioyned with vntruth and infidelity For what christian man would say as you do that Christ is not inded which you call really in baptisme Or that we be not regenerated both body and soule as well in baptisme as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ Or that in baptisme we be not vnited to Christes diuinity by his manhood Or that baptisme represēteth not to vs the high state of our glorification and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurrection In which thinges you make difference betweene baptisme and the sacrament as you call it of the aultare Or what man that were learned in gods word would affirme that in the general resurrection our bodies and soules shal be all spirituall I know that S. Paule sayth that in the resurrection our bodies shal be spirituall meaning in the respect of such vilenes filthines sinne and corruption as we be subiect vnto in this miserable world Yet he sayth not that our bodies shal be all spirituall For not withstanding such spiritualnes as S. Paule speaketh of we shall haue all such substantiall partes and members as pertaine to a very naturall mans body So that in this part our bodyes shall be carnall corporall reall and naturall bodies lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect mens bodies And in the respect is the body of Christ also carnall and not spirituall And yet we bring none other carnall imaginations of Christes body nor meane none other but that Christes body is carnall in this respect that it hath the same flesh and naturall substaunce which was borne of the virgine Mary and wherin he suffered and rose agayne and now sitteth at the right hand of his father in glory and that the same his naturall body now glorified hath all the naturall partes of a mans body in order proportion place distinct as our bodies shal be in these respects carnall after our resurrection Which maner of carnalnes and diuersitie of partes and members if you take away now from Christ in heauen from vs after our resurrectiō you make Christ now to haue no true mās body but a phantasticall body as Martion Ualentine did as concerning our bodies you run into the error of Origen which phansied imagined that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual that women should be turned into men and bodies into soules And yet it is to be noted by the way that in your aunswere here to Emissene you make spiriturally and a spirituall manner all one Now followeth myne aunswere to S. Ambrose in this wise And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose which is alwayes in their mouthes Before the consecration sayth he as
let vs consider what speches of S. Ambrose this author bringeth forth wherewith to alter the truth of the very playne proper speech of S. Ambrose saying It is bread before the consecration after it is Christes body S. Ambrose as this author saith in an other place sayth thus Before the Benediction of the heauenly words it is called an other kind of thing but after the consecration is signifyed the body and bloud of Christ. And an other speach thus Before the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ and yet a third speech where the word call is vsed before and after both as thou reader maist sée in this authors booke in the 83. leafe Now good reader was there euer man so ouersene as this author is who seeth not S. Ambrose in these thre latter speaches to speake as playnely as in the first For in the last speach S Ambrose saith it is called bread before the consecration and called the body of Christ after the consecration And I would demaund of this author doth not this word call signify the truth that is bread in deed before the coÌ„secration which if it be so why shal not the same word cal signify also the very truth added to the wordes of the body of Christ after the consecration And likewise when he sayth speaking of the body of Christ the word signified or named which is as much as call The body of Christ is signifyed there for Christ sayd this is my body c. vsyng the outward signes of the visible creatures to signify the body bloud present not absent Was not Christ the true sonne of God because the angell said he shal be called the sonne of God But in these places of S. Ambrose to expresse plainely what he ment by calling he putteth that word call to the bread before the consecratioÌ„ aswell as to the body of Christ after the consecration thereby to declare how in his vnderstanding the word call signifieth as much truth in the thing where unto it is added after consecration as before and therfore as it is by S. Ambrose called bread before consecration signifâ—ing it was so indéed so it is called signifyed or named which thrée thus placed be all one in effect the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in deed agreable to the playne spech of S. Ambrose where he sayth It is bread before consecration and it is the body of Christ after consecration As touching the spirituality of the meat of Christes body I haue spoken before but where this author addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beyng oppressed with slepe of ignorance and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by the authority of Cyril Now let vs see what this author sayth to Chrysostome Caunterbury IT is not I that wrastle with S. Ambrose but you who take great payne to wrast his wordes cleane contrary to his intent and meaning But where you aske this question What can be more playne then these wordes of S. Ambrose It is bread before consecration and after it is Christes body These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so playne as you pretend but cleane contrary For what can be spokeÌ„ eyther more vnplayn or vntrue then to say of bread after consecration that it is the bodye of Christ vnles the same be vnderstand in a figuratiue spech For although Christes bodye as you say be there after consecration yet the bread is not his body nor his body is not made of itby your confession And therfore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christes body can not be true in playne spech And therfore S. Ambrose in the same place where he calleth it the body and bloud of Christ he sayth it is a figure of his body and bloud For these be his words Quod ex figura corporis sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christs And as for the word consecration I haue declared the signification therof according to the mind of the old authors as I will iustify And for the writing of Melancthon to Decolampadius you remayne still in your old error taking Myconius for Decolampadius And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament which Melancthon speaketh of is a sacramental change as the nature of a sacrameÌ„t requireth signifying how wonderfully almighty God by his omnipoteÌ„cy worketh in vs his liuely members and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine And the chaunge is in the vse and not in the elements kept and reserued wherein is not the perfection of a sacrament Therefore as water in the fonte or vessell hath not the reason and nature of a sacrament but when it is put to the vse of christening and then it is changed into the proper nature and kinde of a sacrament to signifye the wonderfull chaunge which almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be baptised therewith such is the chaunge of the breade and wine in the Lordes supper And therefore the bread is called Christes bodye after consecration as S. Ambrose sayth and yet it is not so really but sacramentally For it is neither Christes misticall body for that is the congregation of the faythfull dispersed abroad in the world nor hys naturall bodye for that is in heauen but it is the sacrament both of his true naturall body and also of his misticall body and for that consideration hath the name of his body as a sacrament or signe may beare the name of the very thing that is signified and represented therby And as for the foresayd books intituled to S. Ambrose if I ioyned Ambrose with Clement should say that the sayd bookes intiuled in the name of S. Ambrose de sacramentis de misterijs iniciandis were none of his I should say but as I thinke and as they do thinke that be men of most excellent learning and iudgement as I declared in my second book which speaketh of transubstantiation And so dooth iudge not onely Erasmus but also Melancthon whom you alleadge for authority when he maketh for your purpose suspecteth the same And yet I playnly denye not these bookes to be his for your pleasure to geue you asmuch aduauntage as you can aske and yet it auaileth you nothing at all But here I cannot passeouer that you be offended because I say that bread wine be called holy when they be put to an holy vse not that they haue any holines in them or be partakers of any holinesse or godlines I would fayne learn of Smith and you when the bread and wine be holy For before they be holowed or consecrated they be not holy by your teaching but be common bakers bread and wine of the tauerne And after the consecration there is neyther bread nor wine as you teach at what tyme then should the bread and wine be holy But the
nature must needs be vnderstād fyguratiuely by some similitude or propriety of one substance vnto an other and can in no wise be vnderstand properly and playnly without a figure And therfore when Christ is called the sonne of God or bread is called bread it is a most playne and proper spech but when Christ is called bread or bread is called Christ these can in no wise be formall and proper speches the substāces and natures of them being so diuers but must nedes haue an vnderstanding in figure signification or similitude as the very nature of all sacramentes require as al the old writers do playnly teach And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ his body bycause it is so in deed for then it were no figuratiue speach as all the old authors say it is And as for this word corporall you openly confessed your owne ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambheth when I asked you what corporall body Christ hath in the sacrameut whether he had distinction of members or no your answere was in effect that you could not tell And yet was that a wiser saying then you spake before in Cyril where you sayd that Christ hath onely a spirituall body and a spirituall presence and now you say he hath a corporall presēce And so you confoūd corporal spiritual as if you knew not what either of them ment or wist not or cared not what you sayd But now I will returne to my booke rehearse myne aunswere vnto S. Iohn Chrysostome which is this Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrisostome who in sound of words maketh most for the aduersaries of the truth but they that be familiar and acquanted with Chrisostomes manner of speaking how in all his writynges he is full of allusions schemes tropes and figures shall soone perceyue that he helpeth nothing their purposes as it shall well appeare by the discussing of those places which the Papistes do alleadge of him which be spicially two One is in Sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs And the other is De proditione Iudae And as touching the first no man can speake more playnly agaynst them then S. Iohn Chrisostome speaketh in that sermon Wherfore it is to be wondred why they should alleage hym for their partie vnlesse they be so blind in their opinion that they can se nothing nor discerne what maketh for them nor what against thē For there he hath these wordes When you come to these misteries speaking of the Lordes boord and holy communion do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God meaning of Christ. These be S. Iohn Chrisostome his owne wordes in that place Than if we receiue not the body of Christ at the hands of a man Ergo the body of Christ is not really corporally and naturally in the Sacrament and so geuen to vs by the Priest And then it followeth that all the Papistes be lyers because they fayne and teach the contrary But in this place of Chrisostome is touched before more at lēgth in answering to the Papistes Transubstantiation Wherfore now shall be answered the other place which they alleadge of Chrisostome in these wordes Here he is present in the sacramēt and doth cōsecrate which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper For it is not man which maketh of the bread and wine being set forth to be consecrated the body and bloud of Christ but it is Christ himselfe which for vs is crucified that maketh himselfe to be there present The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest but the consecration is by the vertue might grace of God himselfe And as this saying of God Increase be multiplied fill the earth once spoken by God tooke alwayes effect toward generation euen so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken doth throughout all churches to this present shall to his last comming geue force and strength to this sacrifice Thus farre they reherse of Chrisostomes words Which wordes although they sound much for the purpose yet if they be throughly cōsidered and conferred with other places of the same author it shal well appeare that he ment nothing lesse thē that Christes body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine but that in such sort he is in heauen onely and in our mindes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen to eate him there although sacramētally as in a signe and figure he be in the bread wine and so is he also in the water of Baptisme and in them that rightly receaue the bread wine he is in a much more perfection then corporally which should auayle them nothing but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power geuing them eternall lyfe And as in the first creatiō of the world all liuing creatures had their first life by gods onely word for God onely spake his word and all things were created by and by accordingly and after their creation he spake these wordes Increase and multiply and by the vertue of those wordes all thinges haue gendred increased euersince that tyme euen so after that Christ sayd Eat this is my body drinke this is my bloud Do this hereafter in remembraunce of me by vertue of these wordes and not by vertue of any man the bread and wine be so cōsecrated that whosoeuer with a liuely fayth doth eat that bread and drinke that wine doth spiritually eat drinke and feede vpon Christ sitting in heauen with his Father And this is the whole meaning of S. Chrisostome And therfore doth he so often say that we receaue Christ in baptisme And when he hath spoken of the receauing of him in the holy communion by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme without declaring any diuersity of his presence in the one from his presence in the other He sayth also in many places that We ascend into heauen and do eat Christ sitting there aboue And where S. Chrisostome and other Authors do speak of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes passing all mans wit senses and reason they meane not of the working of God in the water bread wine but of the maruaylous working of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramētes secretly inwardly and spiritually transforming them renuing feding comforting and nourishing them with his flesh and bloud through his most holy spirite the same flesh and bloud still remayning in heauen Thus is this place of Chrisostome sufficiently aunswered vnto And if any man require any more thē let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of Transubstantiation Winchester This author noteth in Chrisostome two places and bringeth them forth and in handling the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reprofe For where in the second booke
of his worke entreating transubstantiation he would the same wordes of Chrisostome by this forme of spech in the negatiue should not deny precisely And when Chrisostome sayth Do not think that you by man receiue the body of God but that we should not consider man in the receiuing of it Here this author doth alleage these wordes and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of mere deniall But I would aske of this author this question If Chrysostomes fayth had bene that we receaue not the body of God in the Sacrament verily why should he vse wordes idlely to entreate of whom we receiued the body of God which after this authors doctrine we receaue not at all but in figure and no body at all which is of Christes humanity being Christ as this author teacheth spiritually that is by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receaueth and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in this booke onely fyguratiuely Turne back reader to the 36. leafe in the authors booke and read it with this and so consyder vpon what principle here is made an Ergo. I will aunswere that place when I speake of Transubstantiation which shall be after answered to the third and fourth booke as the naturall order of the matter requireth The second place of Chrisostome that this author bringeth forth he graunteth it soundeth much agaynst him fauoreth his aduersaryes but with conferring and considering he trusteth to alter it from the true vnderstanding And not to expound but confound the matter be ioyneth in spech the sacrament of baptisme with this sacramēt which shift this author vsed vntruely in Hylary and would now beare in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament then in baptisme which is not so for in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present and in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence therof for dispensatiō of that mistery as I haue before touched discussing the aunswere to Emissen where as Chrisostome speaking of this sacrament whereof I haue before spoken and Melancthon alleadging it to Decolampadius saith thus The great miracle and great beneuolence of Christ is that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre in our handes here to be embrased of vs. And therfore where this author would note the wonder of Gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonerfull for the worke and effect in man this is one peece of trueth but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the old Fathers wonder at the worke in the Sacrament how bread is chaunged into the body of Christ how Christ sitting in heauen God man is also man and God in the Sacramēt and being worthely receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hylary sayth and corporally as Cyrill sayth How this can be no man can tell no faythfull man should aske and yet it is the true catholick fayth to be truely so wrought For as Cinistene sayth he that is the author of it he is the witnes of it And therfore I will make it an issue with this author that the olde fathers speaking of the wonderfull operation of God in this Sacrament referre it not onely to the vertue and effect of this Sacrament nor to the vertue specially but chiefly to the operation of God in the substaunce of this Sacrament and the Sacrament selfe for such a difference S. Augustine maketh saying Aliud est Sacramentum aliud virtus sacramenti The Sacrament is one the vertue of the Sacramēt is an other Finally in aunswering to Chrisostome this author doth nothing but spend wordes in vayne to the more playne declaration of his owne ignoraunce or worse Caunterbury AS concerning Chrisostome you haue spent so many taunting and scornefull wordes in waste without cause that I need to wast no wordes here at all to make you aunswere but referre the reader to my booke the 25. leafe and 36. leafe and to the 32.33 and 34. leafe where the reader shall finde all that is here spoken fully aunswered vnto But alwayes you be like your selfe proceding in amplification of an argument agaynst me which you haue forged yourselfe and charge me therewith vntruely For I vse not this spech that we receaue not the body of God at all that we receaue it but in a figure For it is my constant fayth and beleefe that we receaue Christ in the sacrament verily and truely and this is plainely taught and set forth my book But that verily as I with Chrisostome and all the olde authors take it is not of such a sort as you would haue it For your vnderstanding of Uerily is so Capernaicall so grosse and so dul in the perceauing of this mistery that you thinke a man can not receaue the body of Christ verily vnles he take him corporally in his corporall mouth flesh bloud and bones as he was borne of the virgine Mary But it is certaine that Chrisostome ment not that we receaue Christes body verily after such a sort when he sayth Doe not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God And yet because I deny onely this grosse vnderstāding you misreport my doctrine that I should say we receaue not Christ at all but in a figure and no body at all wherin you vntruly and sclaundrously report me as my whole book and doctrine can witnesse agaynst you For my doctrine is that the very body of Christ which was borne of the virgine Mary and suffered for our sinnes geuing vs lyfe by his death the same Iesus as concerning his corporal presence is taken from vs and sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet is he by fayth spiritually present with vs and is our spirirituall foode and nourishment and sitteth in the middes of all them that-be gathered togither in his name And this feding is a spirituall feedyng and an heauenly feeding farre passing all corporall and carnall feeding and therfore there is a true presence and a true feding indeed and not in a figure onely or not at all as you most vntruely report my saying to be This is the true vnderstanding of the true presence receiuing feding vpon the body and bloud of our Sauior Christ and not as you depraue the meaning and true sence therof that the receiuing of Christ truly and verily is the receiuing corporally with the mouth corporall or that the spirituall receauing is to receaue Christ onely by his diuine nature which thing I neuer sayd nor mēt Turn I pray thee gētle reader to the 36 leaf of my booke and note these wordes there which I alledge out of Chrisostome Doe not thinke sayth he that you receaue by a man the body of God Then turne ouer the leafe and in the xx line note again my saying that in the holy communion Christ himselfe is spiritually eaten and drunken and
nourisheth the right beleuers Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier and thou shalt euidently perceiue that either he wil not or can not or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer and in my booke also by the receauing and feding vpon Christ spiritually But it is no maruaile that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ before they be borne a new and forsaking their papisticall leauen haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God then flesh bloud can teach them Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth that Christes body is corporally there where the visible formes of bread wine be of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture which teacheth vs to beleue professe that Christ as concerning his bodily presence hath forsaken the world is ascended into heauen shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud there is no mouth and teeth can serue but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes and speake very little And the cause why is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes Caparnaites that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity spirituall circumcition spirituall honger and thirst and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ but they hang all together so in the letter that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit which knowledge if that you had you should soone perceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made And where you peruert the order of the bookes setting the carte before the horse that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second saying that the naturall order of the matter so requireth here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes which is vnder the pretence coulour of order to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light For when they perceaue a window open wherby the light may shine in and the truth appeare then they busily go about to shut that window and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is and les light can be sene And when besides the darkenes of the matter they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes that he is become blind thē dare they make him iudge be the matter neuer so vntrue And no meruail for he is now becōe so blindfeld subiect vnto them that he must say what so euer they bid him be it neuer so much repugnāt to the euidēt truth In such sort it is in the matter of that sacramēt For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined that plaine wordes of the scripture the consent of aūcient writers the articles of our fayth the nature of a sacrament reason all sences making so euidently agaynst it therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation but they will alwayes beare men in hand that other matters must fyrst be examined as the late Bishop doth here in this place Now in the second place of Chrisostome where you say that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen which shall suffice for answere here also And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre here with vs in our handes truth it is that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment But that we shoud not think that he is corporally here with vs S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum saying Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man that we should therby take away the truth of his body And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body to be in two places at one tyme therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally and also naturally in the sacrament For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule But like as it is not to be thought that Quicquid est in deo est putandum vbique vt dens that whatsoeuer is in god is euery where as God is so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme euery where where his godhead is But Christ is sayth S. Augustine Vbique per id quod est deus in coelo autem per id quod est homo Euery where in that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence and the presence of his diuinitie of his grace of his truth of his maiestie and power is reall and effectuall in many places according to his worde Now as concerning your issue I refuse it not but say that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred and which our sauiour Christ ment and the old fathers speake of is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life Now if you can bring good testimony for you that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud and that it shall lyue for euer which neuer had lyfe and that Gods operation worke is more in domme creatures then in man then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you And when I heare your testimonies I shall make answer but before I here them I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne and beate the wind to no purpose Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alleadge sayth thus Christ geuing thankes dyd breake which also we doe adding thereto prayer And he gaue vnto them saying Take this is my body this that I do now geue and that which ye now do take For the bread is not a
not the flesh appeare He should haue aunswered say you that the flesh is not there in deed but the vertue of the flesh I pray you doth not he aunswer playnly the same effect Is not his aunswer to that question this as you confesse your selfe that the fourmes of bread and wine be chaunged into the vertue of the body of Christ And what would you require more Is not this as much to say as the vertue of the flesh is there but not the substaunce corporally and carnally And yet another third errour is committed in the same sentence because one sentence should not be without three errours at the least in your translation For wheras Theophilact hath but one accusatiue case your put therto other two mo of your owne heade And as you once taught Barnes so now you would make Theophilact your scholer to say what you would haue him But that the truth may appeare what Theophilact sayd I shall reherse his owne wordes in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes translated into latine be these Condescendens nobis benignus Deus speciem quidem panis et vini seruat in potestatem autemcarnis et sanguinis transelementat And in English they be thus much to say The mercifull God condesending to our infermitie conserueth still the kind of bread and wine but turneth them into the vertue of his flesh and bloūd To this sentence you do adde of yonr owne authoritie these wordes the bread wine which wordes Theophilact hath not which is an vntrue parte of him that pretendeth to be a true interpretour And by adding those wordes you alter clearly the authors meaning For wheare the authors meaning was that we should abhore to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud in theyr propre forme and kind yet almighty God hath ordeyned that in his holy supper we should receaue the fourmes and kindes of bread and wine and that those kindes should be tourned vnto them that worthely receaue the same into the vertue and effecte of Christes very flesh and bloud although they remayne still in the same kynd and fourme of bread and wine And so by him the nature and kinde of bread and wine remayne And yet the same be tourned into the vertue of flesh and bloud So that the word fourmes is the accusatiue case aswell to the verbe tourneth as to the verbe conserueth but you to make Theophilact serue your purpose adde of your own head two other accusatiue cases that is to say bread and wine besides Theophilactes words wherin all men may consider how little you regarde the truth that to mayntayne your vntrue doctrine once deuised by your selues care not what vntruth you vse besides to corrupt all doctours making so many faultes in translation of one sentence And if the wordes alleaged vpon marke were not Theophilactes wordes but the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus as you say at the least Theophilact must borow them of Theophilus bycause the wordes be all one xvi lynes together sauing this word Ueritie which Theophilact tourneth into vertue And then it is to be thought that he would not alter that word wherin all the contention standeth without some consideration And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the veritie of Christes body as you say if Theophilact had thought the body had bene there would he haue refused the word and changed veritie into vertue bringing his owne fayth into suspition and geuing occasion of errour vnto other And where to excuse your errour in translation you say that the wordes by you alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophilactes wordes and I deny that they be Theophilus wordes so then be they no bodies wordes which is no detriment to my cause at all bycause I tooke him for none of my witnes but it is in a maner a clere ouerthrow of your cause which take him for your cheif principall witnesse saying that no catholike writer among the Grekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then Theophilactus hath and here vpon you make your issue And yet haue I a good cause to call thē Theophilactes wordes for as much as I finde them in his workes printed abrode sauing one word which you haue vntruly corrupted bycause that worde pleaseth you not And yet am I not bound to admit that your witnesse is named Theophilus except you haue better proofes therof then this that one sayth he hath him in a corner and so alleadgeth him It is your parte to proue your owne witnes and not my parte that stand herein only at defence And yet to euery indiferent man I haue shewed sufficient matter to reiect him Heare now my answer to S. Hierom. Besydes this our aduersaries do alleadge S. Hierom vpō the epistle Ad titū that there is as great difference betwene the Loues called Panis propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene a shadow of a body and the body it self and as there is betwene an image and the thing itselfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them These wordes of S. Hierom truly vnderstand serue nothing for the intent of the Papists For he ment that the Shew bread of the law was but a darke shadow of Christ to come but the sacrament of Christes body is a cleare testimony that Christ is already come and that he hath performed that which was promised and doth presently comfort and feede vs spiritually with his precious body and bloud notwithstanding that corporally he is assended into heauen Winchester This Author trauayleth to aunswer S. Hierom and to make him the easier for him to deale with he cutteth of that followeth in the same S. Hierom which should make the matter open and manifest how effectually S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud There is sayth S. Hierome as greate difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thing it selfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalitie should be chiefly in a Bishop and among all layemen an excellency in them so there should be in him a speciall chastitie and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he should not onely absteyne from vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde free from errour of thought that should make the body of Christ. These be S. Hieroms wordes in this place By the latter parte whreof appeareth playnly how S. Hierome meaneth of Christes body in the Sacrament of which the loaues that were Panes propositionis were a shadow as S. Hierome sayth that bread being the image and this the truth that the
example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this author teacheth then were the bread of Proposition figure of a figure and shadow of a shadow which is ouer great an absurditie in our religion Therfore there can not be a more playne proofe to shew that by S. Hieromes mynd Christes body is verely in the Sacrament and not figuratiuely onely then wheÌ„ he noteth Panes propositionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christes body in the Sacrament For as Tertulian sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis esses corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that answered vnto it wer not of truth which is the sence of Tertulians wordes And therfore S. Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certaynly playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this author sayth For S. Hierome affirmeth playnly Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although S. Hierom attributeth to the minister yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the author and worker notwithstanding by reason of the minestry in the church the doing is ascribed to manne as minister bycause Christ sayd Hoc facite after which speach saluation remission of sinne and the worke in other SacrameÌ„tes is attribute to the minister being neuerthelesse the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde bicause some be vniustly offended to heare that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findth fault before at the word making which religiousely heard and reuerently spoken should offend no man for man is but a minyster wherin he should not glory And Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread nor maketh him selfe so oft of bread a new body but sitting in heauen dooth as our inuisible Priest worke in the mistery of the visible pristhood of his church and maketh present by his omnipotencie his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuertion of the visible creatures of bread and wine as Emissen sayth into the same This author of this booke as thou reader mayst perceaue applieth the figure of the breades called Panes propositionis to the body of Christ to come where as S. Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore doth fashion his argument in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so much cleanes in them that should eat them that they might not eate of them which a day or two before had lyen with theyr wiues what cleanes is required in him that should make the body of Christ Wherby thou mayst se how this author hath reserued this notable place of S. Hierom to the later ende that thou shouldest in the ende as well as in the middest see him euidently snarled for the better remembrance Caunterbury TO these wordes of S. Hierome I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And now to adde some thing therunto I say that he meaneth not that Panis Propositionis be figures of the sacrament but of Christes very body And yet the same body is not onely in the sacrament figuratiuely but it is also in the true ministration therof spiritually present spirituallye eaten as in my booke I haue playnely declared But how is it possible that Caius Vlpian or Sceuola Batholus Baldus or Curtius should haue knowledge what is ment by the spirituall presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the spirituall eating of his flesh and bloud if they be voyde of a liuely fayth feeding and comforting theyr soules with their owne workes and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ. The meat that the Papistes liue by is indulgences and pardons and such other remission of sinnes as cometh all from the Pope which giueth no life but infecteth and poysoneth but the meate that the true Christian man lyueth by is Christ him selfe who is eaten onely by fayth and so eaten is life and spirite giuing that life that endureth and continueth for euer God graunt that we may learne this heauenly knowledge of the spirituall presence that we may spiritually taste and feede of this heauenly foode Now where you say that there canne not be a more playne proofe to shew that Christes body is verely in the sacrament and not figuratiuely onely than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christes body in the sacrament For as Tertulian sayth the other were not to be called a figure if that which aunswereth to it were not of truth Here your for is a playne fallax à non causa vt causa and a wonderous subtiltie is vsed therin For where Tertulian proueth that Christ had here in earth a very body which Martion denied bicause that bread was instituted to be a figure therof and there canne bee no figure of a thing that is not you alleadge Tertulians wordes as though he should say that Christes body is in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread whereof neyther Tertulian intreated in that place nor it is not required that the body should be corporally where the figure is but rather it should be in vayne to haue a figure when the thing it selfe is present And therfore you vntruely reporte both of S. Hierome and Tertulian For neyther of them both do say as you would gather of theyr wordes that Christes body is in the sacrament really and corporally And where you say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matier of bread either you be very ignoraunt in the doctrine of the sacrament as it hath bene taught these fiue hundred yeares or els you dissemble the matter Hath not this bene the teaching of the schole diuines yea of Innocent him selfe that the matter of this Sacrament is bread of wheat and wine of grapes Do they not say that the substaunce of bread is tourned into the substaunce of Christes flesh and that his flesh is made of bread And who worketh this but Christ him selfe And haue you not confessed all this in your booke of the Deuils sophistry why do you then deny here that which you taught before and which hath bene the common aproued doctrine of the Papistes so many yeares And bycause it should haue the more authorite was not this put into the masse bookes and reade euery yeare Dognum datur christianis quod in caâ—nem transit panis uinum in sanguinem Now seing that you haue taught so many yeares that the matter and substaunce of bread is not consumed to nothing but is chaunged and tourned into the body of Christ so that the body of Christ is made of it what meane you now to deny that Christ is made of the matier of bread Whan water was tourned into wine was not the wine made of the
not learned And whosoeuer misreporteth hym and hath neuer heard him may not be called so well Momus as Sicophanta whose property is to mysreporte thē whome thy neither see nor knowe Now resteth onely Damascene of whome I write thus But here Iohn Damascen may in no wise be passed ouer whome for is anctoritie the aduersaries of Christes trew naturall body do recken as a stout champion sufficient to defende all the whole matter alone But neither is the authorite of Damascene so greate that they may oppresse vs therby nor his wordes so playne for them as they boast and vntruly pretende For he is but a yong new author in the respecte of those which we haue brought in for our partie And in diuers poyntes he varieth from the most auncient authors if he meane as they expound him as when he sayeth that the bread and wine be not figures which all the olde authors call figures and that the bread and wyne consume not nor be auoyded downward which Origen and S. Augustine affirme or that they be not called the examples of Christes body after the consecration which shall manefestly appeare false by the Lyturgy ascribed vnto S. Basyll And moreouer the sayd Damascene was one of the Byshop of Romes chief proctours agaynst the Emperours and as it were his right hand to set abroad all idolatrye by his owne hand writing And therfore if he lost his hande as they say he didde he lost it by Goddes most righteous iudgemente whatsoeuer they fayne and fable of the myraculous restitution of the same And yet whatsoeuer the sayd Damescen writeth in other matters surely in this place which the aduersaries do alleadge he writeth spiritually and godly although the Papists eyther of ignoraunce mistake him or els willingly wrast him and writh him to theyr purpose cleane contrary to his meaning The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this That as Christ being both God and man hath in him two natures so hath he two natiuities one eternall and the other temporall And so likewise we being as it were double men or hauing euery one of vs two men in vs the new man and the old man the spirituall man and the carnall man haue a double natiuitie One of our first carnall father Adam by whome as by auncient inheritaūce cometh vnto vs maledictiō and euerlasting damnation and the other of our heauenly Adam that is to say of Christ by whome we be made heires of celestiall benediction and euerlasting glory and imortalitie And bicause this Adam is spirituall therfore our generation by him must be spirituall and our feeding must be likewise spirituall And our spirituall generation by him is playnly set forth in baptisme and our spirituall meat and food is set forth in the holy communion and supper of the Lord. And because our sightes be so feeble that we cannot see the spirituall water wherwith we be washed in baptisme nor the spirituall meat wherwith we be fed at the Lordes table Therfore to help our infermities and to make vs the better to see the same with a pure fayth our sauiour Christ hath set forth the same as it were before our eyes by sensible signes and tokens which we be dayly vsed and accustomed vnto And bycause the common custome of men is to wash in water therfore our spirituall regeneration in Christ or spirituall washing in his bloud is declared vnto vs in baptisme by water Likewise our spirituall norishmēt feeding in Christ is set before our eyes by bread wine bicause they be meates and drinkes which chiefly vsually we be fedde withal◠that as they feede the body so doth Christ with his flesh bloud spiritually feed the soule And therfore the bread and wine be called examples of Christes flesh and bloud and also they be called his very flesh and bloud to signifie vnto vs that as they feed vs carnally so doe they admonish vs that Christ with his flesh and bloud doth feed vs spiritually and most truely vnto euerlasting lyfe And as almighty God by his most mighty word and his holy spirite and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the beginning and euer sithens hath preserued them euen so by the same word and power he worketh in vs from tyme to tyme this meruailous spirituall generation and wonderfull spirituall nourishment and feeding which is wrought onely by God and is comprehended and receaued of vs by fayth And as bread and drincke by naturall nourishment be chaunged into a mannes body and yet the body is not chaunged but is the same that it was before so although the bread and wine be sacramētally changed into Christes body yet his body is the same and in the same place that it was before that is to say in heauen without any alteration of the same And the bread and wine be not so changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ that they be made one nature but they remayne still distinct in nature so that the bread in it selfe is not his flesh and the wine his bloud but vnto them that worthely eare and drincke the bread and wine to them the bread and wine be his flesh and bloud that is to say by things naturall and which they be accustomed vnto they be exaulted vnto things aboue nature For the sacramentall bread and wine be not bare and naked figures but so pithy and effectuous that who soeuer worthely eateth them eateth spiritually Christes flesh and bloud and hath by them euerlasting life Wherfore whosoeuer commeth to the Lordes table must come with all humilitie feare reuerence and puritie of lyfe as to receaue not onely bread and wine but also our sauiour Christ both God and man withall his benefites to the reliefe and sustentation both of theyr bodyes and soules This is briefly the summe and true meaning of Damascene concerning this matter Wherfore they that gather of him eyther the naturall presence of Christes body in the Sacraments of bread and wine or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament or that after the consecration there remayneth no bread nor wine nor other substaunce but onely the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ eyther they vnderstand not Damascene or els of wilfull frowardnes they will not vnderstād him which rather seemeth to be true by such colections as they haue vniustly gathered and noted out of him For although he say that Christ is the spirituall meat yet as in baptisme the holy ghost is not in the water but in him that is vnfaynedly baptised so Damascene ment not that Christ is in the bread but in him that worthely eateth the bread And though he say that the bread is Christes body and the wine his bloud yet he ment not that the bread considered in it selfe or the wine in it selfe being not receaued is his flesh and bloud but to such as by vnfayned fayth worthely receaue the bread and wine to such the bread and wine
learne vs And yet these sayd wordes limit not the mistery of the supper for as much as that mistery of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud extendeth further then the supper and continueth so long as we be liuely membres of Christes body For none feede nor be nourished by him but that be liuely members of his body and so long and no longer feede they of him then they be his true membres and receaue life from him For feeding of him is to receaue life But this is not that inuisible sacrament which you say S. Augustin speaketh of in sermone Domini in monte the iij booke For he calleth there the dayly bread which we continually pray for eyther corporall bread and meate which is our dayly sustenaunce for the body or els the visible sacrament of bread and wine or the inuisible sacrament of gods word and cōmaundementes of the which sacramentes gods word is dayly heard and the other is dayly seene And if by the inuisible sacrament of goddes word S. Augustine ment our norishment by Christes flesh and bloud than be we nourished with them as well by gods word as by the sacrament of the lordes supper But yet who so euer tolde you that S. Augustine wrote this in the iij. booke de sermone Domini in monte trust him not much hereafter for he dyd vtterly deceaue you For S. Augustine wrote no more but .ij. bookes de sermone Domine in monte and if you can make iij. of ij as you do here and one of iiij as you dyd before in the substances of Christ you be a meruailouse auditour and then had all men neede to beware of your accomptes least you deceaue them And you cannot lay the fault here in the Printer for I haue seen it written so both by your own hand and by the hand of your secretary Now when you haue wrangled in this matter as much as you can at length you confesse the truth that who so feedeth vpon Christ spiritually must needes be a good man for only good men be membres of Christes misticall body which spirituall eating is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessarelye to be good And therfore it must be and is a certaine conclusion that onely good menne doe eate and drinke the bodye and bloude of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to lyfe This you write in conclusion and this is the very doctrine that I teache and in the same tearmes marry I adde therto that the eating of Christes body is a spirituall eating and the drinking of his bloud is a spirituall drinkyng and therfore no euill man can eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud as this my forth booke teacheth and is necessary to be writen For although neither good nor euell men eate Christes body in the sacrament vnder the visible signes in the which he is not but sacramentally yet the good feede of him spiritually being inhabiting spiritually within them although corporally he be absent and in heauen but the euell men neither feede vpon him corporally nor spiritually from whom he is both the sayd wayes absent although corporally they eate and drinke with theyr mouthes the sacramentes of his body and bloud Now where you note here three manner of eatinges and yet but two manner of eatinges of Christ this your noting is very true if it be truly vnderstand For there be in dede three maner of eatinges one spirituall onely an other spiritual and sacramentall both together the third sacramentall only and yet Christ him selfe is eaten but in the first two manner of waies as you truely teache And for to set out this distinctiō somewhat more playnly that playne menne may vnderstand it it may thus be tearmed That there is a spirituall eating only when Christ by a true fayth is eaten without the sacrament Also there is an other eating both spirituall and sacramental when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth and Christ him selfe is eaten with a true fayth The third eating is sacramentall only when the sacrament is eaten and not Christ himselfe So that in the fyrst is Christ eaten without the sacrament in the seconde he is eaten with the sacrament and in the thirde the sacrament is eaten without him and therfore it is called sacramentall eating onely bycause onely the sacramente is eaten and not Christ himselfe After the two first maner of wayes godly men do eate who feede and liue by Christ the thirde manner of wayes the wicked do eate and therfore as S. Augustine sayth they neither eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud although euery day they eat the sacrament therof to the condemnation of theyr presumption And for this cause also S. Paule sayth not He that eateth Christes body and drinketh his bloud vnworthely shall haue condemnation and be gilty of the Lordes body but he sayth he that eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely shal be giltie of the Lordes body and eateth and drinketh his owne damnation bycause he estemeth not the Lordes body And here you committe two fowle faultes One is that you declare S. Paule to speake of the body and bloud of Christ when he spake of the bread and wine The other fault is that you adde to S. Paules wordes this word there and so buylde your worke vpon a foundation made by your owne selfe And where you say that if my doctrine be true neyther good men nor euill eate but the sacramentall bread it can be none other but very frowardnes and mere wilfulnes that you will not vnderstand that thinge which I haue spoken so playnly repeted so many tymes For I say that good men eat the Lordes body spiritually to theyr eternall nourishment where as euyl men eat but the bread carnally to their eternall punishment And as you note of S. Augustine that baptisme is very well called health and the sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in which God gyueth health and lyfe if we worthely vse them so is the sacramentall bread very well called Christes body and the wine his bloud as in the ministration wherof Christ geueth vs his flesh and bloude if we worthely receaue them And where you teach how the workes of God in them selues be alway true and vniforme in all men without diuersitie in good and euill in worthy and vnworthy you bring in this misticall matter here clearly without purpose or reason farre passyng the capacitie of simple readers onely to blinde their eyes withall By which kynde of teaching it is all one worke of God to saue and to damne to kill and to gyue lyfe to hate and to loue to elect and to reiect and to be short by this kinde of doctrine God and all his workes be one without diuersite eyther of one worke from an other or of his workes from his substaunce And by this meanes it is all one worke of God in baptisme and in the Lordes supper
bread shall liue for euer This taught our sauiour Christ as well his disciples as the Iewes at Capernaum that the eating of his flesh and drincking of his bloud was not like to the eating of Manna For both good and bad did eate Manna but none do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud but they haue euerlasting lyfe For as his father dwelleth in him and he in his father and so hath life by his father so he that eateth Christes flesh and drinketh his bloud dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him and by Christ he hath eternall life What neede we any other witnes when Christ himselfe doth testifie the mater so playnly that who so euer eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath euerlasting life and that to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud is to beleue in him And who so euer beleueth in him hath euerlasting lyfe wherof it followeth necessarily that vngodly persons being limmes of the deuill do not eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud except the Papistes would say that such haue euerlasting life But as the diuell is the food of the wicked which he nourisheth in all iniquitie and bringeth vp into euerlasting damnatiō so is Christ the very foode of all them that be the liuely members of his body and them he nourisheth fedeth bringeth vp and cherisheth vnto euerlasting life And euery good and faythfull Christian man seleth in himselfe how he fedeth of Christ eating his flesh and drincking of his bloud For he putteth the whole hope and trust of his redemption and saluation in that onely sacrifice which Christ made vpon the Crosse hauing his body there broken and his bloud there shedde for the remission of his sinnes And this great benefite of Christ the faythfull man earnestly considereth in his mynd chaweth and digesteth it with the stomake of his hart spiritually receauing Christ wholy into him and giuing agayne him selfe wholy vnto Christ. And this is the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud the feeling wherof is to euery man the feling how he eateth and drincketh Christ which none euill man nor member of the deuill can do For as Christ is a spirituall meate so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spirituall part of vs and giueth vs spirituall and eternall lyfe and is not eaten swallowed digested with our teeth tongues throtes bellies Therfore sayth S. Ciprian he that drincketh of the holy cup remembring this benefite of God is more thirsty then he was before And lifting vp his hart vnto the liuing God is taken with such a singular hunger and apetite that he abhorreth all gally and bitter drinkes of sinne and all sauor of carnall pleasure is to him as it were sharp and sowre viniger And the sinner being conuerted receauing the holy misteries of the Lordes supper geueth thankes vnto God and boweth downe his head knowing that his sinnes be forgeuen and that he is made clean and perfect and his soule which God hath sanctified he rendreth to God agayne as a faythfull pledge and then he glorieth with Paule and reioyseth saying Now it is not I that liue but it is Christ that liueth within me These thinges be practised and vsed among faythful people and to pure myndes the eating of his flesh is no horror but honor and the spirit deliteth in the drinking of the holy and sanctifiing bloud And doing this we whet not our teeth to bite but with pure fayth we breake the holy bread These be the wordes of Ciprian And according vnto the same S. Augustine sayth Prepare not thy iawes but thy hart And in an other place he sayth why doest thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten But of this matter is sufficiently spoken before where it is proued that to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud be figuratiue speaches And now to returne to our purpose that onely the liuely members of Christ do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud I shall bring forth many other places of auncient authors before not mentioned Fyrst Origen writeth playnly after this maner The word was made flesh and very meat which who so eateth shall surly liue for euer which no euill man can eate For if it could be that he that continueth euill might eat the word made flesh seing that he is the word and bread of life it should not haue bene written Who so euer eateth this bread shall liue for euer These wordes be so playne that I need say nothing for the more clere declaration of them Wherfore you shall heare how Ciprian agreeth with him Cyprian in his sermon ascribed vnto him of the Lordes supper sayth The author of this tradition sayd that except we eat his flesh drincke his bloud we should haue no life in vs instructing vs with a spirituall lesson opening to vs a way to vnderstand so priuy a thing that we should know that the eating is our dwelling in him and our drincking is as it were an incorporation in him being subiect vnto him in obedience ioyned vnto him in our willes and vnited in our affections The eating therfore of this flesh is a certayne hunger and desire to dwell in him Thus writeth Cyprian of the eating and drinking of Christ ' And a litle after he sayth that none do eate of this lambe but such as be true Israelites that is to say pure christian men without colour or dissimulation And Athanasius speaking of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud sayth that for this cause he made mention of his ascentiō into heauen to plucke them from corporall phantasy that they might lerne hereafter that his flesh was called the celestiall meate that came from aboue and a spirituall food which he would geue For those thinges that I speake to you sayth he be spirit and life Which is as much to say as that thing which you se shal be slayne and giuen for the nourishment of the world that it may be distributed to euery body spiritually and be to all men a conseruation vnto the resurrectiō of eternall life In these wordes Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made mention of his ascension into heauen when he spake of the eating and drincking of his flesh and bloud The cause after Athanasius mynd was this that his hearers should not thinke of any carnal eating of his body with their mouthes for as concerning the presence of his body he should be taken from them and ascend into heauen but that they should vnderstād him to be a spirituall meate spiritually to be eaten and by that refreshing to giue eternall life which he doth to none but to such as be his liuely members And of this eating speaketh also Basilius that we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud being made by his incarnation and sensible lyfe partakers of his word and wisedome For his flesh and bloud he calleth
all his misticall conuersation here in his flesh and his doctrine consisting of his whole life pertayning both to his humanitie and diuinitie wherby the soule is nourished and brought to the contemplation of thinges eternall Thus teacheth Basilius how we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud which pertayneth only to the true and faythfull members of Christ. S. Hierom also sayth All that love pleasure more then God eate not the flesh of Iesu nor drincke his bloud Of the which himselfe sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe And in an other place S. Hierom sayth that heritikes do not eate and drincke the body and bloud of the Lord. And more ouer he sayth that heretiks eat not the flesh of Iesu whose flesh is the meat of faythfull men Thus agreeth S. Hierom with the other before rehersed that heretikes and such as follow worldly pleasures eate not Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud bicause that Christ sayd He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting life And S. Ambrose sayth that Iesus is the bread which is the meat of sainctes and that he that taketh this bread dyeth not a sinners death For this bread is the remission of sinnes And in other booke to him intituled he writeth thus This bread of life which came downe from heauen doth minister euerlasting life and who soeuer eateth this bread shall not dye for euer and is the body of Christ. And yet in an other booke set forth in his name he sayth on this wise He that did eate Manne dyed but he that eateth this body shall haue remission of his sinnes and shall not dye for euer And agayne he sayth As often as thou drinckest thou hast remission of thy sinnes These sentences of S. Ambrose be so playne in this matter that there nedeth no more but onely the rehersall of them But S. Augustine in many places playnly discussing this matter sayth He that agreeth not with Christ doth neither eate his body nor drinke his bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he receaue euery day the sacramēt of so hygh a matter And moreouer S. Augustine most playnly resolueth this matter in his booke De ciuitate Dei disputing agaynst two kindes of heretikes Wherof the one sayd that as many as were Christned and receaued the sacramēt of Christes body and bloud should be saued how so euer they liued or beleeued bycause that Christ sayd This is the bread that came from heauen that who so euer shall eate therof shall not dye I am the bread of lyfe which came from heauen who so euer shall eate of this bread shall liue for euer Therfore sayd these heretikes all such men must nedes be deliuered from eternall death and at length be brought to eternall life The other sayd that heretikes and scismatikes myght eate the sacrament of Christes body but not his very body bycause they be no members of his body And therfore they promised not euerlasting life to all that receaued Christes baptisme and the sacrament of his body but to all such as professed a true fayth although they liued neuer so vngodly For such sayd they do eate the body of Christ not onely in a sacrament but also in deede bycause they be members of Christes body But S. Augustine answering to both these heresies sayth That neither heretikes nor such as professe a true fayth in theyr mouthes and in theyr liuing shew the contrary haue eyther a true fayth which worketh by charitie and doth none euil or are to be counted among the members of Christ. For they can not be both members of Christ and members of the deuill Therfore sayth he it may not be sayd that any of them eate the body of Christ. For when Christ sayth he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him He sheweth what it is not sacramentally but indeed to eate his body and drincke his bloud which is when a man dwelleth so in Christ that Christ dwelleth in him For Christ spake those wordes as if he should say He that dwelleth not in me and in whom I dwell not let him not say or thincke that he eateth my body or drincketh my bloud These be the playne wordes of S. Augustine that such as liue vngodly although they may seme to eate Christes body bicause they eate the sacrament of his body yet in deed they neyther be members of his body nor do eate his body Also vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth that he that doth not eate his flesh and drincke his bloud hath not in him euerlasting lyfe And he that eateth his flesh and drincketh his bloud hath euerlasting lyfe But it is not so in those meates which we take to sustayne our bodyes For although without them we cannot liue yet it is not necessary that who so euer receaueth them shall liue for they may dye by age sicknes or other chaunces But in this meat and drincke of the body and bloud of our Lord it is otherwise For both they that eate and drincke them not haue not euerlasting lyfe And contrariwyse who so euer eate and drincke them haue euerlasting life Note and ponder well these wordes of S. Augustine that the bread and wine and other meates drinckes which nourish the body a man may eate and neuerthelesse dye but the very body and bloud of Christ no man eateth but that hath euerlasting life So that wicked men can not eate nor drincke them for then they must nedes haue by them euerlasting life And in the same place S. Augustine sayth further The sacramēt of the vnitie of Christes body bloud is takē in the Lordes table of some men to lyfe of some mē to death but the thing it selfe wherof it is a sacramēt is takē of all men to lyfe of no man to death And more ouer he sayth This is to eate that meate and drincke that drincke to dwell in Christ and to haue Christ dwelling in him And for that cause he that dwelleth not in Christ in whome Christ dwelleth not without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh nor drincketh his bloud although carnally and visibly with his teeth he byte the Sacrament of his body and bloud Thus writeth S. Augustine in the xxvj homely of S. Iohn And in the next homely following he sayth thus This day our sermon is of the body of the Lord which he sayd he would geue to eat for eternall life And he declared the maner of his gift and distribution how he would geue his flesh to eate saying He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him This therfore is a token or knowledge that a man hath eaten and drunken that is to say if he dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in him If he cleaue so to Christ that he is not seuered from him This therfore Christ
like speaches which were not vnderstande of the very things but only of the images of them So doth S. Ihon Chrisostom say that we see Christ with our eyes touch hym feele him and grope him with our handes fixe our teeth in his flesh taste it breake it eate it and digest it make redde our tongues and dye them with his bloud and swallow it and drincke it And in a Catechisme by me translated and set forth I vsed like maner of speach saying that with our bodily mouthes we receaue the body and bloud of Christ. Which my saying diuers ignorant persons not vsed to reade olde auncient authors nor acquanted with theyr phraâ—â— and manner of speach dyd carpe and reprehend for lacke of good vnderstanding For this speach and other before rehersed of Chrisostom and all other like be not vnderstaÌ„d of the very flesh and bloud of our sauiour Christ which in very deede we neither feele nor see but that which we doe to the bread and wine by a figuratiue speach is spoken to be done to the flesh and bloud bicause they be the very signes figures and tokens instituted of Christ to represent vnto vs his very flesh and bloud And yet as with our corporall eyes corporall handes and mouthes we do corporally see feele tast and eate the bread and drincke the wine being the signe and sacrameÌ„ts of Christes body euen so with our spirituall eyes handes and mouthes we do spiritually see feele taste and eate his very flesh and drincke his very bloud As Eusebus Emissenus sayth Whan thou comest to the reuerend aulter to be filled with spiritual meates with thy fayth looke vpoÌ„ the body bloud of him that is thy God honor him touch him with thy mynd take him with the hand of thy hart and drincke him with the draught of thine inward man And these spirituall thinges require no corporall presence of Christ himselfe who sitteth continually in heauen at the right hand of his Father And as this is most true so is it full and sufficient to answere all thinges that the Papistes can bring in this matter that hath any apparaÌ„ce for their partie Winchester And yet these playne places of authority dissembled of purpose or by ignoraunce passed ouer this author as though all thinges were by him clerely discussed to his entent would by many conceptes furnish and further his matters and therfore playeth with our Ladyes smiling rocking her Child and many good mowes so vnsemely for his person as it maketh me almost forget him and my selfe also But with such matter he filleth his leaues and forgetting him selfe maketh mention of the Catechisme by him translate the originall wherof confuteth these two partes of this booke in few wordes being Printed in Germany wherin besides the matter written is set forth in picture the manner of the minestring of this sacrament where is the aulter with candle light set forth the priest apparaled after the old sort and the man to receaue kneling bare-head and holding vp his handes whiles the priest ministreth the host to his mouth a matter as cleare contrary to the matter of this Booke as is light and darkenesse which now this Author would colour with speaches of authors in a boke written to instruct rude children which is as sclender an excuse as euer was heard and none at all when the originall is loked one Emissene to stire vp mens deuotion comming to receaue this sacrament requireth the roote and foundation therof in the mynd of man as it ought to be and therfore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with the hand of the hart and drincke with the draught of the inward man which men needes do that will worthely repayre to this feast And as Emissen speaketh these deuout wordes of the inward office of the receiuer so doth he in declaration of the mistery shew how the inuisible priest with his secret power by his word doth conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud wherof I haue before intreated The author vpon these wordes deuoutly spoken by Emissen sayth there is required no corporall precense of Christes precious body in the sacrament continuing in his ignorance what the woord Corporall meaneth But to speake of Emissene if by his fayth the very body and bloud of Christ were not present vpon the aultar why doth he call it a reuerend aultar Why to be fed there with spirituall meat and why should fayth be required to looke vpon the body bloud of Christ that is not there on the aultar but as this Author teacheth onely in heauen And why should he that cometh to be fedde honor these misteries there And why should Emissene allude to the hand of the hart and draught of the inward man if the hand of the body and draught of the outward man had none office there All this were vaine eloquence and a mere abuse and illusion if the sacramental tokens were only a figure And if there were no presence but in figure why should not Emissen rather haue followed the playne speach of the angell to the women that sought Christ Iesum queritis non est hic Ye seeke Iesus he is not here and say as this author doeth this is onely a figure do no worship here goe vp to heauen and downe with the aulter for feare of illusion which Emissen did not but called it a reuerend alter and inuiteth him that should receiue to honour that foode with such good wordes as before so far discrepant from this authors teaching as may be yet froÌ„ him he taketh occasioÌ„ to speake agaynst adoratioÌ„ Caunterbury HErefor lacke of good matter to answere you fall agayne to your accustomed maner tryfling away the matter with mocking and mowing But if you thought your doctrine good and myne erronious and had a zeale to the truth and to quiet mens conciences you should haue made a substanciall and learned answere vnto my wordes For daliyng and playing scoulding and mowing make no quietnes in mens consciences And all men that know your conditions know right well that if you had good matter to answere you would not haue hid it and passed ouer the matter with such trifles as you vse in this place And S. Ihon Chrisostom you scip ouer eyther as you saw him not or as you cared not how sclenderly you left the matter And as coÌ„cerning the Catechisme I haue sufficiently answered in my former booke But in this place may apeare to them that haue any iudgement what pithy arguments you make and what dexteritie you haue in gathering of authors myndes that would gather my mynd and make an argument here of a picture neyther put in my booke nor by me deuised but inuented by some fond paynter or caruer which paynt and graue whatsoeuer theyr idle heades can fansy You should rather haue gathered your argument vpon the other side that I mislike the matter bycause I left out of my booke the
if the very flesh of Christ were not in the sacrament truely present which is as much to say as in substaunce present if it were not in deede present that is to say really present if it were not corporally present that is to say the very body of Christ there present God and man If these truthes consenting in one were not there S. Augustine would neuer haue spoken of adoration there No more he doth sayth this author there but in heauen let S. Augustines wordes quoth I be iudge which be these No man eateth that flesh but he first worshippeth it It is found out how such a footestoole of the Lordes foot should be worshipped and not onely that we do not sinne in worshipping but we do sinne in not worshipping it These be S. Augustines wordes which I sayd before can not be drawen to an vnderstanding of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen where it remayneth continually glorified and is of all men christened continually worshipped For as S. Paule sayth Christ is so exalted that euery tongue should confesse that our sauiour Christ is in the glory of his father So as the worshipping of Christ there in the estate of his glory where he reigneth hath neither afore ne after but an euer continuall worshipping in glory Wherfore S. Augustine speaking of a before must be vnderstanded of the worshipping of Christes flesh present in the Sacrament as in the dispensation of his humility which Christ ceaseth not to do reigning in glory for although he hath finished his humble pafible conuersation yet he continueth his humble dispensation in the perfection of his misticall body and as he is our inuisible priest for euer and our aduocate with his father and so for vs to him a mediator to whom he is equall so doth he vouchsafe in his supper which he continueth to make an effectuall remembraunce of his offering for vs of the new Testament confirmed in his bloud and by his power maketh him selfe present in this visible Sacrament to be therein of vs truely eaten and his bloud truely drunken not onely in fayth but with the truth and ministery of our bodely mouth as God hath willed and commaunded vs to do which presence of Christ in this humility of dispensation to releaue vs and feed vs spiritually we must adore as S. Augustine sayth before we eate and we do not sinne in adoring but we sinne in not adoring remembring the diuine nature vnite vnto Christes flesh and therfore of flesh not seuered from the godhead Which admonishment of S. Augustine declareth he ment not of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen where can be no danger of such a thought where all tōgues confesse Christ to be in the glory of his father of which Christ as he is there in glory continually to be worshipped it were a colde saying of S. Augustine to say wee doe not sinne in worshipping Christ in heauen but sinne in not worshipping him as though any coulde haue doubted whether Christe shoulde bee worshipped in his humanitye in heauen being inseparably vnite to the diuinity And when I say in his humanity I speake not properly as that mistery requireth for as Christes person is but one of two perfite natures so the adoration is but one as Cirill declareth it and therfore abhorreth the addition of a sillable to speake of coadoration And will this author attribute to S. Augustine such a grossenes to haue written and giuen for a lesson that no man sinneth to worship Christes flesh in heauen reigning in glory wherfore taking this to be so farre from al probabilitie I sayd before these words of S. Augustine can not be drawen with any tenters to stretch so farre as to reach to heauen where euery christian man knoweth and professeth the worshipping of Christ in glory as they be taught also to worship him in his dispensation of his humility when he maketh present him selfe in this Sacrament whome we should not receaue into our mouth before we adore him And by S. Augustines rule we not onely not sinne in adoring but also sinne in not adoring him Caunterbury WHere you speake of the adoration of Christe in the Sacrament saying that if he were not there present substancially really and corporally S. Augustine would neuer haue spoken of adoration there in this word there you vse a great doublenes and fallax for it may be referred indiferently eyther to the adoration or to the presence If it be referred to the presence than it is neyther trew nor S. Augustine sayth no such thing that Christ is really substancially and corporally present there If it be referred to the worshipping than it is trew according to S. Augustines mynd that there in the receauing of the sacrament in spirite and truth we glorify and honor Christ sitting in heauen at his fathers right hand But to this adoration is required no reall substanciall and corporall presence as before I haue declared for so did Iacob worship Christ before he was borne and all faythfull christen people do worship him in all places where soeuer they be although he carnally and corporally be farre distant from them As they dayly honor the father and pray vnto him and yet say Qui es in coelis confessing him to be in heauen And therfore to auoyd all the ambiguitie and fallax of your speach I say that we being here do worship here Christ being not corporally here but with his father in heauen And although all christen men ought of duety continually to worship Christ being in heauen yet bicause we be negligent to doe our duties therin his word and sacramēts be ordeined to prouoke vs therunto So that although otherwise we forgat our dutyes yet when we come to any of his sacraments we should be put in remembrance thereof And therfore sayd Christ as S. Paule writeth As often as you shall eate this bread and drincke this cup shew forth the lordes death vntill he come And do this sayd Christ in remembraunce of me And the worshipping of Christ in his glory should be euer continuall without eyther before or after Neuertheles forasmuch as by reason of our infirmity ingratitude malice and wickednes we go farre from our offices and dueties herein the sacraments call vs home agayne to do that thing which before we did omit that at the least we may do at some tyme that which we should doe at all tymes And where you speake of the humiliatiō of Christ in the sacrament you speake without the booke For the scripture termeth not the matter in that sort but calleth his humiliation only his incarnation and conuersation with vs here in earth being obedient euen vnto death and for that humiliation he is now from that tyme forward exalted for euer in glory And you would plucke him downe from his glory to humiliation agayne And thus is Christ intreated when he commeth to the handling of ignoraunt lawyers blynd sophisters and
one vniforme consent agreed that accidences had none other being or remayning but in their substances And yet if the fayth of our religion taught vs the contrary then reason must yelde to fayth But your doctrine of Transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the playne wordes of scripture as it is agaynst the order of naturall reason And where you say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach that no earthly thing remayneth but that the visible forme of bread and wine remayneth the same in greatnes in thicknes in weight in sauour in tast in property also to corrupt putrify and nourish as it did before tell playnly I pray you what thing it is which you call the visible fourme of bread and wine whether it be an accidence or a substance and if it be an accidence shew whether it be a quantity or quality or what other accidence it is that all men may vnderstand what thing it is which as you say is the same in greatnes thicknes weight sauour and other properties And where you alleadge Emissen for the conuersion of the substaunce of bread and wine this conuersion as Emissene sayth and as I haue declared before is like to our conuersion in baptisme where outwardly is no alteration of substance for no sacramentall alteration maketh alteration of the substance but the meruaylous and secret alteration is inwardly in our soules And as the water in baptisme is not changed but sacramentally that is to say made a sacrament of spirituall regeneration which before was none so in the lordes supper neyther the substance nor accidences of bread and wine be changed but sacramentally but the alteration is inwardly in the soules of them that spiritually be refreshed and nourished with Christes flesh and bloud And this our fayth teacheth vs and naturall reason doth good seruice to fayth herein agaynst your imagined Transubstantiation So that you haue not gotten reasons good wil nor consent to your vayne doctrine of Transubstantiation although you had proued your reall presence Which hitherto you haue not don but haue taken greate payne to shoote away all your boltes in vayne missing quite and cleane both the pricke and the whole butte And yet in the end you take a good ready way for your owne aduantage like vnto a man that had shot all his shaftes cleane wide from the butte and yet would beare all men in hand that he had hitte the pricke And when other should go about the measure how farre his shaftes were wide from the butte he would take vp the matter himselfe and cōmaund them to leaue measuring and beleue his owne saying that his arrowes stacke all fast in the marke and that this were the nearest way to finish the contention Euen so do you in this matter willing all men to leaue searching of how in the mistery of Christes presence in the sacrament saying that to be the nearest way And it were a much nerer way for you in dede if all men would leaue searching of how and without ground or reason beleue as well your Transubstātiation as the corporall presence of Christes body onely bicause you do say it is so But S. Peter requireth euery christen man to be ready to render a reason of his fayth to euery one that asketh and S. Paule requireth in a christen Bishop that he should be able to exhorte by holsome doctrine and to conuince the gaynsayers and not to require other men to giue fayth vnto him without asking of how or why only because he sayth so himselfe The olde catholique Authors tell wherfore Christ called bread his body and how christen people fed of his body And the blessed virgine Mary asked how she should conceaue a child neuer hauing company with man And you tell yourselfe how Christ is in heauen how in vs and how in the sacrament declaring all to be but after a spirituall maner And what maner of men be you that we may not aske you how to render a reason of your Transubstantiation being a matter by you onely deuised clearly without Gods word But at length when you haue swette well fauoredly in answering to myne arguments of naturall reason and naturall operation you be fayne to confesse a great part to be true and to turne altogether into miracles and that into such kind of miracles as the old catholike writers neuer knowledged nor touched in none of their workes For besides the chief miracle which you say is in the conuertiō of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes body and of the wine into his bloud there be other miracles when the formes of wine tourue into viniger and when bread mouldeth or a man doth vomite it or the mouse eateth it or the fire burneth it or wormes breed in it and in all like chaunces God still worketh miracles yea euen in poysoning with the consecrated wine And the multitude of such miracles as you do iudge pertayneth to the excellency of the Sacrament where as among the schoole authors this is a common receaued proposition non esse ponenda miracula sine necessitate And where you say that I make my principall foundation vpon the arguments of the scholasticall writers although myne arguments deduced out of the scholasticall authors be vnto you insoluble and therfore you passe them ouer vnanswered yet I make no foundation at all vpon them but my very foundation is onely vpon Gods word which foundation is so sure that it will neuer fayle And myne arguments in this place I bring in onely to this end to shew how farre your imagined Transubstantiation is not onely from Gods word but also from the order and precepts of nature and how many and portentuous absurdities you fall into by meanes of the same Which it semeth you do confesse by holding your peace without making answere therto But now lette vs consider what is next in my booke The Papisticall doctrine is also agaynst all our outward senses called our fiue wits For our eyes say they see there bread and wine our noses smell bread and wine our mouthes tast and our handes fele bread and wine And although the articles of our fayth be aboue all our outward senses so that we beleue thinges which we can neyther see feele heare smell nor tast yet they be not contrary to our senses at the least so contrary that in such thinges which we from tyme to tyme do see smell fele heare and tast we shall not trust our fenses but beleue cleane contray Christ neuer made no such article of our fayth Our fayth teacheth vs to beleue thinges that we see not but it doth not bid vs that we shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eyes and heare with our eares and grope with our handes For although our senses can not reach so farre as our fayth doth yet so farre as the compasse of our sences doth vsually reach our fayth is not contrary to the same but
say the change in mans soule by Baptisme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in deede or els graunt the true catholique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures into the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise not in figure and signification but truly really and indeede And for the thing changed as the soule of man mans inward nature is chaunged so the inward nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken away which this author vseth in an other place of Sacramentall change which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth the age of Emissene and I note with all how playnly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teaching who indeede bicause of his auncient and playne writing for declaration of the matter in forme of teaching without contention is one whose authority the church hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in the truth of the presence of Christes very body or Transubstantiation for the speaking of the inward change doth poynt as it were the change of the substance of bread with resembling therunto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one author not being of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in the allegation after this manner corrupt might suffice for to conclude all brabling agaynst the Sacrament Caunterbury WHere I haue corrupted Emissene let the reader be iudge But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration change and turning of a man from the congregation of the wicked vnto the congregation of Christ which he calleth the body of the church and from the childe of death vnto the child of God this must be made a matter of scoffing to turne light fellowes out of the chancell into the body of the church Such trifling now a dayes becometh gayly well godly Bishoppes what if in the steede of turning I had sayd skipt ouer as the word transilisti signifieth which although peraduenture the bookes be false and should be transisti I haue translated turning should I haue so escaped a mocke trow you You would then haue sayd he that so doth goeth not out at the chancell dore into the body of the church but skippeth ouer the stalles But that Emissene ment of turning is cleare aswell by the wordes that go before as those which go after which I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader But forasmuch as you would perswade men that this author maketh so much for your purpose I shall set forth his minde playnly that it may appeare how much you be deceaued Emissenes mynd is this that although our sauiour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodely sight Yet we see him by fayth and by grace he is here present with vs so that by him we be made new creatures regenerated by him and fedde and nourished by him which generation and nutrition in vs is spirituall without any mutation appearing outwardly but wrought within vs inuisibly by the omnipotent power of God And this alteration in vs is so wonderfull that we be made new creatures in Christ grafted into his body and of the same receaue our nourishment and encreasing And yet visibly with our bodely eyes we see not these thinges but they be manifest vnto our fayth by gods worde and sacraments And Emissene declareth none other reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and bloud then in the Sacrament of baptisme but spiritually by fayth to be present in both And where Emissene speaketh of the conuersion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ he speaketh that aswell of baptisme as of the lordes supper as his owne wordes playnly declare If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vppon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme And yet he ment not that the water of baptisme in it selfe is really turned into the substance of Christ nor likewise bread and wine in the Lordes supper but that in the action water wine and bread as sacraments be sacramentally conuerted vnto him that duely receaueth them into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramentall conuersion is in the Sacraments and the reall conuertion is in him that receaueth the sacraments which reall conuertion is inward inuisible and spirituall For the outward corporall substances aswell of the name as of the water remayne the same that they were before And therfore sayth Emissene Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly In these wordes hath Emissene playnly declared that the conuersion in the sacraments wherof he spake when he sayd that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ is to be vnderstand in the receauours by their fayth and that in the sayd conuersion the outward substance remayneth the selfe same that was before And that Emissene ment this as well in the sacrament of the lordes supper as in the sacrament of baptisme his own wordes playnly declare So that the substance of Christ as well in baptisme as the Lordes supper is seene not with our eyes but with our fayth and touched not with our bodies but with our mindes and receaued not with our hands but with our hartes eaten and drunken not with our outward mouthes but with our inward man And where Emissene sayth that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heauen and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through fayth he doth vs to vnderstand that he is not present in the formes of bread and wine out of the ministration except you will say that fayth and grace be in the bread when it is kept and hanged vp but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christes institution then to them that so eate and drincke the bread and wine is the body and bloud of Christ according to Christes wordes Edite hoc est corpus meum Bibite hic est calix senguinis mei And therfore in the booke of the holy communion we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and bloud of Christ but that they may be to vs the body and bloud of Christ that is to say that we may so eate them and drincke them that we may be partakers of his body crucified and of his bloud shed for our redemption Thus haue I declared the truth of Emissenes mynd which is agreable to Gods word and the olde
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
a fall as you shall neuer be able to stand vpright agayne in this matter And my shaftes be shot so straight agaynst you and with such a force that they perse through shilde haburgen in such sort that all the harnes you haue is not able to withstand them or to make one arrow to start backe although to auoyde the stroke you shift your place seeking some meane to flye the fight For when I make mine argument of Transubstantiation you turne the matter to the reall presence like vnto a surgeon that hath no knowledge but when the head is wounded or sore he layth a playster to the heele Or as the prouerbe sayth Interrogatus de alijs respondet de caepis when you be asked of garlicke you answer of onions And this is one prety sleight of sophistry or of a subtill warrier when he seeth him selfe ouermatched and not able to resist then by some policy quite to put of or at the least to delay the conflict and so do you commonly in this booke of Transubstantiation For when you be sore pressed therin than you turne the matter to the reall presence But I shall so straytly pursue you that you shall not so escape For where you say that the fathers which vsed the examples of the Sacrament and of the body and bloud of Christ to shew the vnity of two natures in Christ did beleue that as really and as truely the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the Sacrament the fathers neither sayd nor beleued as you here report but they taught that both the Sacrament and the thing therby represented which is Christes body remayne in their proper substaunce and nature the signe being here and the thing signified being in heauen and yet of these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church But it is not required that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the signe and figure as the soule is in the body bicause there is no such vnion of person nor it is not required in the soule and body that they should be euer togither for Christes body and soule remayned both without eyther corruption or Transubstantiation when the soule was gone downe into hell and the body rested in the sepulcher And yet was he than a perfect man although his soule was not than really present with the body And it is not so great a meruayle that his body should be in heauen and the sacrament of it here as it is that his body should be here and his soule in hell And if the Sacrament were a man and the body of Christ the soule of it as you dreame in your traunse then were the Sacrament not in a traunse but dead for the tyme whilest it were here and the soule in heauen And like scoffing you might make of the Sacrament of Baptisme as you doe in the Sacrament of Christes body that it lyeth here in a traunse when Christ being the life therof is in heauen And where you thinke that my second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of me when I minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Trāsubstantiation onely you haue no probatiō of your thought but still you remayne in your dreames traunses and vayne phantasies which you haue vsed throughout your booke so that what so euer is in the bread and wine there is in you no Transubstantiation nor alteration in this thing at all And what auayleth it you so often to affirme this vntruth that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament as the soule of man is present in the body except you be like to them that tell a lye so often that with often repeating they think men beleue it and sometyme by often telling they beleue it them selues But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soule of man to proue therby the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament but to proue the two natures of the godhead and the manhoode in the person of Christ. Lette vs now discusse the minde of Chrisostome in this matter whome I bring thus in my booke S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth against the pestilēt errour of Apolinaris which affirmed that the Godhead and manhod in Christ were so mixed and confounded togither that they both made but one nature Agaynst whome S. Iohn Chrisostome writeth thus When thou speakest of God thou must consider a thing that in nature is single without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with such like And when thou speakest of man thou meanest a nature that is weake subiect to hunger thirst weeping feare sweating and such like passions which can not be in the diuine nature And when thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures togither in one persone who is both passible and impassible Passible as concerning his flesh and impassible in his deite And after he concludeth saying Wherfore Christ is both God and man God by his impassible nature and man bicause he suffered He himselfe being one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned togither which be not of one substance but ech of them hath his properties distinct from the other And therfore remayneth there two natures distinct and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord although the nature of the bread remayne still in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of Gods sonne so likewise here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of S. Chrisostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecration the nature of bread remayneth still although it haue an higher name and be called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eate the supernaturall bread of the body of Christ who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sitteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Winchester S. Chrisostomes wordes in deede if this author had had them eyther truely translated vnto him or had taken the paynes to haue truly translated them himselfe which as Peter Martyr sayth be not in print but were found in Florence a copy wherof remayneth in the archdeacon or Archbishop of Caunterburies handes or els if this author had reported the wordes as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyrs booke wherin some poynt the translator in English semeth to haue attayned by gesse the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr vttereth it himselfe if eyther of this had bene done the matter should haue seemed for so much the more playne But
if you deny you know whose spirite yon haue But your trust is altogither in obscure speaches wherwith you trust so to darken the matter that no man shall vnderstand it least that if they vnderstand it they must needes perceaue your ignorance and error But when you promise to come to the purpose as to say the truth all that you sayd before is clearly without purpose but when you promise I say now at length to come to the purpose your answere is nothing to the purpose of S. Chrisostoms mynd for he made not his resemblance as you say he did onely to shew the remayning of the accidents which you call the properties but to shew the remayning of the substances with all the naturall properties therof That as Christ had here in earth his diuinity and humanity remayning euery of them with his naturall properties the substance of his godhead being a nature single without composition without conuersion inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible and such like for these be Chrisostomes owne wordes and the substance of his humanity being a feble nature subiect to hunger thyrst weeping feare sweating and such passions so is it in the bread and Christes body that the bread after sanctification or consecration as you call it remayneth in his substance that it had before and likewise doth the body of Christ remayne still in heauen in his very true substance wherof the bread is a Sacrament and figure For els if the substance of the bread remayned not how could Chrisostome bring it for a resemblance to proue that the substance of Christes humanity remayneth with his diuinity Mary this that you say had bene a gay lesson for the Manichees to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents therof and yet is none in deede that then by this similitude they might say likewise that Christ appeared a man by all the accidences and properties of a man and yet he was none in deede And to make an ende of this author your vayne comment will not serue you to call the accidents of bread the nature of bread except you will alow the same in the Manichees that the nature of Christes body is nothing els but the accidences therof Now followeth Gelasius of the same matter Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius writing agaynst Eutiches and Nestorius of whome the one sayd that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other affirmed cleane contrary that he was very God but not man But agaynst these two heinous heresies Gelasius proueth by most manifest scriptures that Christ is both God and man and that after his Incarnation remayneth in him as well the nature of his Godhead as the nature of his manhod so that he hath in him two natures with their naturall properties and yet is he but one Christ. And for the more euident declaration hereof he bringeth two examples the one is of man who being but one yet he is made of two partes hath in him two natures remayning both togither in him that is to say the body the soule with their naturall properties The other example is of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which sayth he is a godly thing and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be there still Note well these wordes agaynst all the Papistes of our tyme that Gelasius which was Bishop of Rome more then a thousand yeares passed writeth of this Sacrament that the bread and wine cease not to be there still as Christ ceased not to be God after his incarnation but remayned still perfect god as he was before Winchester Now followeth to answere to Gelasius who abhorring both the hereses of Eutiches and Nestorius in his treatise agaynst the Eutichians forgetteth not to compare with theyr errour in extremity in the one side the extreame errour of the Nestorians on the other side but yet principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians with whome he was specially troubled These two heresies were not so grosse as the author of this booke reporteth them wherin I will write what Uigilius sayth Inter Nestorij ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non testoris se dissipatoris non pastoris sed praedatoris sacrilegum dogma Eutichetis ne foriam detestabilem sectam ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit vt vtrumque sine vtriusque periculo plerique vitare non possint dum si quis Nestorij per fidiam damnat Eutichetis puratur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietatem destruit Nestorij arguitur dogma erigere These be Uigilius wordes in his first booke which be thus much in English Betwene the abominable teaching of Nestorius sometyme not ruler but waster not pastor but pray searcher of the church of Constantinople and the wicked and detestable sect of Eutiches the craft of the deuils spoyling so facioned it selfe that men could not auoyd any of the secrets without danger of the other So as whiles any man condemneth the falsenes of Nestorian he may be thought fallen to the errour of the Eutichian and whiles he destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichian and whiles be destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichians heresie he may be challenged to releeue the teaching of the Nestorian This is the sentence of Uigilius by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtill conueyed without so playne contradiction as this author eyther by ignorāce or of purpose fayneth as though the Nestorian should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the Eutichian cleane contrary very God but not man For if the heresies had bene such Uigilius had had no cause to speake of any such ambiguity as he noteth that a man should hardly speake agaynst the one but he might be suspected to fauor the other And yet I graunt that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God bicause they would two distinct different natures to make also two distinct persons and so as it were two Christs the one onely man and the other onely God so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate nor as Gregory Nazianzene sayth man deitate for so he is termed to say The Eutichians as S. Augustine sayth reasoning agaynst the Nestorians became heretiques themselues and bicause we confesse truely by fayth but one Christ the sonne of God very God The Eutichians say although there were in the virgins wombe before the adunation two natures yet after the adunation in that mistery of Christes incarnation there is but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fansye transfused and so confounded wherupon by implication a man might gather the nature of humanity not to remayne in Christ after the adunation in the virgins wombe Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in his proces vttereth a catholike meaning against them both but he directeth speciall arguments of the two natures in man
maner of wayes by tooth and by nayle to shake him of First you would shake him of by this pretēce that he vseth his two Argumentes of the two examples of man and the Sacrament agaynst the Eutichians onely But Gelasius will not so easely leaue his hold For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutichians declaring by these two examples how two differēt natures may remaine in Christ and that the integritie of Christ can not be except both the different natures remaine in their properties which cōdemneth both the foresayd heresies that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ the Eutichians his diuinitie and the Nestorians his humanitie And yet if he had vsed these examples agaynst the Eutichians onely they byte you as sore as if they were vsed agaynst them both For if he conclude by these two examples agaynst the Eutichians as you say hee doth that the integritie of Christ can not be but both natures different that is to say his manhode and Godhead must remaine in their propertie then must it nedes be so in the examples also And then as Christ had in him two natures with their naturall properties neither perishing but both remainyng and as man hath in him two natures the soule and the body both remainyng still so must in the Sacrament also the nature of bread and wine remaine without Transubstantiation or corruption of any of the natures accordyng to the sayd wordes of Gelasius Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be And Gelasius bringeth not this Image and similitude to that purpose that you would draw it that is to say to expresse the maner of Christs presēce in the Sacramēt but to expresse the maner of two natures in Christ that they both so remaine that neither is corrupted or transubstantiated no more then the bread and wine be in the Sacrament And by this all men may see that Gelasius hath fastened his teeth so surely that you can not so lightly cast him of with a shake of your chayne And if he ment to expresse the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament as you fayne he doth that the maner is onely by fayth wherof he speaketh not one word yet are you nothyng at libertie thereby but held much more faster thē you were before For Gelasius speaketh of the action of the mystery Christes flesh and bloud be present in the action of the mystery onely by fayth therfore can they not be present in the bread or wine reserued which haue no fayth at all And presence by fayth onely requireth no reall materiall and and corporall presence For by fayth is Christ present in Baptisme and by fayth Abraham saw him the holy Fathers did eate his flesh and drincke his bloud before he was borne And Christ humbling him selfe to take vpon him our mortall nature hath exalted vs to the nature of his deitie making vs to reigne with him in his immortall glory as it were Gods And this sayth Gelasius God worketh in vs by his Sacramentes per quae diuinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini that is to say by the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be associate vnto the diuine nature and yet ceasseth not the substaunce or nature of bread and wine to be So that the Sacrament not beyng altered in substaunce we be altered and go into the diuine nature or substaunce as Gelasius termeth it beyng made partakers of Gods eternitie And therfore when he speaketh of the goyng of the Sacraments into the diuine substaunce he meaneth not that the substaunces of the Sacraments go into the substaunce of God which no creature can do but that in the action of that mystery to them that worthely receaue the Sacramentes to them they be turned into diuine substaunce through the working of the holy Ghost who maketh the godly receauers to be the partakers of the diuine nature and substaunce And that this was the intent meanyng of Gelasius appeareth by two notable sentences of him wherof one is this Surely sayth he the Image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrate in the action of the mysterie The other is that by the Sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature he sayth not that the Sacramentes be but that we be made partakers of the nature of Christes Godhead And if he should meane as you haue most vntruely altered both his wordes sence at your pleasure not that the godly receiuers but that the substaunce of bread and wine should go into the diuine substaunce then were not they chaunged into his humanitie but into his deitie and so were the bread and wine deified or at the least made partakers of the diuine nature and immortalitie But for asmuch as Gelasius sayth that the two natures in Christ remaine in like case as the natures of the sacraments remayne for he maketh his argument altogither of the remayning of the natures by the verbe permanere and the participle permanens then as you say that the integrity of Christ can not be except both his natures different remayne in their properties so can not the integritie of the sacrament be except the two natures of bread and wine remayne in their properties For els seeing that the remayning of the natures is in the Sacrament as it is in Christ as Gelasius sayth then if in the Sacraments remayne but the accidents and apearance of bread and wine and not the substances of them how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine proue the two substances and natures of Christ to remayne Might it not rather be gathered that onely the appearance of Christes humanity remayneth in accidents and not the substance of it selfe as Martion sayth as you say it is in the sacrament or els that Christes humanity is absorpted vp by his diuinity and confounded therwith as the Eutichians say that the bread and wine is by the body and bloud of Christ But the catholique fayth hath taught from the beginning according to holy scripture that as the image or sacrament be two diuers natures and different remayning in their properties that is to say bread and wine so likewise in the person of Christ remayne two natures his diuinity and his humanity And I pray you what danger is it to say that Christes body is in the sacramentall bread but as in a figure should that emply that his body is in his person but as in a figure That should be euen as good an argument as this Christ was in the brasen serpent but in a figure ergo he is now in heauen but in a figure For the forme of argumentation is all one in the one and the other And if Christ be in vs by vertue and efficacie although in the sacraments representing
faythfull people in the blessed Sacrament or supper of the Lord It is a thing worthy to be considered and well wayed what moued the Schoole authors of late yeares to defend the contrary opinion not onely so far from all experience of our sences and so farre from all reason but also cleane contrary to the olde church of Christ and to Godes most holy word Surely nothing moued them therto so much as did the vayne fayth which they had in the church and sea of Rome For Ioannes Scotus otherwise called Duns the subtillest of all the schoole authors intreating of this matter of Transubstantiation sheweth playnly the cause therof For sayth he the wordes of the Scripture might be expounded more easely and more playnly without Transubstantiation but the church did choose this sense which is more hard being moued therto as it seemeth chiefly bicause that of the Sacramentes men ought to hold as the holy churh of Rome holdeth But it holdeth that bread is transubstantiate or turned into the body and wine into the bloud as it is shewed De summa Trinitate fide Catholicae Firmiter credimus And Gabriell also who of all other wrote most largely vpon the Canon of the Masse sayth thus It is to be noted that although it be taught in the scripture that the body of Christ is truely conteined and receaued of christen people vnder the kindes of bread wine yet how the body of Christ is there whether by conuersion of any thing into it or without conuersion the body is there with the bread both the substance and accidence of bread remayning there still it is not found expressed in the Bible Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth as it is written De haereticis Ad abolendum And that church holdeth and hath determined that the bread is trāsubstantiated into the body of Christ and the wine into his bloud Therfore is this opinion receaued of all them that be catholike that the substance of bread remayneth not but really and truely is tourned transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the body of Christ. Thus you haue heard the cause wherfore this opinion of Transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among christen people that is to say bicause the church of Rome hath so determined although the contrary by the Papistes owne confession appeare to be more easy more true and more according to the Scripture But bicause our english papistes who speake more grossely herein then the Pope himselfe affirming that the naturall body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine can not nor dare not ground their fayth concerning transubstantiation vpon the church of Rome which although in name it be called most holy yet in deede it is the most stinking dongehill of all wickednes that is vnder heauen and the very sinagoge of the deuill which whosoeuer followeth can not but stumble and fall into a pit ful of erroures Bicause I say the English papistes dare not now stablish their fayth vpon that foundation of Rome therfore they seeke Figge leaues that is to say vayne reasons gathered of their owne braynes and authorities wrested from the intent and minde of the authors wherwith to couer and hide their shamefull errours Wherfore I thought it good somwhat to trauayle herein to take away those figge leaues that their shamefull errours may playnly to euery man appeare The greatest reason and of most importance and of such strength as they thinke or at the least as they pretend that all the world can not answere therto is this Our sauiour Christ taking the bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body Now say they as sone as Christ had spoken these wordes the bread was straight way altered and changed and the substāce therof was conuerted into the substance of his precious body But what christen eares canne paciently heare this doctrine that Christ is euery day made a new and made of an other substance than he was made of in his mothers wombe For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother now by these papistes opinion he is made euery day of the nature and substance of bread and wine which as they say be turned into the substance of his body and bloud O what a meruaylous Metamorphosis and abhominable heresie is this to say that Christ is dayly made a new and of a new matter wherof it followeth necessarely that they make vs euery day a new Christ and not the same that was borne of the virgine Mary nor that was crucified vpon the crosse and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper which was borne and crucified as it shall be playnly proued by these arguments folowing First thus If Christes body that was crucified was not made of bread but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread as the papistes say than Christes body that was eaten in the supper was not the same that was crucified For if they were all one body than it must needes follow that either Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread or els that his body that was crucified was made of bread And in like manner it followeth If the body of Christ in the Sacrament be made of the substance of bread and wine and the same body was conceaued in the Virgines wombe than the body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was made of bread and wine Or els turne the argument thus The body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was not made of bread and wine but this body of Christ in the Sacrament is made of bread and wine than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceaued in the virgines wombe An other argument Christ that was borne in the Virgines wombe as concerning his body was made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother but Christ in the Sacrament is made of an other substance and so it followeth that he is an other Christ. And so the Antichrist of Rome the chiefe author of all idolatrie would bring faythfull christen people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgine Mary through the operation of the holy ghost and suffered for vs vpon the crosse to worship an other Christ made of bread and wine through the consecration of Popish priestes which make themselues the makers of God For say they the priest by the wordes of consecration maketh that thing which is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper and that say they is Christ himselfe both God and man and so they take vpon them to make both God and man But let all true worshipers worship one God one Christ once corporally made of one onely corporall substance that is to say of the blessed virgin Mary that once dyed and rose once
ghostly enemies the subtill and puisant wicked spirites and diuels The same manner of speach vsed also S. Peter in his first epistle saying That the apparaile of women should not be outwardly with brayded here and setting on of gold nor in putting on of gorgious apparayle but that the inward man of the hart should be without corruption In which manner of speach he intended not vtterly to forbid all broyding of here all gold and costly apparell to all women for euery one must be apparayled according to their condition state and degree but he ment hereby clerely to condemne all pride and excesse in apparayle and to moue all women that they should study to decke their soules inwardly with all vertues and not to be curious outwardly to decke and adourne their bodyes with sumptuous apparayle And our sauiour Christ himselfe was full of such maner of speaches Gather not vnto you sayth he treasure vpon earth willing therby rather to set our mindes vppon heauenly treasure which euer indureth than vppon earthly treasure which by many sundry occasions perisheth and is taken away from vs. And yet worldly treasure must needes be had and possessed of some men as the person tyme and occasion doth serue Likewise he sayd When you be brought before kinges and princes thinke not what and how you shall answer Not willing vs by this negatiue that we should negligently and vnaduisedly answere we care not what but that we should depend of our heuenly father trusting that by his holy spirite he will sufficiently instruct vs of answer rather then to trust of any answer to be deuised by our owne witte and study And in the same maner he spake when he sayd It is not you that speake but it is the spirite of God that speaketh within you For the spirite of God is he that principally putteth godly wordes into our mouthes and yet neuerthelesse we do speake according to his mouing And to be short in all these sentences following that is to say Call no man your father vpon earth Let no man call you lord or master Feare not them that kill the body I came not to send peace vpon earth It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand You shall not worship the father neyther in this mountnor in Ierusalem I take no witnes at no man My doctrine is not mine I seeke not my glory In all these negatiues our sauiour Christ spake not precisely and vtterly to deny all the foresayd thinges but in comparison of them to prefer other thinges as to prefer our father and Lord in heauen aboue any worldly father lord or master in earth and his feare aboue the feare of any creature and his word and gospell aboue all worldly peace Also to prefer spirituall and inward honoring of God in pure hart and mynd aboue locall corporall and outward honour and that Christ preferred his fathers glory aboue his owne Now for as much as I haue declared at length the nature and kind of these negatiue speaches which be no pure negatiues but by comparison it is easye hereby to make answer to S. Iohn Chrisostom who vsed this phrase of speach most of any author For his meaning in his foresayd Homily was not that in the celebration of the Lordes supper is neyther bread nor wine neither priest nor the body of Christ which the Papistes themselues must needes confesse but his intent was to draw our mindes vpward to heauen that we should not consider so much the bread wine and priest as we should consider his diuinity and holy spirite giuen vnto vs to our eternall saluation And therfore in the same place he vseth so many tymes these wordes Thinke and thinke not willing vs by these wordes that we should not fixe our thoughts and myndes vpon the bread wine priest nor Christes body but to lift vp our hartes higher vnto his spirite and diuinity without the which his body auayleth nothing as he sayth himselfe It is the spirite that giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing And as the same Chrisostome in many places moueth vs not to consider the water in baptisme but rather to haue respect to the holy ghost receaued in baptisme and represented by the water euen so doth he in this homily of the holy communion moue vs to lift vp our myndes from all visible and corporall things to thinges inuisible and spirituall In so much that although Christ was but once crucified yet would Chrisost haue vs to thincke that we see him dayly whipped and scourged before our eyes and his body hanging vpon the Crosse and the speare thrust into his side and the most holy bloud to flow out of his side into our mouthes After which manner S. Paule wrote to the Galathians that Christ was paynted and crucified before their eyes Therfore fayth Chrisostome in the same homily a litle before the place rehersed What doest thou O man diddest not thou promise to the prist which sayd Lift vp your myndes and hartes and thou diddest answere We lift them vp vnto the Lord Art not thou ashamed and afrayd being at that same houre found a liar A wonderfull thing The table is set forth furnished with Gods misteries the Lambe of God is offered for thee the priest is carefull for thee spirituall fier cometh out of that heauenly table the angels Seraphin be there present couering their faces with vi winges All the angelicall power with the priest be meanes aud intercestors for thee a spirituall fyer cometh downe from heauen bloud in the cup is druncke out of the most pure side vnto thy purification And art not thou ashamed afrayd and abashed not endeuoring thy selfe to purchase Gods mercy O man doth not thyne owne conscience condemne thee There be in the weeke 168. houres and God asketh but one of them to be giuen wholy vnto him and thou consumest that in worldly busines in trifling and talking with what boldnes then shalt thou come to these holy misteries O corrupt conscience Hitherto I haue rehersed S. Iohn Chrisostomes wordes which do shew how our myndes should be occupyed at this holy table of our Lord that is to say withdrawen from the consideration of sensible thinges vnto the contemplation of most heauenly and godly thinges And thus is answered this place of Chrisostom which the Papists tooke for an insoluble and a place that no man was able to answere But for further declaration of Chrisostoms mynd in this matter read the place of him before rehersed fol. 327. and 343 Winchester Answering to Chrisostome this author complayneth as he did in Ciprian of malicious leauing out of that which when it is brought in doth nothing empayre that went before Chrisostome would we should consider the secret truth of this mistery where Christ is the inuisible Priest and ministreth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest wherof
drinke very wine so we lift vp our hartes vnto heauen and with our fayth wee see Christ crucified with our spirituall eyes and eat his flesh thrust thorow with a speare and drinke his bloud springing out of his side with our spirituall mouthes of our fayth And as Emissene sayd when we go to the reuerend aultar to feede vpon spirituall meat with our fayth we looke vpon him that is both God and man wee honour him we touch him with our minds we take him with the hands of our hartes and drinke him with the draught of our inward man So that although we see and eat sensibly very bread and drinke very wine spiritually eat and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud yet may wee not rest there but lift vp our mindes to his deity without the which his flesh auaileth nothing as he sayth himself Further auÌ„swere needeth not to any thing that you haue here spoken For euery learned reader may see at the first shew that all that you haue spoken is nothing els but very triflyng in wordes Now followeth S. Ambrose Yet there is an other place of S. Ambrose which the Papists thinke maketh much for their purpose but after due examination it shall playnely appeare how much they be deceiued They alleadge these wordes of S. Ambrose in a booke intituled De ijs qui initiantur misterijs Let vs proue that there is not that thing which nature formed but which benediction did consecrate and that benedictioÌ„ is of more strength then nature For by the blessing nature it selfe is also chaunged Moyses held a rodde he cast it from him and it was made a serpent Agayn he took the serpent by the tayle and it was turned agayne into the nature of a rodde Wherefore thou seest that by the grace of the prophet the nature of the serpent and rod was twise thaunged The flouds of Egypt ran pure water and sodenly bloud began to brust out of the vaines of the springes so that men could not drinke of the floud but at the prayer of the Prophet the bloud of the floud went away and the nature of water came agayne The people of the Hebrues were compassed about on the one syde with the Egyptians and on the other side with the sea Moyses lifted vp his rod the water deuided it selfe and stood vp like a wall and betwene the waters was left a way for them to passe on foot And Iordan agaynst nature turned backe to the head of his spring Doth it not appeare now that the nature of the Sea flouds or of the course of fresh water was chaunged The people was dry Moyses touched a stone and water came out of the stone Did not grace her worke aboue nature to make the stone to bring forth the water which it had not of nature Marath was a most bitter floud so that the people being dry could not drinke thereof Moyses put wood into the water and the nature of the water lost his bitternes which grace infused did sodenly moderate In the tyme of Heliseus the prophet an axe head fell from one of the Prophets seruauntes into the water he that lost the yron desired the prophet Heliseus helpe who put the helue into the water and the iron swam aboue Which thing we know was done aboue nature for yron is heuier then the liquor of water Thus we perceiue that grace is of more force then nature and yet hetherto we haue rehersed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets Now if the blessing of a man bee of such valew that it may chaunge nature what do we say of the consecration of God wherein is the operation of the wordes of our sauiour Christ For this Sacrament which thou receiuest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Helias was of such power that it could bring fyre down from heauen shall not the word of Christ be of that power to chaunge the kindes of the elementes Of the making of the whole world thou hast red that God spake and the thinges were done he commaunded and they were created The word then of Christ that could of no things make things that were not can it not chauÌ„ge those thinges that be into that thing which before they were not For it is no les matter to geue to thinges new nature then to alter natures Thus far haue I rehearsed the woâ—â—es of S. Ambrose if the sayd book be his which they that be of greatest learning and iudgemeÌ„t do not thinke by which wordes the Papists would proue that in the supper of the Lord after the words of Consecration as they be commonly called there remayneth neither bread nor wine because that S. Ambrose sayth in this place that the nature of the bread and wine is chaunged But to satisfy their mindes let vs graunt for their pleasure that the foresayd booke was S. Ambrose owne worke yet the same booke maketh nothing for their purpose but quite agaynst them For he sayth not that the substaunce of bread and wine is gone but he sayth that their nature is chaunged that is to say that in the holy communion we ought not to receiue the bread and wine as other common meates and drinkes but as thinges cleane chaunged into a higher estate nature and condition to be taken as holy meates and drinkes whereby we receiue spirituall feeding and supernaturall nourishment from heauen of the very true body and bloud of our sauior Christ through the omnipotent power of God and the wonderful working of the holy ghost Which so well agreeth with the substaunce of bread and wine still remayning that if they were gone away and not there this our spiritual feeding could be taught vnto vs by them And therefore in the most part of the examples which S. Ambrose alleadgeth for the wonderfull alteration of natures the substances did still remayne after the nature and properties were chaunged As when the water of Iordane contrary to his nature stood still like a wale or flowed agaynst the streame towardes the head and spring yet the substaunce of the water remained the same that it was before Likewise the stone that aboue his nature and kinde flowed water was the self same stone that it was before And the floud of Marath that chaunged his nature of bitternesse chaunged for all that no part of his substaunce No more did that yron which contrary to his nature swam vpon the water lose thereby any part of the substaunce thereof Therefore as in these alterations of natures the substances neuertheles remayned the same that they were before the alterations euen so dooth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lords supper and be naturally receiued and disgested into the body notwithstanding the sacramentall mutation of the same into the bodye and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the supernaturall spirituall and explicable eating and drinking feeding and disgesting of the
though men had inuented and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must beleeue that is to say the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament according to the wordes of Christ This is my body which exclude the substance of bread declaring the substance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the Sacrament by the true fayth of a christen man Compare with this what this author writeth in hys ninth difference in the 47. leafe of his boke and so consider the truth of this report and how this author agreeth with himselfe Caunterbury I Suspect not the iudgement of the indifferent reader so much but that he can perceaue how vndirectly you answere to this third absurdity and be loth as it seemeth to answere any thing at all But it is no little confirmation of the catholike fayth to see you Papists vary so much among your selues and you alone to diuise so many thinges contrary to all the rest and yet you be vncertayne your selfe what you may say They say also with one accord sauing onely Smith you that in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christes body For he is not there visible and sensible with his voyce to be heard his colours to be seene his softnes to be felt his quantities to be extended and to be locall in place with his other accidents so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament Smith sayth that he is there not naturally as you say but against nature with all his qualities and accidents You dare neither adde them nor drawe them away being vncertayue whether they be there or no and being also vncertayne whether in the sacrament he haue distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but iesting and rayling to you which for lacke of answer be glad to shift of the truth as a matter of iesting And it is not my terming without the booke and at my pleasure to speake of substances without accidents and accidents without substances For I speake none otherwise therein then as it hath pleased the Papistes before to terme the same in all their bookes of that matter but I termed this matter so vppon the papisticall bookes as they at their pleasure deuised or dreamed without all manner of bookes written before their tyme. And the force of scripture constrayneth no man to the beleefe of Transubstantiation although the body of Christ were really corporally and carnally present who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances as with the accidents of bread and wine as fully is declared before And where you alleadge the disagreing of me with my selfe if you would haue taken the payne to reade some of the schole authors you should haue learned that there is no disagrement in my sayings at all For they say that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper formes and quantities as I sayd in the 47. leafe But yet those accidents say they be in heauen and not in the sacrament as I say in this place not varying one mite from myne other saying But ignorance in you thinketh a difference where none is at all Now followeth the fourth absurdity Fourthly they say that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be hath no substance there to fill that place and so must they needes graunt vacuum which nature vtterly abhorreth Winchester This author goeth about to finde so many absurdities that he speaketh he wotteth not what and where he seeth and feeleth quantity accompteth the place voyd for want of substance as though in consideration of common naturall thinges seuerally as they be in nature it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantity although in the naturall order of thinges there is no quantity without substance and is in this Sacrament onely by miracle There wanted a substance in consideration of this absurdity and was such a vacuum as nature playnly endureth Caunterbury A Lithe authors that write what vacuum is account a place that is not filled with a substaunce which hath quantity in it to be void and emty So that my saying is not grounded vpon ignoraunce but vpon the mind of all that write in that matter Where as your saying that quantity alone filleth place without substaunce hath no ground at all but the Papistes bare imagination And if quantity in the sacrament be without substaunce by miracle it is maruaile that no auncient writer in no place of their bookes made any mention of such a miracle But your selfe graunt inough for my purpose in this place that it is an absurdity in nature and wrought onely by miracle that quantity occupieth a place alone without substaunce Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right fayth but onely of your errour of transubstantiation Now to the fift absurdity Fiftly they are not ashamed to say that substaunce is made of accidentes when the bread mouleth or is turned into wormes or when the wine sowreth Winchester True beleuing men are not ashamed to confes the trueth of theyr fayth whatsoeuer arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary For Christes workes we know to be true by a most certayne fayth what mouldeth in bread or sowreth in wine we be not so assured or wheron worms ingēder it is not so fully agréed on amōg men The learned lawyer Vlpian writeth as I haue before alleadged that wine and vineger haue in manner one substaunce so as when wine sowreth and is vineger in manner the same substaunce remayneth in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that meanes that the accidents onely sower And if we agrée with the Phylosophers that there is Materia prima which in all thinges is one and altereth not but as a newe forme commeth taketh a new name fansying that as one waue in the water thrusteth away an other so doth one forme an other It should séeme by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents and the corruption of accidentes to be the generation of new accidentes the same Materia prima being as it were substantia that altereth not And this I write that may be sayd as it were to make a title to this authors certainety which is not so sure as he maketh it Amonges men haue bene maruailous fansies in consideration of naturall thinges and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret and therfore to our certaine fayth But to come nerer to the purpose it is wrong borne in hand that we affirme wormes to be engendred of accidentes but when the wormes be ingendred we graunt the wormes to be and will rather say whereof they be we cannot tell then to say that substaunce is made of accidents and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation and such as intreat those chaunces and accidentes doe not induce that
hath defyned and determined in this matter many thinges contrary to Christes words contrary to the old catholick church and the holy martirs and doctors of the same and contrary to all naturall reason learning and philosophy And the final end of al this Antichristes doctrine is none other but by subtilty and craft to bring christen people from the true honoring of Christ vnto the greatest idolatry that euer was in this world deuise as by Gods grace shal be plainly set forth hereafter Winchester It hath vene heard without fables of certaine men that haue liued and bene norished with sauors onely And in gold and certayne precious stones that they geue a kinde of nurriture to an other substance without diminution of their substance experience hath shewed it so and therefore the principle or maxime that this author gathereth hath no such absurdity in it as he noteth to say that substaunce is nourished without substance But when vermin by chaunce happen to deuour any host as I am sure they cannot violate Christes most precious body so what effect foloweth of the rest what néedeth it to be discussed If it nourisheth then doth that effect remaine although the substaunce be not there If euery nurriture must néedes bee of substaunce then would those that discusse those chances say the substaunce to returne but hell gates shall not make me speake agaynst my fayth And if I be asked the question whether the visible matter of the sacrament nourish I will answere yea Ergo sayth he there is substaunce I deny it He shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physicke I shall disproue the conclusion by the authority of faith who is it most méet should yeld to other And if in nature many things be in experience contrary to the generall rules why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the sacrament that the onely substaunce being chaunged all other partes properties and effectes may remayne Is it an absurdity for a mayde to haue a child because it is against the rules of nature Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing because the philosopher sayth Of nothing commeth nothing The principle of nature is that whatsoeuer hath a beginning hath an end and yet it is no absurditye to beléeue our soules to haue a beginning without end and to be immortall Wherefore to conclude this matter it is a great absurdity in this author to note that for an absurdity in our fayth which repugneth onely to the principles of phylosophy or reasō when that is onely to be accounted for an absurdity that should repugne to the scripture and gods will which is the standerd to try the rule of our fayth Howsoeuer reason or Phylosophy be offended it forceth not so gods teaching be embraced and persuaded in fayth which néedeth no such plaisters and salues as this author hath deuised to make a sore where none is and to corrupt that is whole Caunterbury MEn may here see what fayned fables be sought out to defend your errors and ignorance which is how so manifest that it appeareth you neuer read or els haue forgotten the very principles and diffinitions of Philosophy Of which this is one that nutrition is a conuertion of substance into substance that is to say of the meate into the substance of the thing that is fedde An other is thus Ex eisdem sunt nutriuntur omnia All thinges be nourished of thinges like themselues And so I graunt you that a man made of sauoures and a man made of the vertue of gold and precious stones may be nourished by the same bicause he is made of the same And yet it may be that some certayne sauor or the vertue of some precious stone may increase or continue some humor wherof a man may be nourished as we read of some men or certayne people that haue liued no small time by the sauonr of apples But still in your booke you crye fayth fayth and catholike fayth when you teach but your owne inuentions cleane contrary to the true catholike fayth and expresse worde of God And in all your arguments here you commit the greatest vice that can be in reasoning called Petitio principij taking that thing which is chiefly in controuersy to be a principle to induce your conclusion Fayth fayth say you where is no fayth but your bare faining I haue disproued your fayth by gods word by the vniuersall consent of all Christendome a M. yeares togither and you crye out still fayth fayth which is not the fayth of Christ but of Antichrist Let christen men now iudge who should yeld to other If you had proued your doctrine by fayth founded vpon Gods word I would condescend vnto you that it is no absurdity that accidents remayne when the substance is gone But gods word is clearly agaynst you not onely in your doctrine of transubstantiation but also in the doctrine of the reall presence of the eating and drinking and of the sacrifices of Christes flesh and bloud Winchester The best plaster and medicine that could now be deuised were to leaue a part questions and idle talke and meekly to submit our capacities to the true fayth and not to ouerwhelme our vnderstandinges with search and inquiry wherof we shall neuer finde an ende entring the bottomles secresy of Gods misteries Let vs not seeke that is aboue our reach but that God hath commaunded vs let vs do Each man impugneth an others learning with wordes none controleth in others liuing with better dedes Let all endeuour themselues to do that God commaundeth and the good occupation therof shall exclude al such idlenes as is cause and occasion of this vayne and noysome curiosity And now to returne to this author whiles he seeth a mate in an other mans iye he feeleth not a beame in his owne Who recommendeth vnto vs specially Theodoret whome he calleth an holy Bishop and with him doth bring forth a pece of an Epistle of S. Chrisostome The doctrine of which two ioyned with the doctrine of this author in such sence as this author would haue all vnderstanded to be called catholike touching the fayth of the sacrament hath such an absurdity in it as was neuer hard of in religion For this author teacheth for his part that the body of Christ is onely really in heauen and not indeed in the sacrament according wherunto this author teacheth also the bread to be very bread still which doctrine if it be true as this author will needes haue it then ioyne vnto it the doctrine of the secret Epistle of Chrisostome and Theodoret whose doctrine is that after the consecration that is consecrate shal be called no more bread but the body of Christ. By these two doctrines ioyned togither it shall apeare that we must call that is consecrate by a name that we be learned by this author it is not and may not by the doctrine of Theodoret call it by the name of the
neither reason learnyng nor fayth beareth that Christes body beyng onely in bread should gyue life vnto a man So that if it were an Article of our faith to beleue that Christ is present in the formes of bread and wine it were an vnprofitable Article seyng that his being in the bread should profit no man Irenee therefore meaneth not of the beyng of Christ in the bread and wyne but of the eatyng of him And yet he meaneth not of corporall eating for so Christ sayth him selfe that his flesh auayleth nothing but spirituall eatyng by fayth Nor he speaketh not of spirituall eatyng in receauyng of the Sacrament onely for then our lyfe should not be eternall nor endure no longer then we be eating of the sacrament for our spirituall life cōtinueth no lōger thē our spirituall feedyng And then could none haue lyfe but that receaue the Sacramēt and all should haue perished that dyed before Christes Supper and institutiō of the Sacrament or that dye vnder age before they receiue the Sacrament But the true meaning of Irenee Hilary Cyprian Cyrill and other that treated of this matter was this that as Christ was truely made man and crucified for vs and shed his bloud vpon the Crosse for our redemption now reigneth for euer in heauen so as many as haue a true fayth and belefe in him chawyng their cuddes and perfectly remembryng the same death and passion which is the spirituall eatyng of his flesh and drinkyng of his bloud they shall reigne in euerlastyng lyfe with him For they spiritually and truely by faith eate his flesh and drinke his bloud whether they were before the institution of the Sacrament or after And the beyng or not beyng of Christes body and bloud really and corporally in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine neither maketh nor marreth nor is to no purpose in this matter But for confirmation of this our fayth in Christes death and passion for a perpetuall memory of the same hath Christ ordeined this holy Sacrament not to be kept but to be ministred among vs to our singular comfort that as outwardly and corporally we eate the very bread and drinke the very wine and call them the body and bloud of Christ so inwardly and spiritually we eate drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally he is in heauen and shall be vntill the last Iudgement when he shall come to Iudge both the quicke and the dead And in the Sacrament that is to say in the due ministration of the Sacrament Christ is not onely figuratiuely but effectually vnto euerlastyng lyfe And this teachyng impugneth the heresies of the Ualentinians Arrians and other heretickes and so doth not your fayned doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine and that vngodly and wicked men eate and drinke the same which shall be cast away from the eternall lyfe and perish for euer And for further aunswere to Hilary I referre the Reader to myne other aunswere made to him before And for S. Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete if there be no bread and wine in the Sacrament their Argumentes serue for the heretickes purpose and cleane directly agaynst them selues For their entent agaynst the heretickes is to proue that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soule and a perfect body and to be perfect God and perfect man As to the full perfection of the Sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine and the perfect body and bloud of Christ. So that now turnyng the Argument if there be no perfect bread and wine as the Papistes falsely surmise then may the heretickes cōclude agaynst the Catholicke fayth and conuince Chrisostome Gelasius Theodorete with their own weapon that is to say with their own similitude that as in the Sacramēt lacketh the earthly part so doth in Christ lacke his humanitie And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine and yet is none in deede so shall they argue by this similitude that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and bloud and yet was there none in very deede And thus by your deuilish Trāsubstantiation of bread and wine do you trāsubstantiate also the body and bloud of Christ not conuincyng but confirmyng most haynous heresies And this is the conclusion of your vngodly fayned doctrine of transubstantiation And where you would gather the same cōclusion if Christes flesh and bloud be not really present it seemeth that you vnderstand not the purpose and intent of these Authors For they bring not this similitude of the Sacrament for the reall presence but for the reall beyng That as the Sacrament consisteth in two partes one earthly an other heauenly the earthly part beyng the bread and wine and the heauenly the body and bloud of Christ and these partes be all truely and really in deede without colour or simulation that is to say very true bread and wine in deede the very true body and bloud of Christ in deede euē likewise in Christ be two natures his humanitie and earthly substaunce and his diuinitie and heauēly substaunce and both these be true natures and substaunces without colour or dissemblyng And thus is this similitude of the Sacrament brought in for the truth of the natures not for the presence of the natures For Christ was perfect God and perfect man whē his soule went downe to hell and his body lay in the graue bycause the body and soule were both still vnited vnto his diuinitie and yet it was not required that his soule should be present with the body in the sepulture no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the Sacrament but as the soule was then in hell so is his body now in heauen And as it is not required that where so euer Christes diuinitie is there should be really and corporally his manhode so it is not required that where the bread and wyne be there should be corporally his flesh and bloud But as you frame the Argument agaynst the heretickes it serueth so litle agaynst them that they may with the same frame and engine ouerthrow the whole Catholicke Church For thus you frame the Argument As the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth not alter the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie Marke well now good Reader what foloweth hereof As the presence of Christes body in this mysterie doth not alter say you the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie But the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures as the Papistes say that the substaunces of bread and wyne be extinguished and there remayneth no substaūce but of the body of Christ Ergo likewise in the
mysterie of Christes incarnation the humanitie is extinguished by the presence of his Godhead and so there remayneth no more but the substaunce of his diuinitie as the Eutichians sayd And thus the similitude of Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete ioyned to the saying of the Papistes frameth a good Argument for the heretickes But those Authours framed their Argumēt cleane cōtrary on this wise that the bread and wyne be not transubstantiate or extinguished but continue still in their owne substaunces figures fashion and all naturall proprieties and therfore doth the humanitie of Christ likewise endure and remayne in proper substaunce with his naturall proprieties without extinction or transubstantiation For those Authours take no bread and wyne for the visible proprieties onely of bread and wyne but for very true bread and wyne with all their naturall qualities and conditions And the heretickes shall soone finde out your cauillation where to auoyde the matter you say that the mysterie of the Sacrament requireth not the truth of the substaunce For why should the Authours bryng them forth to proue the truth of the substaunce in Christ if there were no true substaunce in them Thus all your shiftes and Sophistications be but wynde or colours cast ouer the truth to bleare mens eyes which colours rubbed of the truth appeareth cleare and playne And your first marke is not clearely put out but turned to a marke spectacle for your selfe wherin you may clearely see your owne errour and how foule you haue bene deceaued in this matter and open your eyes if God will geue you grace to put away your inducate hart to see the cleare truth Winchester An other certaine token is the wondryng and great marueling that the old authors make how the substaunce of this Sacrament is wrought by Gods omnipotencie Baptisme is marueiled at for the wonderfull effect that is in man by it how man is regenerate not how the water or the holy Ghost is there But the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures how they be so chaunged into the body bloud of Christ which is a worke wrought of God before we receiue the Sacrament Which worke Cyprian sayth is ineffable that is to say not speakeable which is not so if it be but a figure for then it may be easely spoken as this authour speaketh it with ease I thinke he speaketh it so often of a presence by signification if it may so be called euery man may speake and tell how but of the very presence in déede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament no creature can tell how it may be that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body and therewith continually reignyng there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in déede which Christ in déede worketh being neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen as S. Chrisostome doth with a maruaile say If the maruaile were onely of Gods worke in man in the effect of the Sacrament as it is in Baptisme it were an other matter but I sayd before the wonder is in the worke of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receiued which declareth the old authours that so wonder to vnderstand the reall presence of Christes very body and not an onely signification which hath no wonder at all And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it and calleth the worke ineffable S. Chrisostome wondreth at it S. Ambrose wondreth at it Emissene wondreth at it Cyrill wondreth at it What should we now doubt whether their sayth were of a signification onely as this authour would haue it which is no wonder at all or of the reall presence which is in déede a wonderfull worke Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the old fathers there can no construction of sillables or wordes disswade or peruert the truth thus testified Caunterbury AS touchyng this your second marke in the ministration of the Sacramentes aswell of the Lordes holy Supper as of Baptisme God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receauers not in the outward visible signes For it is the person Baptised that is so regenerate that he is made a new creature without any reall alteration of the water And none otherwise it is the Lordes Supper for the bread wine remaine in their former substaunce neither be fed nor nourished yet in the man that worthely receiueth them is such a wonderfull nourishmēt wrought by the mighty power of God that he hath thereby euerlasting life And this is the ineffable worke of God wherof Cyprian speaketh So that aswell in the Lords Supper as in Baptisme the marueilous workyng of God passing the comprehension of all mans wit is in the spirituall receiuers not in the bread wine water nor in the carnall vngodly receauers For what should it auayle the liuely members of Christ that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures But in his members he is present not figuratiuely but effectually and effectually and ineffably worketh in them nourishyng and feedyng them so wonderfully that it passeth all wittes and toungues to expresse And neuerthelesse corporally he is ascended into heauen and there shall tarry vntill the world shall haue an end And therfore sayth Chrisostome that Christ is both gone vp into heauen and yet is here receaued of vs but diuersly For he is gone vp to heauen carnally is here receaued of vs spiritually And this wonder is not in the woorkyng of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receaued as you fayne it to be nor in thē that vnworthely receaue it carnally but in them that receaue Christ spiritually beyng nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated that they may be fed of the same thyng wherof they be regenerated and so be throughly Os ex ossibus eius caro ex carne eius Bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh And consideryng deepely this matter Cyprian wondreth as much at Gods worke in Baptisme as in the Lordes Supper Chrisostome wondreth as much Emissene wondreth as much Cyrill wondreth as much all Catholicke writers wonder as much as well how God doth spiritually regenerate vs to a new lyfe as how he doth spiritually feede and nourish vs to euerlastyng lyfe And although these thyngs be outwardly signified vnto vs by the Sacramentall bread wine and water yet they be effectually wrought in vs by the omnipotent power of God Therefore you had neede to seeke out some other marke or token for your purpose for this serueth nothyng at all For by his wonderfull workyng Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine then in the water of Baptisme Winchester A thyrd token there is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierome when he declareth vpon the Epistle Ad Titum so aduisedly at lēgth how Panes propositionis
at the holy communion by remembrance of the death resurrection and ascention of his sonne Iesu Christ and by confessing and setting forth of the same Heare by the vngodly handeling of this godly councell at his first beginning it may appeare to euery man how sincerely this Papist entendeth to proceede in the rest of this matter And with like sinceritie he vntruly belieth the sayd counsell saying that it doth playnly set forth the holy sacrifice of the Masse wich doth not so much as once name the Masse but speaketh of the sacrifice of the church which the sayd councell declareth to be the profession of christen people in setting forth the benefite of Christ who onely made the true sacrifice pro piciatory for remission of sinne And whosoeuer else taketh vpon him to make any such sacrifice maketh himselfe Antichrist And than he belyeth me in two thinges as he vseth commonly throughout his whole booke The one is that I deny the sacrifice of the Masse which in my booke haue most playnly set out the sacrifice of christen people in the holy communion or masse if D. Smith will needes so terme it and yet I haue denyed that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for sinne or that the priest alone maketh any sacrifice there For it is the sacrifice of all christen people to remember Christes death to laude and thanke him for it and to publish it and shew it abroad vnto other to his honor and glory The controuersy is not whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not for herein both D. Smith and I agree with the foresayd councell at Ephesus but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not and whether onely the priest make the sayd sacrifice these be the poyntes wherin we vary And I say so far as the councell sayth that there is a sacrifice but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sinne or that the priest alone doth offer it neyther I nor the counsell do so say but D. Smith hath added that of his owne vayne head The other thing wherin D. Smith belyeth me is this He sayth that I deny that we receaue in the sacrament that flesh which is adioyned to Gods owne sonne I meruaile not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had when he red ouer my booke It is like that he hath some priuy spectacles within his head wherwith when soeuer he loketh he seeth but what he list For in my booke I haue written in moe then an hundred places that we receaue the selfe same body of Christ that was borne of the virgine Mary that was crucified and buried that rose agayne ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty And the contention is onely in the manner and forme how we receaue it For I say as all the olde holy Fathers and Martirs vsed to say that we receaue Christ spiritually by fayth with our myndes eating his flesh and drincking his bloud so that we receaue Christes owne very naturall body but not naturally nor corporally But this lying papist sayth that we eate his naturall body corporally with our mouthes which neyther the counsell Ephesine nor any other auncient councell or doctor euer sayd or thought And the controuersy in the councell Ephesine was not of the vniting of Christes flesh to the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament but of the vniting of his flesh to his diuinity at his incarnation in vnity of person Which thing Nestorius the heretike denyed confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were but not that he was very God in nature which heresy that holy counsell confuting affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so ioyned in person to the dyuine nature that it was made the proper flesh of the sonne of God and flesh that gaue life but that the sayd flesh was present in the sacramēt corporally and eaten with our mouthes no mention is made therof in that councell And here I require D. Smith as proctor for the Papists eyther to bring forth some auncient councell or doctor that sayth as he sayth that Christs own naturall body is eaten corporally with our mouthes vnderstanding the very body in deed and not the signes of the body as Chrisostome doth or els let him confesse that my saying is true and recant his false doctrine the third tyme as he hath done twise already THan forth goeth this Papist with his preface and sayth that these wordes This is my body that shall be giuen to death for you no man can truely vnderstand of bread And his profe therof is this bicause that bread was not crucified for vs. First here he maketh a lye of Christ. For Christ said not as this papist alleadgeth This is my body which shal be giuen to death for you but onely he sayth This is my body which is giuen for you which wordes some vnderstand not of the giuing of the body of Christ to death but of the breaking and giuing of bread to his apostles as S. Paule sayd The bread which we breake c. But let it be that he spake of the geuing of his body to death and said of the bread This is my body which shal be geuen to death for you by what reason can you gather hereof that the bread was crucified for vs If I looke vpon the image of kinge Dauid and say This is he that killed Goliath doth this speach mean that the image of King Dauid killed Goliath Or if I hold in my hand my booke of S. Iohns gospell and say This is the gospell that S. Iohn wrote at Pathmos which fashion of speach is commonly vsed doth it folow hereof that my booke was written at Pathmos Or that S. Iohn wrote my booke which was but newly printed at Paris by Robert Stephanus Or if I say of my booke of S. Paules epistles This is Paule that was the great persecuter of Christ Doth this manner of speach signify that my booke doth persecute Christ Or if I shew a booke of the new testament saying This is the new testament which brought life vnto the world by what forme of argument can you induce hereof that my booke that I bought but yesterday brought life vnto the world No man that vseth thus to speake doth meane of the bookes but of the very thinges themselues that in the bookes be taught and contayned And after the same wise if Christ called bread his body saying This is my body which shall be giuen to death for you yet he ment not that the bread should be giuen to death for vs but his body which by the bread was signified If this excellent clarke and doctor vnderstand not these maner of speaches that be so playne then hath he doth lost his sences and forgotten his gramer which teacheth to referre the relatiue to the next antecedent But of these figuratiue speaches I haue spokē at large in my third booke First in the
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
is it to offer Christes body and bloud at Masse to purchase thereby euerlastyng lyfe if it be not the Masse to be a Sacrifice to pacifie Gods wrath for sinne and to obtaine his mercy Smith fol. 24. 148. and .164 Priestes doe offer for our saluation to get Heauen to auoyde Hell fol. eodem ¶ Matters wherein the Byshop varied from him selfe THe body of Christ in the Sacramēt is not made of bread but is made present of bread pag. 79. lin 6. c. and pag. 202. lin 40. c. Of bread is made the body of Christ pag. 344. lin 8. The Catholicke fayth hath frō the beginnyng confessed truely Christes intent to make bread his body pag. 26. lin 40. Christ gaue that he made of bread pag. 257. lin 50. And of many breads is made one body of Christ pag. 144. lin 23. And fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ that is to say made the body of Christ pag. 295. lin 30. Christ spake playnly This is my body makyng demonstration of the bread when he sayd This is my body in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. I will passe ouer the phantasies of them who wrote the principall chief text This is my body from consecration of the Sacrament to the demonstration of Christes body c in the deuilish deuils Sophistry fol. 70. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 42. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine pag. 251. lin 8. Illis verbis hoc est Corpus meum substantia corporis significatur nec de pane quic quam intelligitur quum corpus de substantia sua nō aliena predicetur fol. 24. fa. 2. Mar Ant. Constant. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the litterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. What can be more euidently spoken of the presence of Christes naturall body and bloud in the most blessed Sacrament of the aultar than is in these wordes This is my body in the deuils Sophistry fol. 5. Where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quātitie pag. 71. lin 47. And he is present in the Sacrament as he is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. c. We beleue simply the substaunce of Christes body to be in the Sacrament without drawyng away of accidentes or adding pag. 353. lin 1. Christ is not present in the Sacrament after the maner of quantitie but vnder the forme and quantitie of bread and wine pag. 71. lin 50. pag. 90. lin 43. In such as receiue the Sacrament worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally and naturally and carnally pag. 166. lin 19. and pag. 173. lin 54. and pag. 191. lin 47. The maner of Christes beyng in the Sacrament is not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall pag. 159. lin 17. and pag. 197. lin 32. We receiue Christ in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receiue him worthely pag. 167. lin 9. and pag. 174. lin 1. When an vnrepentaunt sinner receiueth the Sacrament hee hath not Christes body within him pag. 225. lin 43. He that eateth verely the flesh of Christ is by nature in Christ Christ is naturally in him pag. 17. lin 38. c. An euill man in the Sacrament receiueth indeede Christes very body pag. eadem lin 7. Euill men eate verely the flesh of Christ pag. 225. lin 47. Christ geueth vs to be eaten the same flesh that hee tooke of the virgin pag. 241. lin 27. We receiue not in the Sacrament Christes body that was Crucified pag. 243. lin 16. Saint Augustines rule De doctrina Christiana pertaineth not to Christes Supper pag. 117. lin 21. The sixt of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made to the eatyng of a token of Christes flesh pag. 4. lin 40. S. Augustin meaneth of the sacrament pag. 119. lin 24. The sixt of Iohn must needes be vnderstand of corporall and sacramētall eatyng pag. 17. lin 48. Reason in place of seruice as beyng inferiour to fayth will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough pag. 265. lin 1. And as reason receiued into faithes seruice doth not striue with Transubstantiation but agreeth well with it so mans sences be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation as a matter whereof they can no skill for the sences can no skill of substaunces pag. 271. lin 24. c. Thine eyes say there is but bread and wyne Thy tast sayth the same Thy feelyng and smellyng agree fully with them Hereunto is added the carnall mans vnderstandyng which bycause it taketh the begynning of the senses proceedeth in reasonyng sensually in the deuils sophistry fol. 6. The Church hath not forborne to preache the truth to the confusion of mans senses and vnderstandyng fol. 15. It is called bread bycause of the outward visible matter pag. When it is called bread it is meant Christ the spirituall bread pag. 284. lin 25. The fraction is in the outward signe not in the body of Christ pag. 144. lin 39. and pag. 348. lin 21. And in the deuils sophistry fol. 17. That which is broken is the body of Christ pag. 348. lin 18. The inward nature of the bread is the substaunce pag. 286. lin 23. Substaunce signifieth the outward nature pag. 359. lin 22. The substaunces of bread and wine be visible creatures pag. 285. lin 48. and pag. 286. lin 44. Accidents be the visible natures and visible elementes pag. 363. lin 39. Christ is our satisfaction holy and fully and hath payde our whole debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his wrath agaynst vs pag. 81. lin 39. The act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must needes be propitiatory and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect pag. 437. lin 13. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wyne pag. 251. lin 8. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the literal sense hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. And it is a singular miracle of Christ vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their propre sense ibidem lin 21. The sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was neuer reiterate pag. 368. lin 46. Priestes do sacrifice Christ pag. 381. lin 42. c. And the Catholicke doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to bee the same in essence that was offered on the Crosse pag. 436. lin 11. The Nestorians graunted both the Godhead manhode alwayes to be in Christ continually pag. 309. lin 18. The Nestorians denyed Christ conceyued God or borne God but that he was afterward God as a mā that is not borne a Byshop is after made a Byshop So the Nestorians sayd that the Godhead was
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the
Papistes 396 Fayth true was in the Churche from the begynnyng 405 Falsehode feareth light 395 Fathers in the old law receaued the same Sacrament as we 58.75 Figure or signification founde in Scripture 10.11 Figures haue the names of the thynges signified .124 235. they require not the presence of the thynges signified 306 Figuratiue speaches especially vsed in Scripture concernyng the Sacramentes 135 Forme what it meaneth 267 Forme visible what it is 268 G. GAmaliel his counsell 6.7 God his omnipotency in the Sacrament 8. 29. 30 H. HEretiques concernyng Christes two Natures 294. Holynesse in the Sacrament wherein it standeth 156.187 I. IAcob in that he sought by his mothers aduise to resemble Esau is not a figure of Christes humanitie 260 Impanation 267 Infusion 333 Ionas 15 Ione of Kent 78 L. LVther 7.11 M. MAma 229 Masse priuate how fondly proued by Gardiner .150 the sacrifice therof .371 it is not propitiatory .373.378 it is detestable .375 the Papistes argumentes for it confuted .378 neuer vsed in the primatiue Church .378 the abuse therof 379 Materia prima 350 N. NAmes chaungyng 292.218 Nature of two significations 292 Negotions by comparison 335 Nestorius his errour 20.176 Nicolas 2. Pope his fleshly constitution of the Sacrament 114 O. ONe thyng one substaunce 362 Onely one singular 87 P. PAnes propositionis wherof they be figures 203 Papistes their foure principall erroure .42 they vary among them selues .73 their fayth of the Sacrament and the true fayth how they differre 49.50.51 Powryng 332 Presence by fayth requireth no corporall presence 316 Priest and lay men how they differre 376 Promises of God vnder condition 216 Prosperitie no note of true doctrine 7.8 R. REall presence proueth no Transubstantiation .253 in the formes it is vnprofitable and vncōfortable 300 Really what it is 70 Really and sensibly is not founde in any old writers 156 Receaue how we ought 143. 148. 208. 228 Receauer in him is reall conuersion 287 Reseruation 58 Romish Church not the mother of the Catholicke fayth 12.13 S. SAcramentes their true effect .10 the Papistes errours therein .42 their names why chaunged .360 they differre in the old and new Testament 75 Sacrament of Christes body the eatyng therof .23 why ordayned .25 37. 39. it is no miracle .29 30. why ordayned in bread and wine .38 the doctrine therof how different betwene Papistes Protestantes .49 50. as soone as it is eaten Christes body goeth into heauen .53 in it remayneth not two natures .300 what is to be wōdered at therto .65 194. 367. it is to be reuerenced not worshypped .134.239 the misterie and holynesse therof wherein it standeth .156.242 the true doctrine therof simple and playne .351 the true administration therof .362 it must not be receaued of one for an other .375 it goeth into the diuine substaunce to the worthy receauer 316 Sacrament the word is of two significations 212 Sacramentall mutation 346 Sacrifices art of two kyndes .372 differre in the old and new law 371 Sacrifice of Christ and ours how they differe 385 Sacrifice propitiatorie of Christ what it is .370 the effect therof 391 Sacrifice of the Church dayly what .89 9◠372. 385. it consisteth of two thynges .300 wherein it standeth 391. 397 Sacrifice of all Christian people what .374 aswell made by a lay man as a Priest 378 Sacrifice propitiatory and gratificatory how they differre 388 Sacrifices deuised by Winchester 87 Salomons iudgement in the child 94 Schole Authours their deuotion 351 Sences may be deceiued in the Accidentes .275 they auayle to fayth and iudgyng of substaunces 278 Similitudes how farre they extend 300 Sinners whether they haue Christ within them 226 Smith his booke full of rayling .4 confuted .28 42. 44. his vayne distinctions .102 his nouelties in speach and doctrine .109 hee belyeth Ephesius Counsell and Cranmer .396 his argument of the doore and Sepulcher 403 Soule the hunger therof .35 and foode therof 36 Stercorametae their opinion 52 Substaunces more properly sene then their accidentes .274 they can not doe without accidentes 349 Sunne how it is present with vs on earth 92 Supper of the Lord the abuse therof .18 it geueth not lyfe to the receauer 32 T. THeodoretes Dialogue on the Sacrament 128 Transubstantiation subuerteth fayth .40 the Authours thereof .251.323 is at large confuted and is agaynst Gods word .253 agaynst all reason .263 agaynst all sence .171 it passeth the fondnesse of all Philosophers .268 it is no matter of fayth .276 it is contrary to the fayth of the old fathers .279 the Papistes reasons to proue it .324 Authours wrested for it .330 absurdities that follow thereon .338 Scripture doth not enforce a man to beleue it 353 V. VArietie a token of vncertaine doctrine 106 Unitie of Christes mysticall body through the Sacrament 39 Unitie with Christ how 166.191.175 W. WIcklesse 7 Winchester his booke is but frowardnesse armed with eloquence .1 his Sermon in defence of the Sacrament .2 why depriued of his estate and called before the Commissioners ibid. his subtletie and craft .2.5.46.64.101.303 his vntrue collection of Cranmers doctrine .3 his vntrue report .3 4. 9. 13. 15. 19. 31. his Catholicke fayth .4 but his doctrine not Catholicke .5 glad to seeke ayde of Luther .7 15. his aunswere to these speaches I am a doore a vyne 9. addeth to S. Augustine what hee listeth 22. confuted in his erroneous Exposition of the 6. of Iohn 20. confesseth Christ to be in the Sacrament after a spirituall maner .93 94. maketh two sortes of sacrifices .87 translated veritie for vertue .199 he accuseth the Euangelistes of disorder in the doctrine of the Sacrament .261 he calleth accidentes the nature of substaunce 275 ¶ FINIS AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Daye dwellyng ouer Aldersgate beneath Saint Martines Anno. 1580. Cum gratia Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis Sacrament Christes presence in the godly receiuer Math. 6. Math. 18. Iohn 6. The naming of the late Bishop of Winchester The reall presence of Chryst should proue no Transubstantiation of the bread and wine The great mercy benefits of God towards vs. The erronious doctrine of the papists obscuring the same The state of religion brought in by the papists Math. 15. The chiefe rootes of all errours What moued the author to write A warnyng geuen by the Authour Ierem. 51. Apoc. 14. 17. 18. Math. 11. 1. Pet. 2. Esay 53. Iohn 4. Thomas Cranmer Archb. of Canterbury Doct. Cranmer made Archb. of Cant. by kyng Henry Doct. Cranmer alwayes defended by kyng Henry Looke for the story at large in the booke of the Actes and Monumentes in the last Edition pag. 1752. Thomas Cranmer a Gentleman borne Thom. Crāmer first commyng to Cambridge◠Thomas Cranmer fellow of Iesus colledge Thom. Crāmer after the decease of his wife chosen agayne fellow into Iesus Colledge Doct. Cranmer publike examiner in Cambridge of them that were to proceede Friers in hatred with Doct. Cranmer Doct. Barret Doct. Cranmer sollicited to be fellow
catholica firmiter paragrapho vna The second is of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament De coÌ„secra dist 1. Ego Beâ—eng Lege Roffen contra Oerol in proaemio lib. 3. corroborat 5. Christ is not corporally in earth Iohn 6. Math. 26. Mark 24. Actes 3. Coloss. 3. 1. Cor. 11. The third is that euill men eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. The fourth is of the dayly sacrifice of Christ. Ibacuk 2. D. Smith Some say that Christ in naturally in the sament A manifest falshoode in the printing of the Byshoppes booke Some say that Christ is rent and torne with teeth in the sacrament Why the order of my booke was changed by the Bishop Untrue report The teaching hetherto euen at this day of the church of England agreeth with that this author calleth papistes Crafty conueiance of spech by this Author Worthy receauing of Christs precious body bloud 1. Cor. 6. A difference should be of contraries Chap. 1. The presence of Christ in the sacrament Christ corporally is ascended into heauen Act. 3. Cap. 2. The difference betwene the true and papisticall doctrine concerning the preseÌ„ce of Christes body The first coÌ„parison Misreport of bread and wine for the formes figures of them Smyth Tee booke of common prayer The secoÌ„d part The difference Repugnaunce The 1. comparison I sect reproued that were called Stercoranists The booke of common prayer That the Papiste say that Christ goâ— in no â—â—rther theÌ„ the mouth or stomacke Thomas Bonauentura Read Smith Fol. 64 Hugo Innocentius 3 li. ca. 25. The secoÌ„d part Innocent 3. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. whether Christ be receaued in the mouth The difference August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. Iohn 13. 1. Cor. 10. The fourth comparyson Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Christ is the body of all the figures Really that is in deede Cyrillus ad Calosyrium episcopum Hesychius in Leuit. li 3. ca. 3. Christ beyng present in the sacrament is at the same tyme present in heauen Truely Really Substantially Augustin Psal. 33. What is found in a blind glose may not be takeÌ„ for the teaching of the church yet I neuer red of flyng It is in man daÌ„gerous to affirme or deny extreamyties although they be be true for it maketh him suspect of presumtion How long christ taryeth with the receyuour of the sacrament Metonymia The Fathers in the old law receiued the same things in their sacrameÌ„ts that we do in ours Reseruation Cyrill Hesichius De consecrat d. 2. Tribus gradibus The benefite comfort in this sacrament Iohn 5. The maner of presence Math. 18. Math. 6. The comparisoÌ„ The 5. comparison Pugnat cum alijs Papistis What is receued of all christen meÌ„ hath therein a manifest token in truth It is a folly to answere a corious demaunder Quintus Curtius maketh mention of this faith of Alexander Fath of God his work can not by mans deuise haue any qualification Sabellians Arrians Bernard super Cant. ser. 31. It is good at al times to coÌ„uert from error to truth 1. Tim. 1. The booke of common praier The Papists say that whole Christ is in euery part of the coÌ„secrated bread Thomas 3. part sum q. 76. art 3. Innocentius 3. lib. 4. cap. 8. A subtil sleight Wanton reason True christian men A Dialog What is to be wondered at in the SacrameÌ„t Sabellius Arrius The contrary hereof is noted for a doctrine Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Whether a bird or â—east eat the body of Christ. Lib. 4. distinct 13. In erroribus fol 134. b. Vide Marcum Constantium fol. 72. obiect 94. Thomas 3. part sum q. 80. art 3. Peryn A demurre vpoÌ„ this Issue August contra litteras Pe til lib. 20. Marcus constaÌ„tius dicit quod Ethnici ideÌ„ fortasse sumunt quod bruti i. sacrameÌ„tumtantuÌ„ The word very may make wrangling A demurre whether euill men eat the body of Christ. Iohn 6. 1. Cor. 11. August contra lit Petil. li. 2. cap 37. Truthes fained frends Very August in Ioh. tra 59. Smyth The 8. comparison 3. Manner of eatinges Cause of error Gods promises annexed to his Sacraments We must in teaching exalt the Sacraments after their dignity 3. Manner of eatinges True sacrameÌ„tall eating 1. Cor. 11. Whether Christ be really eaten without the sacrament The comparisoÌ„ Really Smyth Christes body is vnderstanded of his humanity I meruailous saying of this â—â— ther without Scripture Christ in thinstitution of the Sacrament spake of his humanity saying This is my body Phil. 4. There Note this contrariety in the Author The coÌ„parison Theodoret. dialog 1. D. Smith Whether in the Sacrament Christes body hath his proper forme and quantity D. Smith Iohn 16. Mark 16 Luke 24. â—Act 1. All. There A riddle may coÌ„taine truth of nay and pea being in appearaÌ„ce two contraries Augustinus I speciall difference in S. Augustine â—â—ne of Kentes 〈◊〉 Nouelty of speech The fathers did eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud The diuersitie of the sacrameÌ„ts of the new and olde testament August in Ioan. Tract 26. The Fathers did eate Christs body and drinke his bloud before he was borne 1. Cor. 10. August de vtil paeniten August in psal 77. August in IoaÌ„ Tract 26. August contra Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. 20. cap 21. August in psal 73. Iohn 1. August de fide ad Pet. cap. 19. Bertram Smyth Ione of Kent The 11. comparison The booke of common prayer in this Realme Christes body in the sacrament is not made of the matter of bread The booke of common prayer Prouerb 23. Rom. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Cor. 2. Iac. 8. Esay 1. Math. 22. 1. Pet. 2. Iohn 11. Domin 3. post Trin. Secret Muneram libidinem quibus oblata sanctifica vt tui nobis vnigeniti corpus saÌ„guis fiant ad medelaÌ„ Whether the body of Christ be made of bread Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Making by conuersion Gen. 2. Iohn 2. D. Smith Christ is our satisfaction How Christ satisfied Christes wiâ—â— Christes once offering Phil. 1. Rom. 12. Truthes linked together Emissenus Christ is the inuisible priest 1. Cor. 4. Errors One offering of Christ not many 1. Iohn 2. Mala. 1. Errors The whole church by the minister the priest offereth Christ present as a sacrifice propitiatory wherin is shewed our Lords death Iacob 5. Whether the Masse be satisfactory by the deuotioÌ„ of the priest Thom. part 3. qâ— 79. art 5. Ioh. 11. The declaration of Christes will to die was not a sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Heb. 11. * Math. 5. Gen. 22. 2. Reg. 12. Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iohn 2. Iohn 6. Iohn 10. Heb. 2. Rom. 6. Heb. 7. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 3. Heb. 9. Ibidem Phil. 2. Cyprianus lib. 2. epi. 3. August ad Bonifacium epist. 23. Heb. 10. 1. Cor. 11. A chaine of errours Malac. 14. Esay 53. Heb.
I know that euery thing that men see hath a certayne bignes For that nature that hath no bignes can not be seene Moreouer to sit in the throne of glory and to sette the Lambes vpon his right hand and the goates vpon his left hand signifieth a thing that hath quantitie and bygnes Hitherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes and shortly after Eranistes sayth Eran. We must tourne euery stone as the prouerb sayth to seeke out the truth but specially when godly matters be propounded Orth. Tell me than the sacramentall signes which be offered to God by his priestes wherof be they signes sayst thou Eran. Of the Lordes body and bloud Orth. Of a very body or not of a very body Eran. Of a very body Orth. Very well for an image must be made after a true paterne for Paynters follow nature and paynt the images of such thinges as we see with our eyes Eran. Truth it is Orth. If therfore the godly sacramentes represent a true body than is the Lordes body yet still a body not conuerted into the nature of his Godhead but replenished with Goddes glory Eran. It cometh in good tyme that thou makest mention of Gods sacramentes for by the same I shall proue that Christes body is tourned into an other nature Answer therfore vnto my questions Orth. I shall answer Eran. What callest thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the priest Orth. We must not speake playnly for it is like that some be present which haue not professed Christ. Eran. Answer couertly Orth. It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like Eran. Than how call we the other signe Orth. It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drinke Eran. But how doest thou call them after the sanctification Orth. The body of Christ and the bloud of Christ. Eran. And doest thou beleue that thou art made partaker of Christes body and bloud Orth. I beleue so Eran. Therfore as the tokens of Gods body and bloud be other thinges before the priestes inuocation but after the inuocation they be chaunged and be other things so also the body of Christ after his assumption is chaunged into his deuine substaunce Ortho. Thou art taken with thine owne nette For the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and may be seene and touched as well as before yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Therfore cōpare their images to the paterne and thou shalt see them like For figure must be like to the thing it selfe For Christes body hath his former fashion figure and bignesse and to speake at one word the same substance of his body but after his resurrection it was made immortall and of such power that no corruption nor death could come vnto it and it was exalted vnto that dignity that it was sette at the right hand of the father and honoured of all creatures as the body of him that is the Lord of nature Eran. But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name for it is no more called as it was before but is called Christes body Therfore must his body after his ascention be called God and not a body Orth. Thou semest to me ignorant for it is not called his body onely but also the bread of lyfe as the Lord called it So the body of Christ we call a godly body a body that giueth life Gods body the Lordes body our masters body name ning that it is not a common body as other mennes bodies be but that it is the body of our Lord Iesu Christ both God and man This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus whom some of the Papists perceiuing to make so playnly agaynst them haue defamed saying that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition which is euen in a manifest matter rather to lie without shame than to giue place vnto the truth and confesse their owne errour And although his aduersaries falsely bruted such a fame agaynst him whan he was yet a liue neuerthelesse he was purged therof by the whole Councell of Calcedon about a leuen hundred yeares agoe And furthermore in his booke which he wrote agaynst heresies he specially condemneth Nestorius by name And also all his iij. bookes of his dialogues before rehersed he wrot chiefly agaynst Nestorius and was neuer here in noted of error this thousand yeare but hath euer bene reputed and taken for an holy Byshop a great learned man and a graue author vntill now at this present tyme whan the Papistes haue nothing to answer vnto him they begin in excusing of them selues to defame him Thus much haue I spoken for Theodoretus which I pray thee be not weary to read good reader but often and with delectation deliberation and good aduertisement to read For it conteineth playnly and breefly the true instruction of a Christian man concerning the matter which in this booke we treate vpon First that our sauiour Christ in his last supper whan he gaue bread and wine to his apostles saying This is my body This is my bloud it was bread which he called his body and wine mixed in the cup which he called his bloud so that he changed the names of the bread and wine which were the misteries sacramentes fignes figures and tokens of Christes flesh and bloud and called them by the names of the thinges which they did represent and signifie that is to say the bread he called by the name of his very flesh and the wine by the name of his bloud Second that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification yet neuertheles the thinges them selues remayned the selfe same that they were before the sanctification that is to say the same bread and wine in nature substance form and fashion The thyrd seing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed why be then their names changed and the bread called Christes flesh and the wine his bloud Theodoretus sheweth that the cause therof was this that we should not haue so much respect to the bread and wyne which we see with our eyes and tast with our mouthes as we should haue to Christ him selfe in whome we beleue with our hartes and fele and tast him by our faith and with whose flesh and bloud by his grace we beleue that we be spiritually fedde and norished These thinges we ought to remember the reuolue in our myndes and to lift vp our hartes from the bread and wine vnto Christ that sitteth aboue And bicause we should so do therfore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine but the body and bloud of Christ. The forth It is in these sacramentes of bread and wine
not haue fayled here to alleage it But bicause you haue nothing that maketh for you in dede therfore you alleage nothing in especiall least in the answer it should euidently apeare to be nothing and so slide you from the matter as though all men should beleue you bicause you say it is so And as for the place of Irene alleaged by Melancthon in an Epistle Decolampadius without any such troubling of him selfe as you imagine maketh a playne and easy answer therto although Melancthon wrot not his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius as you negligētly looking vpon their workes be deceaued but to Frideritus Miconius And the wordes of Irene aleadged by Melancthon meane in effect no more but to proue that our bodyes shall rise agayne and be ioyned vnto our soules and reigne with them in the eternall life to come For he wrote agaynst Ualentine Martion and other hereticks which deneied the resurrection of our bodies from whō it semeth you do not much dissent when you say that our bodyes shall rise spiritually if you meane that they shall rise without the forme and fashion of mens bodies without distinction and proportiō of members For those shal be maruaylous bodies that shal haue no shape nor fashion of bodies as you say Christs body is in the sacramēt to whose body oures shall be like after the Resurrection But to returne to answere Irene clearely and at large his meaning was this that as the water in baptisme is called Aqua regenerans the water that doth regenerate and yet it doth not regenerate indeed but is the Sacrament of regeneration wrought by the Holy Ghost and called so to make it to be esteemed aboue other common waters so Christ confessed the creatures of bread and wine ioyned vnto his wordes in his holy supper there truely ministred to be his body bloud meaning thereby that they ought not to be taken as common bread or as bakers bread and wine drunken in the tauern as Smyth vntruely gesteth of me throughout his booke but that they ought to be taken for bread wine wherin we geue thanks to God and therfore be called Eucharistia corporis sanguinis Domini the thanking of Christs body and bloud as Irene termeth them or Misteria corporis sanguinis Domini the misteries of Christes flesh and bloud as Dionysius calleth them or Sacramenta corporis sanguinis Domini the sacraments of Christs flesh and bloud as diuers other authours vse to call them And when Christ called bread and wine his body and bloud why do the the old Authours chaunge in many places that speech of Christ and call them Eucharistia misteria sacramenta corporis sanguinis Domini the thankes geuing the misteries and the sacraments of his flesh and bloud but because they would clearely expound the meaning of Christes speech that whē he called the bread and wine his flesh and bloud he ment to ordayne them to be the sacraments of his flesh and bloud According to such a spech as S. Augustine expresseth how the Sacramentes of Christes flesh and bloud be called his flesh and bloud and yet in deede they be not his flesh bloud but the sacramēts therof signifying vnto the godly receiuers that as they corporally feed of the bread and wine which comfort theyr harts and cōtinue this corruptible life for a seasō so spiritually they feed of Christs very flesh drinke his very bloud And we be in such sort vnited vnto him that his flesh is made our flesh his holy spirite vnityng him and vs so together that we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and make all one misticall body wherof he is the head and wee the members And as feding nourishing and life commeth from the head and runneth into all partes of the body so doth eternal nourishment and life come from Christ vnto vs completely and fully as well into our bodyes as soules And therfore if Christ our head be risen agayne then shall we that be the members of his body surely rise also forasmuch as the members can not be seperated from the head but seyng that as he is our head and eternall foode we must needs by him liue with him for euer This is the argument of Irene agaynst those heriticks which denyed the resurrection of our bodies And these things the sacraments of bread and wine declare vnto vs but neither the carnall presence nor the carnall eating of Christes flesh maketh the things so to be nor Irene ment no such thing For then should all manner of persons that receaue the sacramentes haue euerlasting life and none but they Thus haue I answered to Irene playnly and shortly and Oecolampadius neded not to trouble himselfe greatly with aunswering this matter For by the corporal eating and drinking of Christs flesh and bloud Irene could neuer haue proued the resurrection of our bodies to eternal life And Peter Martir maketh the matter so playn that he concludeth Ireneus wordes to make directly agaynst the doctrine of the Papistes The answere also is easely made to the place which you alleadge out of Ignatius where he calleth Eucharistia the flesh of our sauior Iesus Christ. For he meaneth no more but that it is the sacramēt of his flesh or the mistery of his flesh or as Irene sayd Eucharistia of his flesh as euen now I declared in mine answere to Irene And your long processe here may haue a short aunswere gathered of your owne wordes This word Eucharistia say you can not be well Englished but the body of Christ is good and playne English then if Eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be well Englished it can not be called the body of Christ but by a figuratiue speech And how can you thē conclude of Ignatius words that this is my body is no figuratiue speech It semeth rather that the cleane contrary may be concluded For if these ii speeches be like of one sence Eucharistia is Christs body and this is my body the first be a declaration of the second is this a good argument The fyrst is a figure Ergo the second is none Is it not rather to be gathered vpon the other side thus The first is a declaratiō of the secōd and yet the first is a fygure Ergo the second is also a figure And that rather then the first because the declaration should be a more playne speech then that which is declared by it And as for your coulor of Rhetorick which you cal Reiectiō it is so familiar with your self that you vse it commonly in your booke when I alleage any author or speake any thing that you can not answere vnto And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader that Ignatius in this epistle entreateth not of the manner of the presēce of Christ in the sacramēt but of the maner of his very body as he was borne of his mother crucified and rose agayn appeared
vnto his Apostles and ascended into heaueÌ„ Which things diuers hereticks sayd were not done verily in deed but apparantly to mens sightes and that in deed he had no such carnall corporall body as he appered to haue And agaynst such errors speaketh the epistle and not of the reall and corporall presence of Christ in the sacrameÌ„t although Eucharistia or the sacrament be ordeyned for a remembrance of that very body and so hath the name of it as the sacraments haue the names of the things which they signify But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from the true sence and purpose that was ment to an other sence and purpose that was not ment may appeare the truth of the Papistes who wrast and misconstrue all old auncient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and vngodly purposes Next in my book followeth mine aunswere to Dionisius Dionysius also Whom they alleage to prayse and extoll this sacrament as in deed it is most worthy being a sacrament of most high dignity and perfection representing vnto vs our most perfect spirituall coniunction vnto Chryst and our continuall nourishing feeding comfort and spiritual life in him yet he neuer sayd that the flesh and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wine really corporally sensibly and naturally as the Papists would beare vs in hand but he calleth euer the bread and wine signes pledges and tokens declaring vnto the faythfull receiuers of the same that they receaue Christ spiritually that they spiritually eat his flesh drinke his bloud And although the bread and wine be figures signes tokens of Christes flesh and bloud as S. Dionyse calleth them both before the Consecration and after yet the Greek annotations vpon the same Dionyse do say that the very things themselues be aboue in heauen And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in thys poynt of Christes real and corporal presence so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean agaynst them and that specially in three poynts in Transubstantiation in reseruation of the Sacrament and in the receiuing of the same by the Priest alone Winchester As touching Dionysius a wise reader may without any note of mine se how this author is troubled in hym and calleth for ayd the help of him that made the greek commeÌ„taries vpon Dionysius and pleadeth therwith the forme of the wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally wherof two that is to say really and sensibly the old authors in sillables vsed not forsomuch as I haue red but corporally and naturally they vsed speaking of this sacrament This Dionyse spake of this mistery after the dignitie of it not contending with any other for the truth of it as we do now but extolling it as a marueilous high mistery which if the bread be neuer the holyer and were onely a signification as this author teacheth were no high mistery at all As for the things of the Sacrament to be in heauen the church teacheth so and yet the same thinges be indéede present in the sacrament also which is a mistery so deepe and darke from mans naturall capacitie as is onely to be be beleued supernaturally without asking of the question how wherof S. Chrisostom maketh an exclamation in this wise O great beneuolence of God towards vs he that sitteth aboue with the father at the same houre is holden here with the hands of all men and geueth himselfe to them that will claspe and embrace him Thus sayth Chrisostom confessing to be aboue and here the same things at once and not onely in mens brests but hands also to declare the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible Sacrament whereby Christ is present in the mids of our sences and so may be called sensibly present although mans sences can not comprehend and feel or tast of him in their proper nature But as for this Dionyse he doth without argumeÌ„t declare his fayth in the adoratioÌ„ he maketh of this SacrameÌ„t which is openly testified in his workes so as we need not to doubt what his fayth was As for this authors notes they be descant voluntary without the tenor part being be like ashamed to alleadge the text it self least his thrée notes might seeme fayned without ground as before in S. Clements epistle and therfore I will not trouble the reader with them Canterbury I Aske no more of the reader but to read my book and theÌ„ to iudge how much I am troubled with this author And why may not I cite the grek commentaryes for testimony of the truth Is this to be termed a callyng for ayd Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for ayde Is not your doing rather a caling for ayd when you be fayne to flye for succor to Martin Luther Bucer Melancthon Epinius Ionas Peter Marter and such other whom al the world knoweth you neuer fauored but euer abhorred their names May not this be termed a calling for ayd when you be driuen to such a straight and need that you be glad to cry to such men for helpe whom euer you haue hindered and defamed asmuch as lay in you to do And as for pleading of those wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally they be your owne termes and the termes wherein resteth the whole contention betweene you and me and should you be offended because I speak of those termes It appeareth now that you be loth to here of those wordes and would very gladly haue them put in silence and so should the variance betweene you and me clearely ended For if you will confesse that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament really corporally sensibly and naturally then you and I shal shake hands and be both earnest frends to the truth And yet one thing you do here confesse which is worthy to be noted had in memory that you read not in any old author that the body of Christ is really and sensibly in the sacrament And hereunto I adde that none of them say that he is the bread and wine corporally nor naturally No neuer no papist said that Christes body is in â—he sacrament naturally nor carnally but you alone who be the first auâ— or of this gros error which Smith himself condeÌ„neth and denieth that euer ChristiaÌ„ man so taught although some say that it is there really some substantially and some sensibly Now as concerning the high mistery which S. Denys speaketh of he declareth the same to be in the meruelous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures beyng made after his image and being his liuely temples and Christes misticall body and not in the vnreasonable and vnsensible and vnliuely creatures of bread and wine wherin you say the deep and darke mistery standeth But notwithstanding any holines or godlines wrought in the receauers of them yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselfes but be only tokens