bread bread and wyne wyne and neuer alteryng Christes woordes herein The bread whiche wee breake sayth he is it not the communion of Christes body Nowe I aske agayn of the Papists whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not cōsecrated Thei can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated for that is not the communion of Christes body by their owne doctrine And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated than they must needes confesse that after consecracion suche bread remayneth as is broken bread whiche can bee none other than very true material bread And straight wayes after sainct Paule sayth in the same place that wee be partakers of one bread and one cuppe And in the next chapiter speakyng more fully of the same matter four tymes he nameth the bread and the cuppe neuer makyng mention of any transubstantiation or remainyng of accidētes without any substaunce whiche thynges he would haue made some mencion of if it had been a necessary article of our fayth to beleue that there remayneth no bread nor wyne Thus it is euident and plaine by the wordes of scripture that after cōsecracion remayneth bread and wyne and that the Papisticall doctrine of transubstantiation is directly contrary to Gods worde Let vs nowe consider also howe the same is against natural reason and natural operacion which although thei preuaile not against Gods woorde yet whan they bee ioyned with Gods worde they be of great moment to confirme any truthe Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum that is to saie that there shoulde be any empty place wherin no substance shoulde be But yf ther remain no bread nor wine the place where they wer before and where theyr accidentes be is fylled with no substance but remaineth vacuum cleane contrary to the order of nature We se also that the wyne though it be consecrated yet wyll it tourne to vyneger and the breadde wyll mowle whyche than be nothynge elles but sowre wyne and mowled bread which could not waxe sowre nor mowly if there were no breade nor wyne there at all And if the sacramentes were nowe brent as in the olde church they bourned all that remained vneaten lette the Papistes telle what is brente They must needes saie that it is eyther bread or the body of Christe But breade saye they is none there Than muste they needes bourne the body of Christ and be called Christbourners as heretofore they haue burned many of his membres except they wil say that accidentes bourne alone without any substaunce contrary to all the course of nature The sacramentall breade and wyne also wyll nourishe whiche nourishement naturally commeth of the substance of the meates and drynkes and not of the accidentes The wyne also wyll poyson as dyuers byshops of Rome haue had experiences bothe in poysonyng of other and beyng poysoned them selues whiche poysonyng they can not ascribe to the moste holsome bloud of our sauior Christ but onely to the poysoned wyne And most of all it is against the nature of accidentes to be in nothing For the definition of accidentes is to be in some substance so that if they be they must nedes be in some thyng And yf they be in nothynge than they bee not And a thousand thynges mo of lyke foolishnesse doo the Papistes affirme by their Transubstantiation contrary to all nature and reason As that two bodies bee in one place and one body in many places at one tyme and that substances be gendred of accidentes onely and accidentes conuerted into substances and a body to be in a place and occupie no roume and generation to be without corruption and corruption without generation with many suche lyke thynges agaynst all order and principles of nature and reason The Papistical doctrine is also against al our outward senses called our fiue wittes For our eies say they se there bread and wine our noses smell bread wine our mouthes taste and oure handes feele bread and wine And although the articles of our faith be aboue all our outward senses so y ◠we beleue thynges which we can neither see fele here smell nor taste yet they bee not contrary to our senses at the lest so contrary that in suche thynges whiche we from tyme to tyme do see smell fele here and tast we shall not trust our senses but beleue cleane contrary Christ neuer made no suche article of our faith Our faithe teacheth vs to beleeue thynges that we see not but it doth not byd vs that wee shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eies and heare with our eares and grope with our handes For although our senses can not reache so farre as our faithe doothe yet so farre as the compas of our senses doeth vsually reache our faith is not contrary to the same but rather our senses doo confirme our faith Or els what auailed it to S. Thomas for the confirmation of Christes resurrectiō that he did put his hand in to Christs side felte his woundes if he might not trust his senses nor giue no credit therto And what a wyde doore is here opened to Ualentinianus Marcion and other heretikes whiche sayde that Christe was not crucified but that Symon Cyreneus was crucifyed for him although to the syghte of the people it seemed that Christe was crucified Or to suche heretikes as sayde that Christ was no man although to mens sightes he appered in the forme of man and semed to be hūgry dry weery to wepe slepe eate drynke yea and to dye lyke as other men doo For if we ones admyt this doctrine that no credite is to be geuen to our senses we open a large field geue a great occasiō vnto an innumerable rablement of most heinous heresies And if there be no trust to be geuen to our senses in this matter of the sacramente why than do the Papistes so stoutely affirme that the accidentes remayn after the consecration whiche can not be iudged but by the senses For the scripture speaketh no woorde of the accidentes of breade and wyne but of the breade and wyne them selues And it is againste the nature and diffinition of accidentes to bee alone withoute any substance Wherefore if we may not truste our senses in this matter of the sacrament thā if the substance of the bread and wyne be gone why may we not then say that the accidentes begon also And if we must nedes beleue our senses as cōcernyng the accidents of bread wine why may we not do the lyke of the substance that rather than of the accidentes Forasmuche as after the cōsecration the scripture saith in no place that there is no substance of bread nor of wyne but calleth them still by suche names as signifie the substances and not the accidentes And fynally if our senses be dayly deceiued in this matter thā is the sensible sacrament nothyng els but an elusion of our senses And so we make muche for their purpose that
A DEFENCE OF THE TRVE AND CAtholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour CHRIST with a confutation of sundry errors concernyng thesame grounded and stablished vpon Goddes holy woorde approued by y e consent of the moste auncient doctors of the Churche Made by the moste Reuerende father in GOD THOMAS ARCHEBYSHOP of Canterbury Primate of all ENGLANDE and Metropolitane Yt ys the spirite that giueth lyfe the fleshe profiteth nothinge Ioannis 6. Thys booke ys deuyded into fiue partes The fyrst is of the true and Catholike doctrine and vse of the sacrament of the body and blud of our sauiour CHRIST The second is agaynst the erroure of Transubstantiation The thyrde teacheth the maner howe CHRIST is present in his holy supper The fowerth is of the eatynge and drinking of the body blud of our Sauioure CHRIST The fyft booke is of the oblation and sacrifice of our sauiour CHRIST A PREFACE TO THE READER OVR SAVIOVR CHRIST Iesus accordyng to the wil of his eternall father when the tyme therto was fully coÌ„plished takiÌ„g our nature vpon him cam into this world frome the high throne of his Father to declare vnto miserable sinners good newes to heale them that wer syck to make the blind to see the deaf to here the domb to speke to set prisoners at libertee to shew that the tyme of grace mercy was come to giue light to them that were in darknes and in the shadow of deth and to preach and geue pardon and ful remission of sinne to al his elected And to perfourme the same he made a sacrifice oblation of his owne body vpon the crosse whiche was a full redemption satisfaction propitiation for the sinnes of y â— wholle world And to coÌ„mend this his sacrifice vnto al his faithful people and to confirm their faith hope of eternall saluation in the same he hath ordeined a perpetual memory of his said sacrifice daily to be vsed in the Church to his perpetual laud praise to our singular comfort coÌ„solation That is to saie y â— celebration of his holy supper wherin he doth not cesse to geue him selfe with al his benefites to all those that duely receiue the same supper accordyng to his blessed ordinance But the Romish Antichrist to deface this great benefite of Christ hath taught that his sacrifice vpon y e crosse is not sufficient herevnto without another sacrifice deuised by him and made by the priest or els without IndulgeÌ„ces Beades Pardons Pylgramages suche other pelfray to supply Christes imperfection And that christian people can not apply to them selfes the benefites of Christes passion but that the same is in the distribution of the byshop of Rome or els that by Christe we haue no full remission but be deliuered onely from synne and yet remayneth temporall payne in Purgatorye due for the same to be remitted after this life by the Romishe Antichrist and his ministers who take vpon them to do for vs that thyng whiche Christ either would not or could not do O heynous blasphemy and moste detestable iniury against Christe O wicked abhominacion in the teÌ„ple of God O pryde intolerable of Antichrist and most manifest token of the soÌ„ne of pardicioÌ„ extollyng him selfe aboue God with Lucifer exaltyng his seate power aboue the throne of God For he that taketh vpoÌ„ him to supply that thyng whiche he pretendeth to bee vnperfite in Christ must nedes make him selfe aboue Christ and so very Antichrist For what is this els but to be against Christ to bryng him in coÌ„tempt as one y â— either for lacke of charitee would not or for lacke of power he could not with all his bloudsheadyng and death clearely deliuer his faythfull and geue them full remission of their synnes but that the ful perfectioÌ„ therof must be had at the haÌ„des of Antichrist of Rome his ministers What maÌ„ of knowlege zeale to Gods honor can with dry eyes se this iniury to Christ and loke vpoÌ„ the state of religion brought in by the Papistes perceiuyng the true sence of Gods worde subuerted by false gloses of mans deuisyng the true christian religion turned into certayne hypocritical superstitious sectes y â— people praiyng with their mouthes hearyng with theyr eares they wyst not what so ignorant in Gods worde that they could not discerne hypocricie superstition froÌ„ true syncere religion This was of late yeres the face of religion with in this realme of Englande yet remayneth in dyuers realmes But thankes be to almightie God to the kynges maiestie with his father a prynce of most famous memory y e superstitious sectes of Monkes Fryers that were in this Realme be cleane taken away the scripture is restored vnto the proper true vnderstandyng the people may dayly reade heare Gods heaueÌ„ly worde pray in theyr owne laÌ„guage whiche they vnderstaÌ„d so that their heartes mouthes may go together and be none of those people of whom Christ complayned saiyng These people honor me with theyr lyppes but theyr heartes be farre from me Thankes be to God many corrupt weedes bee plucked vppe whiche were wont to rotte the flocke of Christ and to let the growyng of the Lordes haruest But what auaileth it to take away beades pardoÌ„s pilgremages and such other like Popery so long as .ii. chief rootes remaine vnpulled vpâ— wherof so long as thei remain wil spryng again al former impedimeÌ„tes of the Lordes haruest corruption of his flock The rest is but branches and leaues the cuttyng away wherof is but like toppyng loppyng of a tree or cuttyng downe of weeds leauiÌ„g the body staÌ„dyng the rootes in the ground but the verye body of the tree or rather the rootes of the wedes is the popish doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiation of the real presence of Christes fleshe and bloud in the sacrament of the aultar as they call it and of the sacrifice oblation of Christ made by the preest for the saluation of the quick and the dead Which rootes if thei be suffred to grow in the Lords vineyard thei wil ouerspreade all the ground agayn with the old errours superstitions These iniuries to Christ be so intollerable that no christâ—aÌ„ heart can wyllyngly beare them Wherfore seing that many haue set to their hands whetted their to les to pluck vp y e weedes to cut down y e tree of errour I not knowyng otherwise how to excuse my selfe at the last daie haue in this boke set to my hand and axe with the rest to cut downe this tree and to plucke vp the wedes and plantes by the rootes which our heuenly Father neuer plaÌ„ted but were grafted and sowen in his vineyard by his aduersary the diuell and Antechriste his minister The Lord graunt that this my trauail and labour in his vineyard be not in vaine but that it may prosper and bring forth good frutes to his honor and
the body is called Meate and drynke of a lyke sor the scripture calleth the same thynge that comforteth the soule Meate and drynke Wherfore as heâ—e before in the fyrste note is declared the hungre and drought of the soule so is it nowe secondly to bee noted what is the meate drynke and foode of the soule The meate drynke foode and refreshynge of the soule is our sauiour Christe as he sayd him selfe Come vnto me all you that trauayle and bee laden and I will refreshe you And Yf any man be drye saieth he let hym come to me and drynke He that beleueth in me flouddes of water of life shall flowe out of his bealy And I am the bread of life sayth Christ He that commeth to me shal not be hungry and he that beleueth in me shal neuer be dry For as meate and drynke do comfort the hungry body so doth the death of Christes body the sheddyng of his bloud comforte the soule when she is after her sort hungry What thyng is it that comforteth norisheth the body Forsooth meate and drynke By what meanes than shall we call the body and bloud of our sauiour Christe whiche doo comforte and nouryshe the hungrye soule but by the names of meate and drynke And this similitude caused our sauiour to say My fleshe is very meate and my bloud is very drynke For there is no kynde of meate that is comfortable to the soule but onely the death of Christes blessed body nor no kynde of drynke that can quenche her thyrst but only the bloudsheddyng of our sauiour Christe whiche was shed for her offences For as there is a carnall generation and a carnal feedyng nourishement so is there also a spiritual generation and a spiritual feadyng And as euery maÌ„ by carnal generation of father and mother is carnally begotten and born vnto this mortall lyfe so is euery good christiaÌ„ spiritually borne by Christ vnto eternall life And as euery man is carnally fedde and nourished in his body by meate drynke euen so is euery good christian man spiritually fedde and nourished in his soule by the fleshe and bloud of our sauiour Christ. And as the body liueth by meate and drynke and thereby increaseth and groweth froÌ„ a yong babe vnto a perfect man whiche thyng experience teacheth vs so the soule lyueth by Christe him selfe by pure fayth eatyng his fleshe and drynkyng his bloud And this Christ him selfe teacheth vs in the sixt of Ihon saiyng Uerely verely I say vnto you excepte ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drynke his bloud you haue no life in you who so eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloud hath eternal life and I wyl raise him vp at the last day For my fleshe is very meate and my bloud is very drynke He that eateth my fleshe drynketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuyng father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shal liue by me And this S. Paule confessed of him selfe saiyng That I haue life I haue it by fayth in the sonne of God And nowe it is not I that liue but Christ lyueth in me The third thyng to be noted is this that although our sauiour Christ resembleth his fleshe and bloud to meat drynke yet he farre passeth and excelleth all corporall meates and drynkes For although corporall meates and drynkes do norishe and continue our life here in this world yet they begyn not our lyfe For the beginnyng of our life we haue of our fathers and mothers and the meate after we be begotten dothe feede and nourishe vs and so preserueth vs for a time But our sauiour Christ is bothe the first beginner of our spiritual lyfe who first begetteth vs vnto God his father and also afterward he is our lyuely foode and nourishement Moreouer meate and drinke doth fede and norishe onely our bodies but Christ is the true and perfect norishement both of body and soule And besides that bodily food preserueth the lyfe but for a tyme but Chrst is such a spirytual and perfect foode that he preserueth both body soule for euer As he said vnto Martha I am resurrection and life He that beleueth in me although he dye yet shall he lyue And he that liueth and beleueth in me shall not dye for euer Fourthly it is to be noted that the true knowlege of these thynges is the true knowlege of Christ and to teache these thynges is to teache Christe and the beleuyng and feelyng of these thynges is the beleuyng and felyng of Christe in our hartes And the more clerely we see vnderstande and beleeue these thynges the more clerely we se and vnderstande Christ and haue more fully our faithe and comfort in hym And although our carnall generation oure carnall nourishement be knowen to all men by dayly experience and by oure common senses yet this our spirituall generation and our spirituall nutrition be so obscure and hyd vnto vs that we can not attayn to the true and perfecte knowledge and feelyng of theym but onely by faith whyche muste bee grounded vpon Gods moste holy worde and sacramentes AND for this consideration our Sauioure Christe hath not onely sette forth these thynges moste playnly in his holy woorde that we maie heare them with our eares but he hath also ordeyned one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water and an other visible sacrament of spiritual norishment in bread and wine to the intente that as muche as is possible for man we may se Christ with our eies smell him at our nose taste hym with our mouthes grope hym with our handes and perceue him with all our senses For as the word of god preched putteth Christ into our eares so likewyse these elements of water bread and wine ioyned to gods word do after a sacrameÌ„tal maner put Christ in to our eies mouthes handes and al our senses And for this cause Christ ordeyned baptisme in water that as surely as we se fele and touch water with our bodies and be washed with water so assuredly ought we to beleue whan we be baptised that Christ is veryly present with vs and that by hym we bee newly borne agayn spiritually and washed from our synnes and grafted in the stocke of Christes own body and be apparailed clothed and harnessed with hym in suche wyse that as the dyuel hath no power agaynst Christe so hath he none against vs so long as we remayne grafted in that stocke and be clothed with that apparel and harnesed with that armour So that the washyng in water of baptisme is as it wer shewyng of Christ before our eyes and a sensible touchyng feelyng and gropyng of hym to the confirmation of the inwarde faithe whiche we haue in hym And in lyke maner Christ ordeined the sacrament of his body and bloud in bread and wine to preach vnto vs that as
as a necessary article of our fayth But it is not the doctrine of Christe but the subtill Inuension of Antechrist fyrst decreed by Innocent the thyrd and after more at large set furth by schole authors whose studye was euer to defende and set abrode to the worlde all suche matters as y e byshop of Rome had once decreed And the deuil by his minister Antichrist had so daseled the eyes of a great multitude of christen people in these latter dayes that they sought not for their fayth at the cleare light of Gods worde but at the Romishe Antichrist beleuyng whatsoeuer he prescribed vnto thē yea though it were against all reason all senses and Gods most holy worde also For els he could not haue been very Antichrist in dede except he had been so repugnaunt vnto Christe whose doctrine is cleane contrary to this doctrine of Antichrist For Christ teacheth that we receiue very bread and wyne in the most blessed supper of the Lord as sacramentes to admonishe vs that as we be fedde with bread wyne bodely so wee be fedde with the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spiritually As in our baptisme we receiue very water to signifye vnto vs that as water is an element to washe the body outwardly so be our soules washed by the holy ghost inwardly The seconde principall thyng wherein the Papistes varry from the truth of Gods worde is this They say that the very natural fleshe and bloud of Christe whiche suffered for vs vpon the crosse and sitteth at the right hand of the father in heauen is also really substancially corporally and naturally in or vnder the accidentes of the sacramental bread and wyne which they cal the fourmes of bread and wyne And yet here they varry not a lytle among them selues For some say that the very natural body of Christ is there but not naturally nor sensibly And other saye that it is there naturally and sensibly and of the same bygnes fashion that it is in heauen and as the same was borne of the blessed virgyn Mary and that it is there broken and torne in peeces with our teethe And this appeareth partly by the schole authors and partly by the confession of Beringarius whiche Nicholaus the second constrayned him to make whiche was this That of the sacramentes of the Lordes table the sayd Beringarius should promise to holde that fayth whiche the sayd Pope Nicholas and his counsail held whiche was that not onely the sacramentes of bread and wyne but also the very fleshe and bloud of oure Lorde Iesu Christ are sensibly handeled of the priest in the altare broken and torne with the teethe of the faythfull people But the true catholike fayth grounded vpon Gods moste infallible woorde teacheth vs that our sauiour Christ as concernyng his mannes nature and bodely presence is gone vp vnto heauen sitteth at the right hand of his father and there shall he tarry vntyl the worldes ende at what tyme he shal come agayn to iudge both the quicke and the dead as he sayth him selfe in many scriptures I forsake the worlde sayth he and go to my Father And in another place he sayth You shal haue euer poore men among you but me you shall not euer haue And again he sayth Many hereafter shall come and laye Loke here is Christe or looke there he is but beloue them not And sainct Peter sayth in the Actes that heauen must receiue Christe vntyll the tyme that all thynges shall be restored And saint Paule writyng to the Colossians agreeth hereto saiyng Seke for thinges that be aboue where Christ is sittyng at the right hand of the father And sainct Paule speakyng of the very sacrament sayth As often as you shall eate this bread and drynke this cuppe shewe furth the Lordes death vntyll he come Tyll he come sayth S. Paule signifiyng that he is not there corporally present For what speeche were this or who vseth of him that is already present to say Untyl he come For Untyl I come signifyeth that he is not yet present This is the catholike fayth whiche we learne from our youth in our common Crede and whiche Christ taught the Apostles folowed and the martyres confirmed with theyr bloud And although Christ in his humayne nature substantially really corporally naturally and sensibly be present with his father in heauē yet sacramentally and spiritually he is here present in water bread and wyne as in signes and sacramentes but he is in deede spiritually in the faythfull christian people whiche accordyng to Christes ordinaunce be baptised or receyue the holye communion or vnfainedly beleue in him Thus haue you hard the seconde pryncipal article wherin the Papistes vary from the truthe of Goddes worde and from the catholike faith Nowe the thyrde thynge wherin they varye is this The Papistes saye that euell and vngodlye men receaue in this sacramente the very bodye and bloud of Christe and eate and drynke the selfe same thinge that the good and godly men doo But the truthe of Gods woorde is contrary that al those that be godly mēbres of Christe as they corporally eate the bread and drinke the wyne so spiritually they eate and drinke Christes very fleshe and bloude And as for the wycked membres of the dyuell they eate the sacramental bread and drinke the sacramental wyne but they doo not spiritually eate Christs fleshe nor drinke his blode but they eate and drinke theyr owne damnation The fourthe thynge wherein the Popyshe preestes dissente frome the manifest woorde of God is this They saie that they offre Christe euery day for remission of sinne and distribute by their Masses the merites of Christes passion But the prophetes apostels and euangelistes doo saye that Christe him selfe in his owne person made a sacrifice for our sinnes vppon the Crosse by whose woundes all our diseases were healed and our sinnes pardoned and so dyd neuer no preest man nor creature but he nor he dyd the same neuer more than ones And the benefite hereof is in no mannes power to gyue vnto any other but euery man muste receaue it at Christes handes him selfe by his owne faith and beliefe as the prophete saieth HERE ENDETH THE fyrste booke THE SECONDE BOOKE IS AGAINST THE ERROVR OF Transubstantiation THVS HAVE you hearde declared fower thynges wherein chiefly the papisticall doctrine varieth from the true worde of God and frome the olde catholyke Christen faith in this matter of the lordes supper Nowe lest any man shuld thynke that I faine any thinge of myne owne heade without any other ground or authoritee you shall heare by Goddes grace as well the erroures of the Papistes confuted as the catholike truthe defended both by goddes most certaine woorde and also by the moste olde approued authors and martyrs of Christes churche And fyrst that breade and wine remain after the woordes of consecration and bee eaten and drunken in the
said that Christ was a crafty iuggler that made thinges to appere to mens sightes that in dede were no suche thynges but formes onely figures and apparances of them But to conclude in fewe wordes this processe of our senses let al the Papistes lay their heades togither and thei shal neuer be able to shew one article of our faith so directely contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thynge to be and yet oure fayth shall teache vs the contrary thervnto Nowe for as much as it is declared how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is against the woorde of God agaynst nature against reason and agaynste all our senses wee shall shewe furthermore that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the old authors of Christes churche begynnyng at those authors whiche were nerest vnto Christes tyme and therefore myght best knowe the truthe herein Fyrst Iustinus a great learned man and an holy martyr the oldest author that this day is knowen to write any treatie vpon the sacramentes and wrote not muche aboue one hundred yeres after Christes ascension He wryteth in his seconde apologie that the bread water and wine in this sacrament ar not to be taken as other cōmon meates and drinkes be but they bee meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to god and therfore be called Eucharistia and be called also the body and bloude of Christ. And that it is laufull for none to eate or drynke of them but that professe Christ and lyue accordyng to the same And yet the same meate and drynke saith he is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud and norisheth our bodies By which saiyng it is euident that Iustinus thought that the bread and wine remained still for els it could not haue been tourned into our fleshe and bloud to nourishe our bodies Next hym was Ireneus aboue 150. yeres after Christ who as it is supposed could not be deceiued in the necessary pointes of our faithe for he was a disciple of Polycarpus which was disciple to saint Iohn the Euangelist This Ireneus foloweth the sense of Iustinus wholly in this matter and almoste also his woordes sayenge that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God although it be of the yearth yet whan the name of God is called vpon it it is not than common bread but the bread of thankes geuyng hauyng two thyngs in it one earthly and the other heuenly What ment he by the heauenly thyng but the sanctification whyche cometh by the inuocation of the name of God And what by the earthly thynge but the very bread which as he sayd before is of the earth and which also he saith doeth nourishe our bodies as other bread dothe whiche we doo vse Shortely after Ireneus was Origen about 200. yeares after Christes ascension Who also affirmeth that the materiall bread remaineth saiyng that the mattier of the breade auayleth nothyng but goeth doune into the bealy and is auoided dounewarde but the woorde of God spoken vpon the breade is it that auaileth After Origen came Cyprian the holy martyr about the yeare of our Lorde 250. who wryteth against theym that ministred this Sacrament with water onely and without wyne For as muche sayth he as Christ sayd I am a true vyne therefore the bloud of Christ is not water but wyne nor it can not bee thouhgt that his bloud wherby wee bee redemed and haue life is in the cuppe whan wyne is not in the cuppe whereby the bloud of Christ is shewed What woordes could Cyprian haue spoken more plainly to shewe that the wyne doth remayne than to say thus If there bee no wyne there is no bloud of Christ And yet he speaketh shortly after as plainely in the same Epistle Christ sayth he takyng the cuppe blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saiyng Drynke you all of this for this is the bloud of the newe testament whiche shall bee shedde for many for the remission of synnes I say vnto you that from hencefurth I wyll not drynke of this creature of the vyne vntyll I shall drinke with you newe wyne in the kyngdome of my father By these woordes of Christe sayth sainct Cyprian we perceiue that the cuppe whiche the Lorde offered was not onely water but also wyne And that it was wyne that Christ called his bloud whereby it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wyne in the Chalise And after it foloweth Howe shal we drynke with Christ newe wyne of the creature of the vyne if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offre wyne In these wordes of sainct Cyprian appereth moste manyfestly that in this sacrament is not only offered very wyne that is made of grapes that come of the vyne but also that we drynke the same And yet the same geueth vs to vnderstand that if we drynke that wyne worthely we drynke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ whiche was shed for our synnes Eusebius Emissenus a mā of syngular fame in learnyng about CCC yeres after Christes ascention did in fewe wordes set out this matter so plainely bothe howe the bread and wyne be conuerted into the body bloud of Christ and yet remayne styll in their nature and also howe besydes the outwarde receiuyng of bread and wyne Christ is inwardely by fayth receyued in our heartes al this I say he doth so plainly set out that more playnnesse can not be reasonably desyred in this matter For he sayth that the cōuersion of the visible creatures of bread wyne into the body and bloud of Christ is lyke vnto our cōuersion in baptisme where outwardly nothyng is changed but remayneth the same that was before but all the alteration is inwardely and spiritually If thou wylt knowe sayth he howe it ought not to seme to the a newe thyng and impossible that yearthly and corruptible thynges be turned into the substance of Christ loke vpon thy selfe which art made newe in baptisme whan thou wast farre from life and banished as a straunger frō mercy and fro the way of saluation and inwardely wast dead yet sodeynly thou beganste another lyfe in Christ and wast made newe by holsome mysteris and wast turned into the body of the churche not by seyng but by beleuynge and of the childe of damnation by a secrete purenesse thou waste made the chosen sonne of God Thou visibly dyddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by increace of faythe thou wast made an other man Outwardely nothynge was added but all the chaunge was inwardly And so was man made the son of Christ and Christe fourmed in the mynd of man Therfore as thou puttyng away thy former vilenesse diddest receaue a newe dygnitee not feelyng any change in thy body and as the curynge of thy
both perfect God and perfect mā And for a playne declaracion hereof the olde auncient authors geue two examples one is of man whiche is made of two partes of a soule and of a body and eche of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that whan the soule by the almyghty power of God is put in to the body neither the body nor soule perisheth thereby but therof is made a perfect man hauyng a perfect soule and a perfect body remaynyng in hym bothe at one tyme. The other example whiche the olde authors brynge in for this purpose is of the holy supper of our Lord whiche consisteth say they of two partes of the sacrament or visible element of bread wyne and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receiue the sacrament the very natures of bread and wyne cease not to be there but remayne there styll and be eaten corporally as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten spiritually so likewyse doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne styl with his humanitee Let nowe the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation that there remayneth no bread nor wyne in the ministration of the sacrament if they wyll defende the wicked heresies before rehersed that Christ is not God and man both together But to proue that this was the mynde of the olde authors besyde the saiyng of sainct Augustyne here recited I shall also reherse diuers other Sainct Ihon Chrysostome wryteth against the pestilent errour of Apollinaris whiche affirmed that the Godhead and manhead in Christ were so myxed and confounded together that they bothe made but one nature Against whō sainct Ihon Chrysostome writeth thus Whan thou speakest of God thou must consyder a thyng that in nature is syngle without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with suche lyke And whan thou speakest of manne thou meanest a nature that is weake subiecte to hunger thyrste wepyng feare sweatyng and suche lyke passions whiche can not bee in the diuine nature And whan thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures together in one person who is bothe passible and impassible Passible as concernyng his fleshe and impassible in his deitee And after he concludeth saiyng Wherfore Christe is bothe God and man God by his impassible nature and man because he suffred He himeslfe beyng one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned together whiche be not of one substance but eche of theim hath his properties distincte from the other And therefore remayneth there two natures distincte and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but whan Goddes 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 Lorde although the nature of the bread remayne stil in it and it is not called two bodyes but one body of Gods sonne so likewyse here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of sainct Chrysostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecracion the nature of bread remayneth styll although it haue an hygher name and bee called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eat the supernatural bread of the body of Christe who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sytteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Herevnto accordeth also Gelasius writyng gainst Eutyches and Nestorius of whome the one said that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other affirmed clean contrary that hee was very God but not man But againste these two heinous heresies Gelasius proueth bi moste manifest scriptures that Christe is both god and man and that after his incarnacion remained in hym the nature of his godheade so that hee hathe in hym twoo natures with their naturall properties and yet is hee but one Christe And for the more euident declaratiō hereof he bringeth two examples ▪ the one is of man who beeynge but one yet he is made of two partes and hath in him two natures remaininge both togyther in him that is to saye the bodye and the soule with their naturall properties The other example is of the sacrament of the body bloud of Christ which saith he is a godly thing ▪ and yet the substaunce or nature of breade and wine do not cease to be there styll Note well these wordes againste all the Papistes of our time that Gelasius which was byshop of Rome more thā a thousād years passed writeth of this sacrament that the breade and wyne cease not to be there styll as Christ ceased not to be god after his incarnation but remayned styll perfect god as he was before Theodoretus also affirmeth the same both in his first and in his seconde dialoge In the fyrst he saith thus He that called his naturall body wheate and breade and also called him selfe a vyne the selfe same called bread and wyne his bodye and bloudde and yet chaunged not their natures And in his secōd dialogue he saith more plainly For saith he as the breade and wine after the consecration lose not their propre nature but kepe their former substance forme and figure whiche they had before euen so the body of Christ after his ascention was chaunged into the godlye substaunce Nowe lette the Papistes choose whyche of these two they wyll graunte for one of theim they muste needes graunte either that the nature and substaunce of breadde and wine remayne styll in the sacrament after the consecration and then must thei recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation or els that they bee of the errour of Nestorius and other which didde say that the nature of the Godhead remained not in Christ after his incarnation For all these old authors agree that it is in the one as it is in the other Nowe forasmuche as it is proued sufficientelye as well by the holye Scripture as by naturall operacion by naturall reason by all our senses and by the most old and beste learned authors and holy matyres of CHRISTES churche that the substaunce of breadde and wyne dooe remayne and be receaued of faithefull people in the blessed sacramente or supper the LORD It is a thinge woorthy to be considered and well waied what moued the schoole authors of late yeares to defende the contrarye opinion not onely so farre frome all experience of oure senses and so farre frome all reasone but also cleane contrarye to the olde Churche of CHRIST and to goddes moste holy worde Surelye nothing moued them thereto so much as did the vaine faithe whiche they hadde in the churche and sea of Rome For Iohannes Scotus otherwyse called Dunce the subtylest of al the schole authors in
in bread and wyne declaryng that as the bread and wyne corporally comforte and feede our bodyes so doth he with his fleshe and bloud spiritually comfort and feede our soules And nowe may be easyly answered the Papistes argument whereof they do so muche boast For bragge they neuer so muche of the conuersion of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ yet that conuersion is spirituall and putteth not awaye the corporall presence of the material bread and wyne But for asmuche as the same is a moste holy sacrament of our spiritual norishement whiche we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ there must nedes remayne the sensible element that is to say bread and wyne without the whiche there can be no sacrament As in our spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme if there be no water For as Baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spiritual regeneration without there be aswell the element of water as the holy ghoste spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised which is signified by the saide water euen so the souper of our Lorde can bee no perfecte sacramente of spirituall foode except there be as well bread and wine as the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ spiritually feeding vs which by the said breade and wine is signified And howe so euer the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ be ther presēt thei may as wel be present ther with the substance of bread wyne as with the accidentes of the same as the schole authors do confesse them selues and it shall bee well proued yf the aduersaryes will denye it Thus you se the strongest argumente of the Papistes answered vnto and the chiefe foundacion whervpon they buylde their errour of transubstantiation vtterlye subuerted and ouerthrowen An other reason haue they of lyke strengthe If the breade shoulde remaine saye they than shulde folowe many absurdities and chiefely that Christe hath taken the nature of breade as he tooke the nature of manne and so ioyned it to his substance And than as we haue God verely incarnate for our redemption so shoulde wee haue him Impanate Thou mayste consydre good reader that the reste of theyr reasons be very weake and feeble whan these bee the chiefe and strongest Truth it is in deede that Christe shoulde haue beene impanate yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vnto his substaunce in vnitee of persone that is to saye yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vnto hym in suche sorte that he had made the breade one persone with him selfe But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally ther foloweth no Impanation thereof no more than the holy ghost is Inaquate that is to say made water being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme Nor he was not made a doue whan he toke vppon him the forme of a doue to signifie that he whome saint Iohn did baptise was verye CHRIST But rather of the erroure of the Papistes theym selues as one erroure draweth an other after it shoulde folowe the greate absurditie whiche they speake vppon that is to saye that Christe shoulde bee Impanate and Inuinate For yf Christe doo vse the breade in suche wise that he doeth not adnihilate and make nothing of it as the Papistes say but maketh of it hys owne bodye than is the bread ioyned to his body in a greater vnitee than is his humanitee to his Godhead For his Godhead is adioyned vnto his humanitee in vnitye of person and not of nature But our sauiour Christ by their sayinge adioyneth breade vnto his body in vnitee bothe of nature and person So that the breade and the body of Christe be but one thinge bothe in nature and person And so is there a more entier vnion betwene Christe and breade than betweene hys godheade and manhead or betwene his sowle and his bodye And thus these argumentes of the Papistes retourne lyke riueted nayles vppon their owne heades Yet a thyrde reason they haue whyche they gather out of the syxte of Iohn where CHRIST sayeth I am lyuely breade which came from heauen If anye manne eate of thys breade he shall lyue for euer And the breadde whiche I wyll giue is my fleshe whiche I wyll gyue for the lyfe of the worlde Than reason they after this fashion If the breade whyche Chryste gaue bee his fleshe that it canne not also bee materiall breade and so it muste needes folowe that the materiall breade is gone and that none other substaunce remaineth but the fleshe of CHRIST onlye To this is soone made answere that Christ in that place of Iohn spake not of the materiall and sacramentall breade nor of the sacrementall eating for that was spoken two or thre yeares before the sacramente was fyrste ordained but hee spake of spirituall breade manny tymes repetynge I am the bread of lyfe which came frome heauen and of spirituall eating by faith after whiche sorte hee was at the same presente tyme eaten of as manye as beleued on him although the sacramēt was not at that tyme made and instituted And therefore he saide Your fathers did eate Manna in the deserte and died but he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer Therefore this place of S. Iohn canne in no wyse be vnderstand of the sacramentall breade which neyther came frō heauen neither giueth life to al that eat it Nor of such bread CHRIST coulde haue than presentlye saide This is my fleshe excepte they wyll saye that Christe dydde than consecrate so many yeares before the instititution of his holy supper Nowe that I haue made a full direct plain answere to the vaine reasons and cauillacions of the Papistes ordre requireth to make lykewise answere vnto their sophisticall allegacions and wresting of authors vnto their phantastycall purposes There bee chiefelye thre places which at the fyrste shewe seeme muche to make for their intent but when they shalbe throughly wayed thei make nothing for theim at all The fyrst is a place of Cyprian in his sermon of the Lordes supper where he saith as is alleged in the Detection of the diuels sophistrye This breade which our lorde gaue to his disciples chaunged in nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotencye of goddes woorde made fleshe Here the Papistes sticke toothe and nayle to these woordes Chaunged in nature Ergo say they the nature of the bread is chaunged Here is one chiefe point of the diuels sophistry vsed whoe in allegacion of scripture vseth euer either to adde thereto or to take away from it or to alter the sense therof And so haue they in this author lefte out those woordes whiche would open plainly all the whole matter For next the wordes which be here before of them recited do folowe these wordes As in the person of Christ the humanitee was seen and the diuinitee was hyd euen so dyd the diuinitee ineffably putte it selfe
neuerthelesse both present and absent he is all one Christe Hytherto you haue herd Uigilius speke that Christ as concernynge his bodily presence and the nature of his manhode is gone from vs taken from vs is gone vp into heuen is not with vs hath left vs hath forsaken vs. But as concernyng the other nature of his deitee he is styl with vs so that he is bothe with vs and not with vs with vs in the nature of his deitee and not with vs in the nature of his humanitee And yet more clerely doth the same Uigilius declare the same thyng in an other place sayenge If the worde and the fleshe were bothe of one nature seyng that the word is euery where why is not the fleshe than euery where For whan yt was in earthe than verily it was not in heauen and nowe whan it is in heauen it is not surely in yearth And it is so sure that it is not in earth that as concernyng it we looke for hym to come from heauen whom as concernyng his eternall woorde we beleue to bee with vs in earthe Therfore by your doctrine saith Uigilius vnto Eutyches who defended that the diuinitee and humanite in Christe was but one nature either the word is conteyned in a place with his fleshe or els the fleshe is euery where with the worde For one nature can not receaue in it selfe two diuers and contrary thinges But these two thinges be dyuers and farre vnlyke that is to say to be conteyned in a place and to be euery where Therfore in as muche as the word is euery where and the fleshe is not euery where it appeareth playnly that one Christ hym self hath in hym two natures that by his diuine nature he is euery where and by his humain nature he is conteined in a place that he is created hath no beginnyng that he is subiect to death can not die Wherof one he hath by the nature of his worde wherby he is God the other he hath by y ◠nature of his fleshe wher by the same God is man also Therfore one son of God the self same was made the sonne of mā and he hath a begynnynge by the nature of his fleshe and no begynnynge by the nature of his Godheade He is created by the nature of his fleshe and not created by the nature of his Godhead He is comprehended in a place by the nature of his fleshe and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead He is inferiour to angels in the nature of his fleshe and is equall to his father in the nature of his Godhead He dyed by the nature of his fleshe and died not by the nature of his Godhead This is the faithe and catholyke confession whyche the Apostles taught the martyrs dyd corroborate and faithfull people kepe vnto this daie All these be the saiynges of Uigilius who accordyng to al the other authors before rehersed and to the faith and catholike confession of the apostles martyrs and all faithfull people vnto his tyme saith that as concernyng Christes humanitee whan he was here on erthe he was not in heauen and nowe whan he is in heauen he he is not in earthe For one nature can not bee both conteyned in a place in heauen and be also here in earthe at one tyme. And for asmuche as Christe is here with vs in earth and also is conteined in a place in heauen he proueth thereby that Christ hath two natures in hym the nature of a man wherby he is gon from vs and ascended into heauen and the nature of his godhed wherby he is here with vs in erth So that it is not one nature y t is here with vs that is gone from vs that is ascended into heauen and ther cōteined that is permanēt here with vs in erth Wherfore the Papistes whiche nowe of late yeares haue made a newe faythe that Christes naturall bodye is really and naturally present bothe with vs here in earthe and sytteth at the ryght hande of his father in heauen do erre in two very horrible heresies The one that thei confound his two natures his godhead his manhod attributynge vnto his humanitee that thyng which appertaineth only to his diuinitee that is to say to be in heuen and erth and in many places at one tyme. The other is that they deuide and separate his humain nature or his body makyng of one body of Christ. ii bodyes and ii natures one whiche is in heauen visible and palpable hauing al membres and proportions of a most perfect natural man an other which they say is in erth here with vs in euery bread and wyne that is consecrated hauing no distinction forme nor proporcion of membres whiche contrarieties diuersities as this holy martyr Uigilius saith can not be together in one nature But now seyng that it is so euident a matter bothe by the expresse wordes of scripture also by all tholde authors of the same that our sauior Christ as cōcernyng his bodely presence is ascended into heauē and is not here in yerth And seyng that this hath been the true confession of the catholike fayth euer sithens Christes ascencion it is nowe to be cōsidered what moued the Papistes to make a newe and contrary fayth what scriptures they haue for their purpose What moued them I knowe not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condicion of the sea of Rome whiche is of all other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for scripture thei allege none but only one that not truly vnderstāded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to gerre sound cōtrary to al other scriptures partainyng to that matter Christ toke bread say they blessed and brake it and gaue it to his disciples saiyng This is my body These woordes they euer styll repeate and beate vpon that Christe sayd This is my body And this saiyng they make their shote anker to proue therby aswell the real and nataral presence of Christes body in the sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these woordes of Christ say they be most playne and most true Than forasmuch as he sayd This is my body it must nedes be true that that thyng whiche the priest holdeth in his hādes is Christes body And if it be Christes body than can it not be bread whereof they gather by their reasonyng that there is Christes body really present and no bread Nowe forasmuche as all their profe hangeth onely vpon these wordes This is my body the true sence and meanyng of these wordes must be examined But say they what nede thei any examinacion What wordes can bee more playne than to say This is my body Truth it is in deede that the woordes bee as playne as may be spoken but that the sence is not so plaine it
is manyfest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For whan Christ gaue bread to his disciples and sayd This is my body there is no man of any discrecion that vnderstandeth the Englishe tongue but he may well knowe by the order of the speeche that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the olde authors also do affirme although many of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the woordes seme and purport but there must nedes be some figure or mystery in this speeche more than appeareth in the plaine wordes For by this maner of speeche plainly vnderstande without any figure as the wordes lye can bee gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread whiche all christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherfore in these words must nedes be sought out an other sense and menyng then the wordes of them selues do beare And althoughe the true sense and vnderstandyng of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the mattier so playne that no scruple or doubt shal remaine here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whych processe shall be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud bee fyguratiue speches And although it be manyfest ynoughe by the playne wordes of the Gospel and proued before in the processe of transubstantiation that Christe spake of bread whan he sayde This is my body lykewise that it was very wine whiche he called his bloud yet least the Papistes shuld say that we sucke this out of our owne fingers the same shall be proued by testimonye of all the olde authors to be the trewe and olde faithe of the catholike churche Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not bee able to shewe so muche as one worde of any auncient author to the contrary Fyrst Ireneus writyng agaynst the Ualentinians in his fourthe boke saithe that Christe confessed bread whiche is a creature to be his body and the cup to be his bloud And in the same boke he writeth thus also The bread wherein the thankes be geuen is the body of the Lorde And yet agayne in the same booke he saithe that Christe takyng bread of the same sorte that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing whiche was tempered in the chalice was his bloudde And in the fift boke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his bloude a man is norished and doeth growe by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plaine that Christe takynge very materiall breade a creature of God and of suche sort as other breade is whiche wedd vse called that his body when he sayde This is my bodye And the wyne also whiche doothe feede and noryshe vs he called his bloudde Tertulian likewise in his booke written agaynst the Iewes saith that Christe called bread his body And in his booke against Martion he oftentymes repeteth the selfe same wordes And S. Cyprian in the firste boke of his epistles saith the same thyng that Christ called such breade as is made of manny cornes ioyned togither his body and suche wyne he named his bloudde as is pressed out of many grapes and made into wyne And in his second boke he saith these wordes water is not the bloud of Christe but wyne And agayn in the same Epistle he sayeth that it was wyne whiche Christe called his bloude and that if wyne bee not in the chalice than we drynke not of the fruit of the vyne And in the same epistle he sayth that meale alone or water alone is not the body of Christe excepte they be both ioyned togither to make thereof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speakyng of a lofe whiche is round in fashion and can not see here nor feele sayde of it This is my body And Saynt Hierome writynge Ad Hedibiā saieth these wordes Let vs mark that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his disciples was the body of our Sauiour Christ as he sayd vnto them Take and eate this is my body And S. Augustine also saith that althoughe we may sette foorthe Christe by mouthe by wrytynge and by the sacramente of his bodye and bloud yet wee call neyther our tounge nor wordes nor ynke letters nor paper the body and bloudde of Christe but that wee calle the bodye and bloudde of Christe whiche is taken of the fruite of the yearth and consecrated by mysticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meate his body and drynke his bloudde More ouer Cyrill vpon Sayncte Iohn saith that Christe gaue to his disciples peces of bread saiyng Take eate this is my bodye Likewise Theodoretus saith Whan Christe gaue the holy mysteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wyne and water he called his bloude By all these forsaid authors and places with manny mo it is playnely proued that whan our Sauiour Christe gaue breadde vnto his Disciples sayinge Take and eate this is my body And lykewise when he gaue them the cuppe sayinge Diuide this amonge you and drynke you all of this for this is my bludde he called than the very materiall bread his bodye and the very wyne his bloudde That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth amonge vs and that groweth out of the earth and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower and mixed with water and so baken made into bread of such sort as other our bred is that hath neither sence nor reason finally that fedeth and nourisheth our bodies suche bread Christe called his bodye whan he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togyther and ther of is made drynke whiche norisheth the body suche wyne he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by holy scripture as by all auncient authors of Christes churche bothe Grekes and Latines that is to say that when our Sauiour Christe gaue bread and wyne to his disciples and spake these woordes This is my bodye This is my bloude it was very bread and wyne whiche he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shewe some authoritee for their opinion eyther of scripture or of some auncient author And let theim not constrayne all men to folowe their fonde deuises onely bycause they sai It is so without any other groūd or authoritee but their owne bare wordes For in suche wyse credite is to bee geuen to Goddes worde onely and not to the worde of any man As many of theym as I haue redde the byshop of Wynchester only excepted doo say that Christe called not the bread his body nor wyne his bloud whan he said This is my body This is my bloude and yet in
Christ. Likewise before the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bludde of Christe And again he saith When I treated of the sacramentes I tolde you that that thinge whiche is offered before the woordes of Christ is called Bread but when the wordes of Christ be pronounced than it is not called bread but it is called by the name of Christes body By whiche woordes of S. Ambrose it appereth plainly that the bread is called by the name of Christes body after the consecration and although it be styll bread yet after consecration it is dignyfyed by the name of the thing whych it representeth as at lengthe is declared before in the proces of transubstantiation and speciallye in the woordes of Theodoretus And as the bread is a corporal meat and corporally eaten so saith S. Ambrose is the bodye of Christe a spirituall meate and spiritually eaten and that requireth no corporall presence Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrysostome who in sounde of woordes maketh moste for the aduersaries of the truthe but they that bee familyar and acquainted with Chrysostomes maner of speaking how in all his writinges hee is full of allusions schemes tropes and figures shall soone perceyue that he healpeth nothyng their purposes as it shal wel appeare by the discussyng of those places whiche the Papistes do allege of him whiche bee specially two One is in sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs And the other is De perditione Iudae And as touchyng the first no maÌ„ can speake more plainly against them than sainct Iohn Chrysostome speaketh in that sermone Wherefore it is to be woÌ„dered why they should allege him for their partie vnlesse they be so blynde in their opinion that they can see nothyng nor decerne what maketh for them nor what against them For there he hath these woordes Whan you comme to these mysteries speakyng of the Lordes boorde and holy Communion do not thynke that you receyue by a man the body of God meanyng of Christe These bee S. Ihon Chrysostome his owne wordes in that place Than if we receiue not the body of Christe at the handes 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 than it foloweth that all the Papistes bee lyars because they fayue and teache the contrary But this place of Chrysostome is touched before more at length in answeryng to the Papistes Transubstantiation Wherfore nowe shall be answered the other place whiche the allege of Chrysostome in these wordes Here he is present in the sacrament and dothe consecrate whiche garnished the table at the maundy or last supper For it is not man whiche maketh of the bread and wyne beyng set furth to be consecrated the body and bloud of Christe but it is Christe him selfe whiche for vs is crucifyed that maketh him selfe to bee there present The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouthe of the priest but the consecration is by the vertue myght and grace of God hym selfe And as this saying of God Increase be multiplied and fyl the yearth ones spoken by God toke alwayes effect towarde generation Euen so the saiyng of Christe This is my bodye â–ª beyng but ones spoken doth throughout all churches to this present and shall to his last commyng geue force and strength to this sacrifice Thus farre they reherse of Chrysostomes wordes Whiche woordes although they sound muche for their purpose yet if they be throughly considered and coÌ„ferred with other places of the same author it shall well appeare that he mente nothyng lesse than that Christes bodye should be corporally and naturally preseÌ„t in the bread and wyne but that in suche sorte he is in heauen only and in our myndes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen to eat him there although sacramentally as in a signe and figure he be in the bread and wyne and so is he also in the water of Baptisme in theim that rightly receiue the bread wyne he is in a much more perfectioÌ„ than corporally whiche should auayle them nothyng but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power geuing them eternall lyfe And as in the first creation of the world al lyuyng creatures had their first life by gods only word for god only spake his word and al thinges were created by and by accordingly and after their creation hee spake these woordes Increase and multiply â–ª and by the vertue of those wordes al thinges haue gendred and increaced euer sithens that tyme euen so after that Christe sayd Eate this is my body Drink this is my bloud Do this hereafter in remembrance of me by vertu of these words and not by vertu of any man the bread and wine be so consecrated that who so euer with a lyuely faithe dothe eate that bread and drink that wine doth spiritually eate drynke and feede vpon Christe syttynge in heauen with his father And this is the whole meanynge of S. Chrysostome And therefore dooeth hee so often saye that wee receaue Christe in baptisme and whanne he hathe spoken of the receauinge of hym in the holy Communion by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme withoute declarynge any diuersytee of his presence in the one from his presence in the other He saieth also in many places that we ascende into heauen and do eate Christe sittinge there aboue AND where S. Chrysostome â—nd other Authors doo speake of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes passynge all mannes wytte senses and reason he meaneth not of the workyng of God in the water bread and wyne but of the meruaylous workyng of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramentes secretely inwardly and spiritually transformyng them renuyng fedyng comfortyng and nourishyng them with his fleshe and bloud thorough his most holy spirite the same fleshe and bloud styll remaynyng in heauen Thus is this place of Chrysostome sufficiently answered vnto And yf any man requyre any more than let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of transubstantiation Yet furthermore they bryng for theim Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alledge saieth thus CHRISTE gyuynge thankes dydde breake which also we do addynge therto praier And he gaue vnto them sayeng Take this is my body this that I doo now gyue and that whiche ye nowe doo take For the breade is not a figure onely of Christes body but it is chaunged into the very body of Christe For Christ saith The bread whiche I wyll geue you is my fleshe Neuerthelesse the fleshe of Christ is not sene for our weakenesse but bread and wyne ar familiar vnto vs. And surely yf we shoulde visibly see fleshe and bloude we coulde not abyde it And therefore our Lord bearing with our weakenes doth reteyne and keepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wyne