be offered in the altar as will suffice for the people And if any remayne they must not be kept vntill the morning but be spent and cōsumed of the clearkes with feare and trembling And they that consume the residue of the Lords body may not by and by take other common meates least they should mixte that holy portion with the meat which is digested by the belly and auoyded by the fundement Therefore if the Lordes portion be eaten in the morning the ministers that consume it must fast vnto sixe of the clocke and if they doe take it at three or foure of the clocke the minister must fast vntill the euening Thus much writeth Clement of this matter if the Epistle which they alleadge were Clements as in deed it is not but they haue fayned many things in other mens names thereby to stablish their fayned purposes neuertheles whose soeuer the Epistle was if it be thoroughly considered it maketh much more agaynst the Papistes then for theyr purpose For by the same Epistle appeareth euidently three speciall thynges agaynst the erroures of the Papists The first is that the bread in the sacramēt is called the Lords body and the peces of the broken bread be called the peces and fragments of the Lords body which can not be vnderstand but figuratiuely The second is that the bread ought not to be reserued and hanged vp as the Papistes euery where do vse The third is that the priests ought not to receiue the sacramēt alone as the Papists commonly doe making a sayle therof vnto the people but they ought to communicate with the people And here is diligently to be noted that we ought not vnreuerently and vnaduisedly to approche vnto this meat of the Lordes table as we doe to other common meates and drinkes but with great feare and dread least we should come to that holy table vnworthely wherin is not onely represented but also spiritually geuen vnto vs very Christ himself And therfore we ought to come to that bord of the Lord with all reuerēce fayth loue and charity feare and dread according to the same Winchester Let vs now consider what particular answeres this author deuiseth to make to the fathers of the church first what he sayth to S. Clements Epistle his handling where of is worthy to be noted First he sayth the Epistle is not Clemēts but fained as he saith many other things be for their purpose he sayth which solution is short may be sone learned of noughty men and noughtily applied further as they list But this I may say if this epistle were fayned of the Papistes then do they shew themself fooles that could fayne no better but so as this author might of theyr fayned Epistle gather thrée notes agaynst them This authors notes be these First that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lordes body and that the broken bread be called the peces and fragments of the Lordes body Marke well reader this note that speaketh so much of bread where the wordes of the Epistle in the part here alleadged name no bread at all If this author hath red so much mentiō of bread in an other part of the Epistle why bringeth he not that forth to fortifye his note I haue red after the same Epistle pams sanctuary but they would not helpe this authors note and yet for the other matter ioyned with them they would slaunder an other way And therfore seing this author hath left them out I will goe no further then is here alleadged The calling of bread by enunciation for a name is not material because it signifieth that was but in that is here alleadged is no mention of bread to proue the note and to faythfull men the wordes of the Epistle reuerently expresse the remayne of the misteries in which when manye hostes bee offered in the altar according to the multitude that should communicate those many hostes after consecration be not many bodies of Christ but of many breades one body of Christ. And yet as we teach in Englād now in the booke of common prayer in euery part of that is broken is the whole body of our Sauiour Christ. Mans words can not suffice to expresse Gods misteries nor can vtter them so as froward reason shall not finde matter to wrangle And yet to stay reason may suffice that as in one loafe of bread brokē euery péece broken is a péece of that bread and euery pece of the bread broken is in it self a whole pece of bread and so whol bread for euery pece hath an whole substance of bread in it So we truely speake of the host consecrated to auoyd the fantasy of multiplication of Christes body which in all the hostes and all the partes of the hostes is but one not broken nor distribute by pieces yet in a spech to tell and signifie that is broken called in name the leauing peces of the body portion of the body residue of the body in which neuertheles ech one pece is Christes whole body So as this speach hauing a figure hath it of necessity to auoyd the absurdity wherby to signify a multitude of bodyes which is not so and the sound of the speach christen eares do abhorre But this I aske where is the matter of this authors note that bread is called Christes body where there is no word of bread in the wordes alleadged and if there were as there is not it were worthy no note at all For that name is not abhorred and the catholicke fayth teacheth that the fraction is in the outward signe and not in the body of Christ inuisibly present and signified so to be present by that visible signe The second note of this author is touching reseruing which Clement might seme to deny because he ordered the remayne to be receiued of the clerkes thinking so best not declaring expressely that nothing might be reserued to the vse of them that be absent The contrary wherof appereth by Iustine the Martire who testifieth a reseruation to be sent to them that were sicke who and they dwell farre from the church as they do in some places it may by chaunce in the way or trouble in the sick man tary till the morning or it be receiued And Cyrill writeth expresly that in case it so doth the mistical benediction by which termes he calleth the sacrament remayneth still in force Whē this author findeth fault at hangyng vp of the sacrament he blameth onely his owne country and the Iles hereabout which fault Linnehood after he had trauayled other countreys found here beyng the manner of custody in reseruation otherwise vsed then in other parties But one thing this author should haue noted of Clements wordes when he speketh of fearing and trembling which and the bread were neuer the holier as this author teacheth and but onely a signification why should any mā fear or tremble more in theyr presence then he doth when he heareth of Christes
asked of commen bread when we breake it whether we breake the substance or onely the accidents First I must learnedly say If the substance be broken it is by meane of the accident in quantitie and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophye as this author doth in diuinity agaynst the catholique fayth to say in diuision we breake not the substance of bread at all the heresie in philosophy were not of such absurditye as this author mayntayneth in diuinity For I haue some probable matter to say for me where as he hath none For my strange answer I would say that albeit a naturall thing as bread consisting of matter and essenciall forme with quantity and therby other accidents cleauing and annexed may be well sayd to be in the whole broken as we see by experience it is Yet speaking of the substance of it alone if one should aske whether that be broken and it should be answered yea then should the substance appeare broken and whole all at one tyme seeing in euery broken peece of bread is a whole substance of bread and where the pâ—ece of bread broken is so little a crumme as can no more in deed be deuided we say neuertheles the same to be in substance very bread and for want of conuenient quantity bread indiuisible and thus I write to shew that such an aunswere to say the accidents be broken hath no such clere absurdity as this author would haue it séeme But leauing of the matter of Philosophy to the scholes I will graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges and therefore therein is a speciall miracle of God But when the accidentes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible part of the sacrament then the same accidents to be broken eaten and drunken with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh them is no miracle or maruaile and as for absurdity no point at all for by quantitye which remayneth is all diuision we ought to confes and good christen men do profes the mistery of the sacrament to be supernaturall and aboue the order of nature and therefore it is a trauaile in vayne to frame the consideration of it to agrée with the termes of philosophy But where this author sayth that nothing can be aunswered to be broken but the accidents yes verely for in time of contention as this is to him that would aske what is broken I would in other termes aunswere thus that thou seest is broken And then if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the sacrament vnder which is present inuisibly the substaunce of the most precious bodye of Christ. If he will aske yet further is that body of Christ broken I wil say no. For I am learned in fayth that that glorious body now impassible cannot be deuided or broken and therefore it is whole in euery part of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in common bread in euery part that is broken According whereunto it is in the booke of common prayer sette forth howe in ech part of that is broken of the consecrate bread is the whole body of our sauior Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say Is not that that is broken bread I would aunswere as a beleuing man by fayth truely no. For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christ inuisibly there and the breaking to be not in it but in the visible figure Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my fayth is a most certayne truth beleueth things as they verely be for Christs word is of strength not onely to shew and declare as other mens wordes do but therewith effectuall to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clarks soberly entreat the matter such as minde well I meane to consider accidentes and substance which termes the rude vnderstand not it is not necessary therefore in those termes to make aunswere to such as be contentiously curious who labour with questions to dissolue the trueth of the mistery in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we should that is no inconuenience in the mistery but an imperfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauing such giftes of God as other haue nor studying to attayne learning as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scholes with a deuoute minde to aunswere all captious questions hath for the exercitation of mens sences bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is now picked out by this author and brought to the common peoples eares in which it might sound euill they not being able to make aunswere therunto wereby they might be snarled and intangled with vayne fansies against that trueth which before without curiosity of questions they truely and constantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible formes of bread wine for signification the thing whereof is the very body and bloud of Christ which being the trueth of the whole it is no absurdity to confes truely the partes as they be if occasion require howsoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carnall mans eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the trueth should be altered into a lye wherewith to make melody to theyr vnderstandinges For howsoeuer carnal reason be offended with spirituall truth it forceth not but agaynst the whole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine can be iustified with whose testimonye how the fayth of the church in the sacrament now agréeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this author to reporte the contrary Caunterbury HEre may the reader perceiue how much you sweat and labor so that it pittieth me to see what trauaile you take babling many things no thing to the purpose to aunswere my first absurditye And yet at the end you be enforced to affirme all that I charge you withall that is to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawed and swallowed without any substaunce at all And more I need not to say here then before I haue aunswered to your clarkely dialogue betweene the scholler and the rude man sauing this that you make all men so wise that they iudge accidents in their common vnderstanding to be called substaunces and that no man is able to know the difference of one substaunce from an other And here you fall into the same folly that Basill speaketh For if he that goeth about to seperate accidentes from their substaunce fayle of his purpose end in nothing indeed then you separating the accidentes of bread from their substaunce and the substaunce of Christes body from the accidentes by your owne saying alleadged of Basill you must fayle of your purpose in the end bring both
in the second parte But what be you eased now by this We say as the scripture teacheth that Christ is corporally ascended in to heauen and neuerthelesse he is so in them that worthely eate the bread drinke the wine geuen and distributed at his holy Supper that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and bloud vnto eternal life But we say not as you doe cleerely without ground of Scripture that he is corporally vnder the formes of bread and wine where his presence should be without any profite or commoditie either to vs or to the bread and wine And here in this difference it seemeth that you haue either cleerely forgotten or negligently ouershotte yourselfe vttering that thing vnwares which is contrary is your wholl booke For the first parte which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramentall bread and wine is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued say you where it is true Christ to be present God and man the second part say you which is of the being of Christ in them that worthely eat and drink the bread and wine is of Christs spiritual presence Of your which words I se nothing to be gathered but that as concerning his substancial presence Christ is receaued into the Sacramental bread and wine and as for them that worthely receaue the Sacrament he is in them none otherwise then after a Spirituall presence For els why should ye say that the second parte is of Christes spirituall presence if it be as well of his corporall as of his spirituall presence Wherefore by your own words this difference should be vnderstanded of two different beings of Christ that in the Sacrament he is by his substance and in the worthy receauers spiritually and not by his substance for els the differences repugne not as you obiect against me Wherfore either you write one thing mean another or els as you write of other God so blindeth the aduersaries of the truth that in one place or other they confesse the truth vnwares Now follow my wordes in the second comparison They say that when any man eateth the bread and drinketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomacke with the bread and wine and no further But we say that Christ is in the wholl man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread drinketh the cup not in his mouth or stomack only Winchester In this comparison the Author termeth the true Catholick teaching at his pleasure to bring it in contempte Which doing in rude speach would be called otherwise then I will tearme it Truth it is as S. Augustine saith we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth and such speach other vse as a booke set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name called a Catechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ which I alleadge because it shall appeare it is a teaching set forth among vs of late as hath béene also and is by the booke of common prayer being the most true catholicke doctrine of the substance of the sacrament in that it is there so catholickly spoken of which booke this Author doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teaching doth improue it in that pointe So much is he contrary to him self in this worke and here in this place not caring what he saith reporteth such a teaching in the first parte of this difference as I haue not heard of before There wes neuer man of learning that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomack of the man that receaued and no further For that is written contra Stercoranistas is nothing to this teaching nor the speach of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholicke doctrine is that by the holy communion in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body which is a flesh geuing life And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in vs and attēpereth by heauēly nuriture our body and soule beyng partakers of his passion to be conformable to hys will and by such spirituall foode to be many more spirituall In the receauing of which foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duely communicate worke together in due order without other discussion of the mistery then God hath appointed that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to doe as God hath ordered knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer but to be most profitable vnto such as doe accustome worthely to receaue the same But to say that the church teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomacke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgement of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Now where this Author in the second parte by an aduersatiue with a But to make the comparison felleth what he and his say he telleth in effecte that which euery catholicke man must néedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christs most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthely they haue Christ dwelling in them who comforteth both body and soule which the church hath euer taught most plainly So as this comparison of difference in his two parties is made of one open vntruth and a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this Author and his which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is vsed in the matter Caunterbury IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to tearm the true catholicke faith for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papisticall faith which I haue tearmed none otherwise then I learned of their own tearming and therfore if my tearming please you not as in deede it ought to please no man yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inuentoures of that tearming and not in me that against them do vse their owne tearmes tearming the matter as they doe them selfe because they should not finde faulte with me as you doe that I tearme their teaching at my pleasure And as for receauing of the body of Christ with our mouthes truth it is that S. Augustine Ambros Chrysostome and other vse such speaches that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes see hym with our eyes feele hym with our handes breake hym teare hym with our teeth eate him and dygest him which speach I haue also vsed in my catechisme but yet these speeches must be vnderstand figuratiuely as I haue declared in my fourth booke the eyght chapiter and shall more fully declare hereafter for we doe not these thinges to
the very body of Christ but to the bread wherby hys body is represented And yet the booke of common prayer neyther vseth any such speach nor geueth any such doctrine nor I in no poynt improue that godly booke nor varye from it But yet glad I am to heare that the sayd booke lyketh you so well as noe man can mislike it that hath anye godlinesse in hym ioyned with knowledge But nowe to come to the very matter of this article it is maruell that you neuer redde that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke of that man that receaueth and no further being a lawyer and seing that it is written in the glose of the law De-consecrat dist 2. Tribus gradibus in these wordes It is certayne that assone as the formes be torne with the teeth so sone the body of Christ is gone vp into heauen And in the chapiter Non iste is an other glose to the same purpose And if you had redde Thomas de Aquino and Bonauenture great clearkes and holy Sainctes of the Popes own making and other schoole authors then should you haue knowne what the Papistee do say in this matter For some say that the body of Christ remayneth so long as the forme and fashion of bread remayneth although it be in a dog mouse or in the iakes And some say it is not in the mouse nor sakes but remayneth onely in the person that eateth it vntill it be digested in the stomacke and the fourme of bread be gone Some say it remayneth no longer then the Sacrament is in the eating and may be felt seene and tasted in the mouth And this besides Hugo sayth Pope Innocentius hym selfe who was the best learned and the chiefe doer in this matter of all the other Popes Red you neuer none of these authors and yet take vpō you the full knowledge of this matter Will you take vpon you to defend the Papistes and knowe not what they say Or do you know it and now be ashamed of it and for shame will deny it And seing that you teache that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes I pray you tell whether it go any further then the mouth or no and how farre it goeth that I may know your iudgement herein and so shall you be charged no further then with your own saying and the reader shall perceiue what excellent knowledge you haue in this matter And where you say that to teach that we receaue Christ at our mouth he goeth into our stomack and no further commeth out of the mouth of thē that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Here like vnto Caiphas you prophecy the truth vnwares For this doctrine commeth out of the mouth of none but of the Papistes which fight against the holy catholicke truth of the aūcient Fathers saying that Christ tarrieth no longer then the proper formes of bread and wine remaine which can not remain after perfect digestion in the stomacke And I say not that the Church teacheth so as you fayne me to say but that the Papistes say so Wherfore I should wish you to reporte my words as I say and not as you imagine me to say least you heare agayne as you haue heard heretofore of your wonderfull learning and practise in the Deuils Sophistrye Now as concerning the second parte of this comparison here you graūt that my saying therein is true and that euery Catholick man must needes and doth confesse the same By which your saying you must also condemne almost all the schoole authors and Lawiers that haue written of this matter with Innocent the third also as men not Catholick because they teach that Christ goeth no further nor taryeth no longer then the formes of bread and wine goe and remayn in their proper kinde And yet now your doctrine as farre as I can gather of your obscure wordes is this That Christ is receaued at the mouth with the formes of bread and wine and goeth with them into the stomack And although they goe no further in their proper kinds yet there Christ leaueth them and goeth him selfe further into euery parte of the mannes body and into his soule also which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange For I haue many times heard that a soule hath gone into a body but I neuer heard that a body went into a soule But I weene of all the Papistes you shal be alone in this matter and finde neuer a fellow to say as you doe And of these thinges which I haue here spoaken I may conclude that this comparison of difference is not made of an open vntruth and a truth disguised except you wil confesse the Papisticall doctrine to be an open vntruth Now the wordes of my third comparison be these They say that Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine We say that he is receaued in the hart and entreth in by faith Winchester Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on both sides and therfore here is by the Author in this comparison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauing of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is both with mouth and harte both in facte and faith After which sorte Saynte Peter in the laste Supper receaued Christes body where as in the same Iudas receaued it with mouth and in facte onely wherof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise Non dicuns ista nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt sicut Tetrus non iudicium sicut Indas tamē ipsa vtrique fuit vina sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi non erant vnum Which wordes be thus much to say That they say not so as was before intreated but such as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgement as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in them both bycause they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued which being receaued with the mouth only and Christ entring in mysterie onely doth not sanctifie vs but is the stone of stumbling and our iudgement and condemnation but if he be receaued with mouth and body with hart and fayth to such he bringeth lyfe and nourishment Wherfore in this comparison the author hath made no difference but with diuers tearmes the Catholicke teaching is deuided into two membres with a But fashioned neuertheles in another phrase of spéech then the church hath vsed which is so common in this Author that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte But let vs goe further Caunterbury THere is nothing in this comparyson worthy to be answered for if you can finde no difference therein yet euery indifferent Reader can For when I reporte the Papistes teaching that they
the armes be there be the legges so that in euery part of the bread and wine is altogether whole head whole feet whole flesh whole bloud whole hart whole lunges whole breast whole backe and altogyther whole confused and mixt without distinction or diuersity O what a foolish and an abhominable inuention is this to make of the most pure and perfect bodye of Christ such a confuse and monstrous body And yet can the Papistes imagine nothing so foolish but all Christian people must receiue the same as an oracle of God and as a most certayne article of their fayth without whisperyng to the contrary Winchester This is a maruaylous Rhetorique and such as the author hath ouerséene himselfe in the vtterance of it and confesseth himself pretely abused to the latter end of his yeares to haue beleued that he now calleth so foolish But to the purpose In the book of common prayer now at this time set foorth in this Realme It is ordered to teach the people that in ech part of the bread consecrate brokeÌ„ is the whole body of our Sauiour Christ which is agreable to the Catholicke doctrine Upon occasion hereof it liketh this author to multiply language by enumeration of partes and because reason without fayth directeth the bodily eye to so little a visible quantity in the host this Author beareth in hand the Catholicke Church to say and teach all that fond reason deuiseth where as the Church in yâ— doctrine of this mistery denieth all that reasoÌ„ without fayth diuiseth and therefore when we acknowledge by fayth Christs body present although we say it is present truly Really Substantially yet we say our senses be not priuy to that presence â—e the maner of it but by instruction of fayth and therefore we say Christes body to be not locally present not by manner of quantity but inuisible and in no sensible manner but maruailously in a Sacrament and mistery truely and in such a spirituall maner as we can not define and determyne and yet by fayth we knowe his bodye present the partes of which be in them selfe distinct one from an other in their owne substaunce but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of our capacitie which partes we can by no demonstration place nor by imagination displace diminish alter or confound as this author for his pleasure reporteth who writeth monstrously in so high a mistery and impudently beareth in hand the Catholicke Church to teach that he listeth to beare in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of the teaching where as al true Christian men beleue symply Christes wordes and trouble not their heades with such consequences as séeme to striue with reason This is in the Author no whisperyng but playnely rayling wherein if he had remembred himselfe well he would not haue spoken of all Christian men in the receypt of that he entendeth to disproue And if he would say he spake it by an Irony or skorne yet it implyeth that all had receyued that he thus mocketh which after the sort he writeth was neuer deuised by Papist or other to be so taught otherwyse then as this Author might read it as an ydle argument to shew absurditie in reason For in Gods workes as the sacramentes hée we must think all semelynesse in déed without deformity euen as we beleue al Gods iudgements iust and true although reason conclude in them euident iniquitie Mans reason when it séemeth most gallant is full of spottes and folly Gods workes be all séemelynesse without confusion monsier or any such absurditée as this Author supposeth Although I can not in the Sacrament with the eye of my reason locally distinct Christs head from his foote his legs from his arme And where in the booke of common prayer it is truely said in ech part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christes whole body if one of curiositee would question with me and I of folly would aunswere him first where is Christes head I should say here poynting with my finger he would thinke it first a little head Then he would aske where is his foote and I should say there and poynt in the same place againe for there is none other left If he replyed that I poynted before the same for the head might not the third a catholicke man that stood by trow you wisely call vs both madde to go about to discusse that wée must grant we se not wheÌ„ by faith we know only the being preset of Christs most precious body then by blynd reason to discusse the manner of being in the situation of such partes as we do not see Now if there came among vs a fourth man as a mediatour and would do as king Alexander dyd when he could not open the knot of Gordius he did cut it with his sworde if this man should say I will reléeue this matter You beleue Christes body is preseÌ„t in déed really and substaÌ„tially Leaue out really and subtaÌ„tially and say his body is present in signification and then it may be easily conceaued by reason that Christs body being neuer so great may be as well signified by a little péece of bread as by a great péece of bread euen as a man may write a great mans name as wel in smal letters short as in great letters at length And to commend further his deuise vnto vs would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconueniences might be auoyded by it This fourth man I speak of making himselfe a mediatour but in déede vnmete therfore because he hath no participation with sayth yet if our religion and fayth were mans inuention as that of Numa Pompilius was he should not vtter this his conceit all ydelly For he speaketh of a ioly easy way without any mistery or maruaile at all But our faith is of hearing as hath bene preached continually from the beginning grounded vpon the most sure trueth of the word of God and therefore can not be attempered as man would deuise it to exclude trauayle in carnall reason For then the Sabellians were to be harkned vnto who by their heresy toke away all the hard and difficile questions in the mistery of the Trinitie The Arrians also releued much mans reason in consideration of Christs death denying him to be of the same substance with his father which â—as a pestilent heresy Now in the SacrameÌ„t to say Christs body is present onely by signification as it releueth in some mens iudgementes the absurdities in reason which ought not to be releued so it condemneth all the true publike faith testified in the Church from the beginning hetherto and sheweth the learned holy men to haue wondred in their writynges at that which hath no wonder at all to ordeyn one thing to be the signification of an other which is practised daily among men But from the beginning the mistery of the Sacrament hath béen with wonder marueyled at how
Christ made bread his body and wyne his bloud and vnder the figure of those visible creatures gaue inuisibly his precious body any bloud presently there And as he gaue sayth S. Barnarde his life for vs so he gaue his flesh to vs in that mistery to redéeme vs in this to féede vs. Which doings of Christ we must vnderstand to haue béene perfited not in an imagination in a figure and signification but really in very déede truely and vnfaynedly not because we beléeue it so but because he wrought it so whose works we must beleue to be most perfitly true according to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in scripture driueth vs from it howsoeuer it seme repugnant to our reason be we neuer so wise and wittie which mans reason now a dayes enflamed with fury of language is the only aduersary against the most blessed Sacrament as it may appeare by these comparysons of differences throughly considered Caunterbury DId not you beleue I pray you many yeares together that the bishop of Rome was Christs vicar and the head of his church If you did not you wittingly and willingly defended a false errour in the open Parliament But sithens that tyme you haue called that beléefe as it is in deede very folish And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter be no more abashed to confesse it in this if you haue respect more vnto Gods trueth then to your owne estimation It is lawfull and commendable for a man to learn from time to tyme and to go from his ignorance that he may receaue and embrace the trueth And as for me I am not I graunt of that nature that the Papists for the most part be who study to deuise all shamefull shiftes rather then they will forsake any errour wherewith they were infected in youth I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance as S. Paul S. Ciprian S. Augustine and many other holy men did who now be with Christ to bring other to the knowledge of the trueth of whose ignoraunce I haue much ruth and pitie I am content to geue place to Gods word that the victory may be Christs What a member had the church of God lost if Paule would haue been as froward as some Papistes be that will sticke to their errour tooth and nayle though the Scripture and auncient writers be neuer so plain and fâ—at against them Although S. Paule erred yet because his errour was not wilfull but of ignoraunce so that he gaue place to the trueth when it was opened vnto him he became of a most cruell persecutor a most seruent setter forth of the trueth and Apostle of Christ. And would God I were as sure that you be chaunged in déede in those matters of religion wherein with the alteration of this realme you preteÌ„d a change as I am glad euen from the bottom of my hart that it hath pleased almighty God in this latter end of my yeares to giue me knowledge of my former errour and a will to embrace the truth setting a part all maner of worldly respectes which be speciall hinderances that hold backe many from the free profession of Christ and his word And as for the booke of common prayer although it say that in ech part of the bread broken is receaued the whole body of Christ yet it sayth not so of the partes vnbroken nor yet of the partes or whole reserued as the Papistes teach But as in baptisme we receaue the holy ghost and put Christ vpon vs as well if wee be Christened in one dysh full of water taken out of the fonte as if we were chistned in the whole fonte or riuer so we be as truely fed refreshed and comforted by Christ receauing a peece of bread at the Lords holy table as if we dyd eat an whole loafe For as in euery part of the water in baptisme is wholl Christ and the holy spirit sacramentally so be they in euery part of the bread broken but not corporally and naturally as the Papists teach And I beare not the catholick church in hand as you report of me that it sayth and teacheth that whole Christ is in euery part of the bread consecrated but I say that the Papistes so teach And because you deny it read the chiefe pillers of the Papistes Duns and Thomas de Aquino which the Papists call S. Thomas who say that Christ is whole vnder euery part of the formes of bread and wine not only when the host is broken but wheÌ„ it is wholl also And there is no distance sayth he of partes one from an other as of one eie from another or of the eye from the eare or the head from the feet These be Thomas wrds Christus totus est sub qualibit parte specicruÌ„ panis vini non soluÌ„ cuÌ„ frangitur hostia sed etiaÌ„ cuÌ„ integra manet Nec est distaÌ„tia partiuÌ„ ab inniceÌ„ vt oculi ab oculo aut oculi ab aure eut capitis à pedibus sicut est in alijs corporibus orgameis Talis enim distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero sed non prout est in hoc Sacraâ—eÌ„to And not only the Papists do thus write and teach but the Pope himself Innocentius the third And so beare I in haÌ„d or report of the Papisies nothing but that which they say indeed And yet you say the church sayth not so which I affirme also and then it must needs follow that the doctrine of the Papistes is not the doctrine of the church Which Papists not by reason with out faith but agaynst aswell reason as fayth would direct our mindes to seeke in euery little crum of bread whole Christ and to find him in so many places there as be small crums in the bread And where you trauesse the matter of the iudgement of our senses herein it is quite and cleane from the matter and but a crafty shift to conuey the matter to an other thing that is not in question lyke vnto crafty male-factours whych perceauing them selues to be sore pursued with a hound make a new trayn to draw the hound to an other fresh suit For I speake not of the iudgement of our senses in this matter whether they perceaue any distinction of partes and members or no but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no which the Papistes do deny And therefore I say not vntruely of them that in the sacrament they say There is no distance of partes one from another And if the parts in theyr substance be distinct one from an other as you say and be not so distinct in the SacrameÌ„t as Thomas sayth theÌ„ must it follow that the partes in their owne substaunce be not in the sacrament And if this distinction of partes be in the true body of Christ and not in the sacrament as Thomas saith then followeth it again that the true body of Christ
And yet it is not to be denied but that Christ is truely eaten as he was truly born but the one corporally and without figure and the other spiritually and with a figure Now followeth my 11 comparison They say that the body of Christ is euery day many tymes made as often as there be Masses sayd and that then and there he is made of bread and wine We say that Christes body was neuer but once made and then not of the nature substance of bread and wine but of the substance of his blessed mother Winchester The body of Christ is by Gods omnipotency who so worketh in his word made present vnto vs at such tyme as the church praye it may please him so to doe which prayer is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayer now set foorth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ which they can not be vnlesse God worketh it and make them so to be In which mistery it was neuer taught as this author willingly misreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that order exhibited and made preset vnto vs by conuersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine but a new presence of the body that is neuer old made present there where the substāce of bread and wine was before So as this comparison of difference is meere wrangling and so euident as it needeth no further aunswere but a note Lo how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter and without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in sclander if it were possible May not this be accompted as a part of Gods punishmēt for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part Caunterbury Christ is present when so euer the church praieth vnto him and is gathered togither in his name And the bread and wine be made vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ as it is in the book of common praier but not by chaunging the substaunce of bread and wine into the substance of Christes naturall body and bloud but that in the godly vsing of thē they be vnto the receauers Christes body and bloud As of some the Scripture saith that their riches is their redemption and to some it is their damnatiō And as Gods word to some is life to some it is death and a snare as the prophet saith And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at to some is a raysing frō death not by conuersion of substances but by good or euill vse that thing which to the godly is saluation to the vngodly is damnation So is the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Lords supper to the worthy receauers Christ himselfe and eternall life and to the vnworthy receauers euerlasting death and damnation not by conuersion of one substance into an other but by godly or vngodly vse thereof And therfore in the book of the holy communion we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and bloud of Christ but that vnto vs in that holy mistery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthely receaue the same that we may be partakers of Christes body and bloud and that therwith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished And a like praier of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion of all such offerings as at that time all the people vsed to offer praying that their offerings might be vnto them the body and bloud of Christ. And where you say it was neuer taught as I say that Christs body is made of the matter of bread you knowingly and willingly misreport me For I say not of the matter of bread but of bread which when you deny that the Papists so say it semeth you be now ashamed of the doctrin which the Papistes haue taught thys 4. or 5. hundred yeres For is it not playnely written of all the Papists both lawyers and scholl authors that the body of Christ in the sacramēt is made of bread and his bloud of wine And they say not that his body is made present of bread wine but is made of bread and wine Be not their books in print ready to be shewed Do they not say that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into nothing but into the body of Christ And do not your selfe also say here in this place that the substance of bread is conuerted into Christes precious body And what is that els but the body of Christ to be made of bread and to be made of a new matter For if the bread doe not vanish away into nothing but be turned into Christes body then is Christs body made of it and then it must needes follow that Christes body is made of new and of an orher substance then it was made of in his mothers wombe For there it was made of her flesh and bloud and here it is made of bread and wine And the Papistes say not as you now would shift of the matter that Christes body is made present of bread but they say plainly without addition that it is made of bread Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the Papists Ex pane fit Corpus Christi of bread is made the body of Christ and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance therof◠And what reason sentence or english could be in this saying Christes body is made present of bread Marye to be present in bread might be some sentence but the speeche will you in no wise admitte And this your saying here if the reader mark it wel turneth ouer quite and cleane all the wholl Papisticall doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament as well touching transubstantiation as also the carnall presence For their doctrine with one whol consent and agreement is this That the substance of bread remaineth not but is turned into the substance of Christes body and so the body of Christ is made of it But this is false say you and not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a place to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And so the wholl doctrine of the papists which they haue taught these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares doe you condemne with condigne reproches as a teaching intollerable not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play Why doe you then take vpon you to defend the Papistical doctrine if it be so intollerable Why doe you not forsake those scoffers and players which haue iugled with the world so long and embrace the
and prayer If man should then waxe proud and glory as of him selfe and extoll his own deuotiō in these ministeries such men should bewray their own naughty hipocrisie yet therby empayr not the very dignity of the ministery ne the very true fruit and effect therof And therfore when the Church by the minister and with the minister prayeth that the creatures of bread and wine set on the aultar as the booke of common prayer in this Realme hath ordred may be vnto vs the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ we require then the celebration of the same Supper which Christ made to his Apostles for to be the continuall memory of his death with all fruite and effect such as the same had in the first institution Wherfore when the minister pronounceth Christes wordes as spoaken of his mouth it is to be beléeued that Christ doth now as he did then And it is to be noted that although in the Sacrament of Baptisme the minister saith I baptise thée yet in the celebration of his Supper the wordes be spoaken in Christes person as saying him selfe this is my body that is broaken for you which is to vs not onely a memory but an effectuall memory with the very presence of Christes body and bloud our very Sacrifice Who doing now as he did then offreth him selfe to his Father as he did then not to renue that offering as though it were imperfecte but continually to refresh vs that daily fall and decay And as S. Iohn saith Christ is our aduocate and intreateth for vs or pleadeth for vs not to supply any want on Gods behalfe but to relieue our wantes in edification wherein the ministery of the Church trauaileth to bring man to perfection in Christ which Christ himselfe doth assist and absolutely performe in his Church his misticall body Now whē we haue Christes body thus present in the celebration of the holy Supper and by Christes mouth present vnto vs saying this is my body which is betraied for you Then haue we Christes body recommended vnto vs as our Sacrifice and a Sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world being the onely Sacrifice of Christes Church the pure and cleane Sacrifice wherof the Prophet Malachie spake and wherof the Fathers in Christs church haue since the beginning continually written the very true presence whereof most constantly beléeued hath encreased from time to time such ceremonies as haue béene vsed in the celebration of that Supper in which by Christes own mouth we be ascertained of his most glorious death and passion and the selfe same body that suffred deliuered vnto vs in mistery to be eaten of vs and therefore so to be worshipped and acknowledged of vs as our very onely Sacrifice in whom by whom and for whom our other priuate giftes and Sacrifices be acceptable and no otherwise And therfore as Christ declareth in the Supper himselfe an offering and Sacrifice for our sinne offering himselfe to his Father as our Mediator and so therewith recommendeth to his Father the Church his body for which he suffreth so the Church at the same Supper in their offering of laudes and thankes with such other giftes as they haue receaued from God ioyne them selues with their head Christ presenting and offering him as one by whom for whom and in whom all that by Gods grace man can doe well is auailable and acceptable and without whom nothing by vs done can be pleasaunt in the sight of God Wherupon this perswasion hath béen truely conceiued which is also in the booke of common prayer in the celebration of the holy supper retained that it is very profitable at that time when the memory of Christes death is solemnized to remember with prayer all estates of the Church and to recommend them to God which S. Paule to Timothy séemeth to require At which time as Christ signifieth vnto vs the certainty of his death and geueth vs to be eaten as it were in pledge the same his precious body that suffered So we for declaration of our confidence in the death and Sacrifice doe kindely remember with thankes his speciall giftes and charitably remember the rest of the mēbers of Christes church with praier and as we are able should with our bodely goodes remember at that time specyally to reléeue such as haue néede by pouerty And againe as Christ putteth vs in remembraunce of his great benefite so we should throughly remember him for our parte with the true confession of this mistery wherin is recapitulate a memoriall of all giftes and misteries that God in Christ hath wrought for vs. In the consideration and estimation wherof as there hath been a fault in the securitie of such as so their names were remembred in this holy time of memory they cared not how much they forgat themselues So there may be a fault in such as neglecting it care not whether they be remembred there at all therfore would haue it nothing but a plain eating and drinking How much the remembrance in prayer may auaile no man can prescribe but that it auaileth euery christen man must confesse Man may nothing arrogate to his deuotion But S. Iames said truely Multum valet oratio iusti assidua It is to be abhorred to haue hipocrites that counterfaite deuotion but true deuotion is to be wished of God and prayed for which is Gods gifte not to obscure his glory but to set it forth not that we should then trust in mennes merites and prayers but laude and glorifie God in them Qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus one to be iudged able to reléeue another with his prayer referring all to procéede from God by the mediation of our Sauiour and redéemer Iesus Christ. I haue taryed long in this matter to declare that for the effect of all celestiall or worldly giftes to be obteyned of God in the celebration of Christes holy Supper when we call it the communion is now prayed for to be present and is present and with Gods fauoure shalbée obtayned if we deuoutly reuerently charitably and quietly vse and frequents the same without other innouations then the order of the booke prescribeth Now to the last difference Caunterbury HOw is this comparison out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament when the Papistes say that the masse is not a sacrifice propiciatory but because the presence of Christes most precious body beyng presently there And yet if this comparison be out of the matter as you say it is why doe you then wrastle and wrangle with it so much And doe I seeme to graunt the peesence of Christs body in the first part of my comparison when I do nothing there but rehearce what the Papists do say But because all this proceeds which you bring in here out of tune and time belōgeth to the last booke I wil passe it ouer vnto the propper place onely by the way touching shortly some
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
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
present vnder the kindes of bread and wine which as before is expressed and proued is vtterly nothing And so they geue vnto the ignorant occasion to worship bread and wine and they them selues worship nothing there at all Winchester As touching the adoration of Christes flesh in the sacrament which adoration is a true confession of the whole man soule and body if there be oportunity of the truth of God in his worke is in my iudgement well set forth in the booke of Common prayer where the priest is ordered to knele and make a prayer in his owne and the name of all that shall communicate confessing therin that is prepared there at which tyme neuerthelesse that is not adored that the bodely eye séeth but that which fayth knoweth to be there inuisibly present which and there be nothing as this author now teacheth it were not well I will not aunswere this authors eloquence but his matter where it might hurt Caunterbury WHere as I haue shewed what idolatry was cōmitted by meanes of the Papisticall doctrine concerning adoration of the sacrament bicause that answere to my reasons you can not and confesse the truth you will not therfore you runne to your vsuall shift passing it ouer with a toy and scoffe saying that you will not answere myne eloquence but the matter and yet indede you answere neither of both but vnder pretence of myne eloquēce you shift of the matter also And yet other eloquence I vsed not but the accustomed speach of the homely people as such a matter requireth And where you say that it were not well to worship Christ in the Sacrament if nothing be there as you say I teach if you meane that Christ can not be worshipped but where he is corporally present as you must nedes meane if your reason should be to purpose then it followeth of your saying that we may not worship Christ in Baptisme in the fieldes in priuate houses nor in no place els where Christ is not corporally and naturally present But the true teaching of the holy catholike churche is that although Christ as concerning his corporall presence be continually resident in heauen yet he is to be worshiped not onely there but here in earth also of all faythfull people at all tymes in all places and in all theyr workes Heare now what followeth further in my Booke But the Papistes for theyr owne commodity to keepe the people still in idolatry do often alleadge a certayne place of S. Augustine vpon the Psalmes where he sayth that no man doth eate the flesh of Christ except he first worship it and that we do not offend in worshipping therof but we should offend if we should not worship it That is true which S. Augustine sayth in this place For who is he that professeth Christ and spiritually fedde and nourished with his flesh and bloud but he will honor and worship him sitting at the right hand of his father and render vnto him from the botome of his hart all laud prayse and thankes for his mercifull redemption And as this is most true which S. Augustine sayth so is that most false which the Papistes would perswade vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacramentall bread and wine or any visible thing is to be worshipped in the Sacrament For S. Augustines mynd was so farre from any such thought that he forbiddeth vtterly to worship Christes owne flesh and bloud alone but in consideration and as they be annexed and ioyned to his diuinity How much lesse then could he thinke or allow that we should worship the Sacramentall bread and wine or any outward or visible Sacrament which be shadowes figures and representations of Christes flesh and bloud And S. Augustine was afrayd least in worshiping Christes very body we should offend therfore he biddeth vs when we worship Christ that we should not tarry and fixe our myndes vpon his flesh which of it self auayleth nothing but that we should lift vp our myndes from the flesh to the spirite which geueth lyfe and yet the Papistes be not afrayd by crafty meanes to induce vs to worship those thinges which be signes and sacraments of Christes body But what will not the shamelesse Papistes alleadge for theyr purpose when they be not ashamed to mayntayne the adoration of the Sacrament by these wordes of S. Augustine Wherin he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament but onely of Christ him selfe And although he say that Christ gaue his flesh to be eaten of vs yet he ment not that his flesh is here corporally present and corporally eaten but onely spiritually As his word declare playnly which follow in the same place where S. Augustine as it were in the person of Christ speaketh these wordes It is the spirite that giueth lyfe but the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken vnto you be spirite and life That which I haue spoken vnderstand you spiritually You shall not eate this body which you see and drincke that bloud which they shall shed that shall crucify me I haue commended vnto you a sacramēt vnderstand it spiritually and it shall geue you lyfe And although it must be visibly ministred yet it must be inuisibly vnderstand These wordes of S. Augustine with the other before recited do expresse his mynd playnly that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten than spiritually which spirituall eating requireth no corporal presence and that he entended not to teach here any adoration eyther of the visible sacramentes or of any thing that is corporally in them For in dede there is nothing really and corporally in the bread to be worshipped although the Papistes say that Christ is in euery consecrated bread Winchester As in the wrong report of S Augustine who speaking of the adoration of Christes flesh geuen to be eaten doth so fashion his speach as it can not with any violence be drawen to such an vnderstanding as though S. Augustine should meane of the adoring of Christes flesh in heauen as this author would haue it S. Augustine speaketh of the giuing of Christes flesh to vs to eate and declareth after that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament which must be inuisibly vnderstanded spiritually not as the Capernaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cut in peces and therfore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christes body after the manner he walked here nor drincke his bloud as it was shedde vpon the Crosse but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of godes worke supernaturall aboue mans vnderstanding and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall geue life which life carnall vnderstanding must nedes exclude And by these my wordes I thincke I declare truely S. Augustines meaning of the truth of this sacrament wherin Christ giueth truly his flesh to be eaten the flesh he spake of before taken of the virgine For the spirituall vnderstanding that S. Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truth of
sometimes in Scripture a thing is told after that was done before But S. Augustine saith not that it is so in this matter nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the three Euangelistes with S. Paule also disordered the truth of the story in a matter wherein the truth can not be knowen but by the order S. Augustine De consensu Euangelistarum saith That that which Luke rehearseth of the chalice before the giuing of the bread was spoken by Christ after the distribution of the bread as the other two Euangelistes report the same And if these woordes Hoc est corpus meum had bene put out of the right place in all the three Euangelistes and also in S. Paule would not S. Augustine haue giuen warning therof aswell as of the other And would all other authors expounding that place haue passed ouer the matter in silence and haue spoken not one word therof specially being a matter of such waight that the Catholicke faith and our saluatiō as you say hangeth therof Do not all the profes that you haue hang of these wordes Hoc est corpus meum This is my body And shall you say now that they be put out of their place And then you must needes confesse that you haue nothing to defend your selfe but onely one sentence and that put out of order and from his right place as you say your selfe where in deede the Euangelistes and Apostles being true rehearsers of the story in this matter did put those wordes in the right place But you hauing none other shift to defend your errour do remoue the wordes both out of the right place and the right sense And can any man that loueth the truth giue his eares to heare you that turne vp side downe both the order and sense of Christes wordes contrary to the true narration of the Euangelistes contrary to the interpretation of all the old authors and the approued faith of Christes Church euen from the beginning onely to mainteine your wilful assertions and Papisticall opinions So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of learned Diuines it had the right sence but when it came to the handling of ignoraūt Lawyers and Sophisticall Papistes such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture and old Catholicke writers might declare and defend the truth at their perils but the Papisticall Sophisters and Lawyers would euer define and determine all matters as pleased them But all truthes agree to the truth and falsehode agreeth not with it selfe so it is a playne declaration of vntruth that the Papistes varie so among themselues For some say that Christ consecrated by his owne secret power without signe or wordes some say that his benediction was his cōsecration some say that he did consecrate with these wordes Hoc est corpus meum and yet those vary among themselues for some say that he spake these wordes twise once immediatly after benediction at what tyme they say he consecrated and agayne after when he commaunded them to eate it appointyng than to his Apostles the forme of consecration And lately came new Papistes with their v. egges and say that the consecration is made onely with these v. wordes Hoc est enim corpus meum And last of all come you and Smith with yet your newer deuises saying that Christ spake those wordes before he gaue the bread immediatly after the breakyng manifestly contrary to the order of the text as all the Euangelistes report and contrary to all old authours of the Catholicke Church which all with one consent say that Christ gaue bread to his Apostles and contrary to the booke of Common prayer by you allowed which rehearseth the wordes of the Euangelistes thus that Christ tooke bread and when he had blessed and geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to his disciples where all the relation is made to the bread Is this your faythfull handling of Gods word for your pleasure to turne the wordes as you list Is it not a thing much to be lamented that such as should be the true setters fourth of Christes Gospell do trifle with Christes wordes after this sort to alter the order of the gospell after their owne phantasie Can there be any trifling with Christes wordes if this be not And shall any christen man geue credite to such corrupters of holy scripture Haue you put vpon you harlots faces that you be past all shame thus to abuse gods worde to your owne vanity And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to bely me that I phansy that the apostles should be so hasty to drincke or Christ had told them what he gaue where as by my wordes appeareth cleane contrary that they drancke not before all Christes wordes were spoken And where you say that Christ gaue that he had consecrated and that he made of bread here you graunt that Christes body which he gaue to his disciples at his last supper was made of bread And then it must folow that eyther Christ had two bodyes the one made of the flesh of the virgine Mary the other of bread or els that the selfe same body was made of two diuers matters and at diuers and sundry tymes Now what doctrine this is let them iudge that be learned And it is worthy a note how vnconstant they be that will take vppon them to defend an vntruth and how good memories they had nede to haue if they should not be taken with a lye For here you say that Christes body in the Sacrament is made of bread and in the xi comparison you sayd that this saying is so fond as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And where you say that S. Paule speaketh not of materiall bread but of Christes body when he sayth that we be partakers of one bread the wordes of the text be playne against you For he speaketh of the bread that is broken whereof euerye man taketh parte whiche is not Christes body excepte you wyll say that we eate Christes bodye deuided in peaces as the grose Capernaites imagined And S. Augustine with other olde authors do write that Paule spake of such bread as is made of a great multitude of graynes of corne gathered togither and vnited into one materiall lofe as the multitude of the spirituall members of Christ be ioyned to gither into one misticall body of Christ. And as concerning Theodorete and Chrisostome they say as playnly as can be spoken that the bread remayneth after consecration although we call it by a more excellent name of dignity that is to say by the name of Christes body But what estimation of wisedome or learning so euer you haue of yourselfe surely there appeareth neyther in you in this place whereuppon the alteration of the name of bread you would gather the alteration of the substaunce or Transubstantiation Be not kinges and
the bread and body of Christ to nothing in deed For the abstraction of accidentes from their proper substaunces and of substances frō their proper accidentes as you truely say in that poynt can not be practised in experience but is a corruptiō or adnihilatiō of both And where to excuse this absurdity that accidentes in the sacramental bread should be broken alone without any substaunce you bring in an other absurdity that in common bread the substaunce is not broken at all this is no taking away of the first absurdity but of one absurdity to make two as once I knew a man that when he had made a lye and perceiued that he was suspected by and by he would make two or three much greater lyes to excuse the first withall But if you should say that we break not the substaunce of bread at all it were no more vnlearnedly said in Philosophy then it is vntruely sayd in diuinity And where you say that you haue probable matter for you and I haue none for me it is cleane contrary For you haue vtterly nothing for you but all the whole world agaynst you if you say that the substaunce of common bread is not broken at all And I haue for me the very playne wordes of Christ of the Apostle of the Euangelistes The bread which wee breake sayth S. Paule And Christ took bread and brake it say the three Euangelistes But there is no bread say you nor no substaunce of bread is broken And this probable matter haue you for your selfe if men will beleue your selfe alone better then the Apostle and the Euangelistes And what should you talke in vayn of substaunce alone to dasle the eies of the ignoraunt when there is no such thing nor neuer was sithens the world began and seing your question in that place is of common breade where the substaunce is neuer alone without accidentes And if the substaunce of bread might be alone yet your reason agaynst the breaking of it is so far from all reason that it should proue aswell that the substaunce ioined to the quantity and accidentes cannot be broken as the substaunce alone For in euery peece of bread is a whole substaunce and then by your argument it cannot be broken And where you graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges but it is done by a spiritual miracle this is but a cloud to darken the light For accidents to be without substaunces is not onely agaynst the cōmon course of natural things but also against the very nature of accidentes which haue none other being but in substaunces as they be defyned accidentis esse estinesse and is also against all philosophy reason and working of god sithens the world begā For God neuer created nor made with miracle nor without miracle substaunces without accidentes nor accidents without substaunces as some vaynely phantasy de materia prima It is agaynst also the doctrine of the old catholicke authors for neuer none wrote that accidentes were without substaunces vntill the Bishop of Rome with his Monkes and Fryers defyned the contrary But note well here good reader the end of wit when it is not stayd by Gods word but shooteth at rouers or runneth at large as it were a young colte without a bridle That nothing is broken but the accidentes this is denied Then would I fayne learne of this great wise man that so well can disseuer substaunces from accidentes what substaunce it is that is broken Not the body of Christ sayth he for that is whole in euery part nor the bread is not broken sayth he for our fayth teacheth vs contrary then must it be either Christes diuinity or soule that is broken or els is some other substance there which neuer man heard of before Note also good reader how well this author agreeth with himselfe which within a little compasse denieth so many thinges and affirmeth the same agayne For first he sayth that to seperate substaunces from the accidentes is to bring it to nothing and yet he seperateth from their accidents as well the substaunces of bread and wine as of the body of Christ. Before he sayd that nothing was broken but the accidēts now he denieth it Before he sayth the body of Christ is not broken and shortly after he sayth that which is broken is no bread but the body of Christ. And here it appereth how falsehood neyther agreeth with truth nor with it selfe And where you alleadge that in the booke of Common prayer it is set forth how in ech part of that is brokē of the consecrated bread is the whol body of our sauiour Christ what coulde you haue alleadged more agaynst your selfe For if the consecrated bread bee broken in partes how can you aunswere truely by fayth as a beleuing man which aunswere you make streight wayes after that that which is broken is no breade And if you would aunswere as you be wont to doe that the accidentes of bread bee called bread yet that collusiō will not serue you in this place For seing that this place speaketh of consecrated bread aūswere me to this whether the substaunce or accidence be consecrated And if you say the accidentes then for as much as consecration by your doctrine is conuertion it must follow that the accidents of bread bee conuerted and not the substaunce and so should you call it Transaccidentation and not Transubstantiation and if you say that the substaunce of bread is consecrated then for asmuch as that which is consecrated is deuided into partes and in euery part is the whole body of Christ you must confesse that the substaunce of bread remaineth with the partes thereof wherein is receiued the body of Christ. But yet will you say peraduenture that although this make agaynst Transubstantiation yet it proueth the reall presence of Christes body seeing that it is whole in euery part of the bread It is whole in deed in euery part of the bread deuided as it is in the whole bread vndeuided which is sacramentally not really corporally carnally and naturally as you fayne and imagine would cōstrayn other to beleue And fayth denieth not the bread but teacheth it to remayne as a sacrament And calling of it Christs body is not making of it to be really so no more then the calling of the blessed virgin Iohns mother made not her to be naturally so in deed nor him to be her sonne For although Christs words effectually spokē be an effectuall making yet his wordes sacramentally and figuratiuely spoken declare not the figure or sacrament to be indeed the thing that is signified And if the rude and simple people vnderstand not substaunce from accidentes as you here affirme then this thing they may at the least wise vnderstand how little they be beholden to you Papysts that would bynd them to beleue vnder perill of damnation such thinges as they bee not able to vnderstand making articles of theyr
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.
Theodoretus Hieronimus Hieroni. in Esaiam cap. 66. Hieron in Malachiam cap. 1. Chap. 8. Figures be called by the names of the thinges which they signify Eusebius Emissenus in sermo de Eucharistia Emissenus The Catechisme Emesserie Corporall Reuerend aultar Hieronimus in MalachiaÌ„ ca. 1. Chap 9. The adoration in the sacrameÌ„t De adoratione lege Rossen Occol lib. 3. ca. 4. 5. The simple people be deceaued Adoration What true adoration is August in psal 98. Augustinus August in psal 98. Iohn 6. August de doctri christiana li. 3. cap. 4. Hieroni. ad Ephesios 1. Cor. 16. Spirituall body Mat. 17. Luc. 14. Ioh. 20. Ioh. 20. 1. Cor. 10. Luc. 22. .1 Cor. 10 Truely Really Corporally â—heâ—â— Genes 28 Math. 6. 1. Cor 11. Luc. 22. Humiliation Phil. 2. Saynt Augustines doctrine is necessary Psal. 99. Heb. 10. Heb. 6. Ambrosius de spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. Math. 28. Luc. 2. Math. 2. Math. 24. Math. 24. Chap. 10. They be the papistes that haue deceaued the people Innocentius tertius Honorius tertius Cap. 11. An exhortation to the â—rew honoring of Christ in the Sacrament Zuinglius Papistes were the Authors of Transubstantiation The counsayle in England Iohn 6. Reall presence proueth no Transubstantiation I erred once in this matter Act â— Chap. 1. The confutation of the errour of TransubstaÌ„tiation Chap. 2. The papistiente doctrine is contrary to Gods word Math. 16. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10. Math 16. Math. 16. Marc. 14. Luc. 11. Math. 16. Marc. 14. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 10. Augustine lib. 3 cap. 36. The creatioÌ„ of the world This is no bread Iohn 19. 1. Cor. 10. 11. Yea and nay 2. Re. 17. Hilary 1. Cor. 10. Breaking signifieth the whole vse of the supper Rom. 4. Whether all the Euangelists told the history of the supper out of order August de consensu Euangelistarum lib. 3. Luc. 22. Math. 26. Marc. 14. The variance of the papists in consecration Smith Christes body made of bread 1. Cor. 10. Chrisostome Theodorete Alteration of names vnto dignity Psal. 81. Bread after the sanctification 1. Cor. 10. 2. Cor. 11. Chap. 3. The papisticall doctrine is agaynst reason Conclusions of reason Reode Smith fol. 64. Act. 10. Iohn 20. Luc. 24. Iohn 20. Luc. 24. The worde Forme Philip. 2. Impanation Ulpian Emissen 1. Pet. 3. Tit. 1. Luc. 1. Miracles Chap. 4. The papisticall doctrine is also agaynst all our sences Ihon. 20. Contrarium habetur in libro vocato The deuiles sophistry fol. 6.10.11 12.15.21 Coena Calcidensi hospitis Liuâ—us in 5. de bello Macedonico Homel 26. The rude man learned scholler Absurdityes Luc. vit Substance 1. Cor. 15. Accidents A Lapidarie Theodoretus Origene Gelasius Thomas Luc. vit Ioh. 20. Gregorius homel 16. Phil. 2. Plautus in Amphitrione Chap. 5. The Papisticall doctrine is contrary to the fayth of the olde authors of christes church Iustinus martyr Iustinus An issue Myne Issue Myne Issue Irenaeus contra Valentinum li. 4. cap. 34. Origenes in Math. Cap. 15. Origene Origene Ciprian ad Cecili li. 2. epist. 3. Math. â—â— Ciprian Eusebus Emissenus De conscer Distinction 2. quia Emissene An Issue Turning Emissenus minde Conuersion The booke of common prayer Absurdities Hilarius Hilarius Epiphanius coÌ„tra haereses lib. 3. to 2. et in Anacephaleosi Chrisosto in Math. ca. 27. Ho. 83. Ad Cesarium Monachum Chrisostâ—m The word Nature hath two significations Changing of names Ciprian The word Nature Ambrosius De ijs `qui misterijs initiantur cap. vlt. de sacramentis li. 4. cap. 4. Ambrosius Psalm 50. Augustinus in sermone ad infantes In lib. sententiarum Prosperi Augustinus Out of the master of the sentenses and decrees The booke of S. Augustine de suis prosperi is not coÌ„monly had The master of the sentences hath these wordes of S. Augustine How bread is Christes body Ciprianus de vnctione chrismatis De consecrat di 2. Hoc est Similitudes may not be pressed in at poynts but in the purpose wherfore they be brought Luc. 16. The fayth of the reall preseÌ„ce in the formes is vnprofitable vncomfortable Iohn 6. The profit and comfort of the true doctrine Two examples of the two natures in Christ one in a maÌ„ the other in the Sacrament Spirituall flesh Iraeneus contra ValeÌ„tinia lib. 5. A sleight Chrisostom ad Caesarium Monachum Chrisostomus A figure requireth not the presence of the thing that is signified Rom. 6. Lactantius institu lib. 2. Capi. 1. Ihon. 1. 1. Iohn 4. Gelasius contra Eutichen Nestorium Gelasius Nature Personne Subsistence Substaunce August contra hereses Gelasius aduersus Eutychen Nestorium Gelasius writeth as well agaynst Nestorius as Eutiches Alius Aliud A comparison of Nestorius Cyrill Presence by fayth requireth no corporal presence Gala. 3. Ihon. 8. 1. Cor. 10 Lactantius institut lib. 2. c. 1. Substaunce or nature Nature for propertie Theodoretus in dialogis Theodorete Confusion of natures Not. Chap. 6. Transubstantiation came from Rome Scotus super 4. sen. distinct 11. Gabriel super Canonè missae lect 40. Chap. 7. Chap. 8. The first reasoÌ„ of the Papists to proue their Transubtantiation Math. 26. Mar. 14. Lue. 22. The answere The aunswere more directly Read Smith fol 91. c. Chap. 9. The second argument for traÌ„substantiation The aunswer Math. 3. Mark 1. Luc. 3. Ihon. 1. Ihon. 19. Ihon. 1. Adnihilation Math. 26. Chap. 10. The third reason Iohn 6. The aunswere Iohn 6. Iohn 6. Cyrill Ihon. 6. Cap 11. Authors wrested by the Papistes for their transubstantiation Cyprianns de coena nomini The aunswerr Cyprianus Infudir Smyth vseth the word powring Pouring Infusion Ciprians meaning Spirituall Chap. 22. Chrisostomus The answer Negatiues by comparison 1. Reg. â— 1. Cor. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 1. Cor. 3. Gala. 2. Gala. 6. Ephe. 6. 1. Cor. 1. Rom. 15. 1. Cor. 11. 2. Cor. 11. 12. Gal. 5. 1. Pet. 3. Math. 6. Math. 10. Math. 10. Math. 23. a. Math. 23. b. Math. 10. c. Math. 10. d. Math. 10. e. Iohn 4. f. Iohn 5. g. Iohn 7. h. Iohn 8. Iohn 5. Gala. 3. Chrysostomus Chrisostomus Chap. 13. Ambros. de ijs qui misterijs initiantur Exod. 7. Exod. 7. Exo. 14. Exo. 17. Exo. 15. 4. Reg. 6. Psal. 148â— The aunswere Lib. 4. de sacramentis cap. 4. Ambrosius Chaunges of things the substances remayning Holy bread Uisible matter Formes Calling Making Chap. 14. Absurdities that follow of Transubstantiation Basilius hom 1. exhameron The booke of CommoÌ„ praier SubstaÌ„ces can not be without accidentes 1. Cor. 10. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. The booke of common prayer Distin. 40. Si Papa Schoole authors Simple and playne doctrine Really corporally naturally Smyth Smith Bread and no bread Theodoretus Chrisostomus Why the names of the sacraments be chaunged Our thing one substaunce Irenaeus The meaning of Irene and other Iohn 6. Ephe. 5. The wonder in the Sacramentes Gal. â— The sacrifice of our sauior christ was neuer taught to be reiterate
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
although it was the selfe same Christ in nature But we say that he did eat drinke sleepe labour and sweat talke and speake naturally not bicause onely of his nature but bicause the maner and fashion of doing was such as we vse to do Likewise when Iesus passed through the people and they saw him not he was not then sensibly and visibly among them their eyes being letted in such sort that they could not see and perceaue him And so in all the rest of your aduerbes the speach admitteth not to say that Christ is there substancially corporally carnally and sensibly where he is not after a substanciall corporall carnall and sensuall forme and maner This the husband man at his plough and his wife at her rock is able to iudge and to condemne you in this poynt and so can the boyes in the gramer schole that you speake neither according to the english tonge grammer nor reason when you say that these wordes and aduerbes sensibly corporally and naturally do not signifie a corporall sensible and naturall maner I haue bene here somewhat long and tedious but the reader must pardon me for this subtill and euill deuise of your owne brayne without ground or authoritie contayneth such absurdities and may cast such mistes before mens eies to blind them that they should not see that I am constrayned to speake thus much in this matter and yet more shall do if this suffice not But this one thing I wonder much at that you being so much vsed and accustomed to lye do not yet know what lye meaneth But at length in this mater when you see none other shift you be faine to flye to the church for your shotte anker And yet it is but the Romish church For the olde first Church of Christ is cleerely agaynst you And Origen sayth not as you do that to vnderstand the sayd wordes of Christ spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church but to vnderstand them spiritually is to vnderstand them otherwise then the wordes sound for he that vnderstādeth them after the letter sayth Origen vnderstandeth them carnally and that vnderstanding hurteth and destroyeth For in playne vnderstanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure Christes flesh cannot be eaten nor his bloud dronken Next followeth in order S. Cyprian of whom I write thus And likewise ment Ciprian in those places which the aduersaries of the truth allege of him concerning the true eating of Christes very flesh and drinking of his bloud For Ciprian spake of no grose and carnall eating with the mouth but of an inward spirituall and pure eating with hart and mind which is to beleue in our hartes that his flesh was rent and torne for vs vpon the crosse and his bloud shed for our redemption and that the same flesh and bloud now sitteth at the right hand of the father making continuall intercession for vs and to imprint and digest this in our mindes putting our whole affiance and trust in him as touching our saluation and offering our selues clearly vnto him to loue and serue him all the dayes of our life This is truely sincerely and spiritually to eat his flesh and to drincke his bloud And this sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was that oblatiō which Cipriā sayth was figured and signified before it was done by the wine which Noe dranke and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gaue to Abraham and by many other figures which S. Cyprian there reherseth And now when Christ is come and hath accomplished that sacrifice the same is figured signified and represēted vnto vs by that bread and wine which faythfull people receaue dayly in the holy communion Wherin like as with their mouthes carnally they eate the breade and drincke the wine so by their fayth spiritually they eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud And hereby it apeareth that S. Ciprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine and is wholy vpon our side And agaynst the papistes he teacheth most playnly that the Communion ought to be receaued of all men vnder both kindes and that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that there is not transubstantiation but that bread remayneth there as a figure to represent Christes body and wine to represent his bloud and that those which be not the liuely members of Christ do eat the bread and drincke the wine and be not nourished by them but the very flesh and bloud of Christ they neither eate nor drincke Thus haue you declared the mynd of S. Cyprian Winchester As touching Ciprian this author maketh an exposition of his owne deuise which he would haue taken for an answer vnto him Where as Ciprian of all other like as he is auncient within 250. yeares of Christ so did he write very openly in the matter and therfore Melancthon in his epistle to Decolampadius did chuse him for one whose words in the affirmation of Christes true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguitie And like iudgement doth Hippinus in his book before alleaged geue of Cyprianus faith in the sacrament which two I allege to counteruayle the iudgement of this author who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him playing with the words grosse and carnall and vsing the word represent as though it expressed a figure only Hippinus in the sayd booke alleadgeth Cyprian to say Lib 3. ad Quirinum that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh meaning as Hipinus sayth Eucharistiam wherin S Augustin as Hippinus saith further in the praier for his mother speaking of the bread and wine of Eucharistia sayth that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice whereby was cancelled the byl obligatory that was agaynst vs. And further Hippinus sayth that the olde men called the bread and wine of our Lordes supper a sacrifice an host and oblation for that specially because they beleued taught the true body of Christ and his true bloud to be destribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia and as S. Augustin sayth ad Ianuarium to enter in be receiued with the mouth of them that eat These be Hippinus very words who because he is I thinke in this authors opinion taken for no Papist I rather speake in his words then in myne owne whom in an other part of this worke this author doth as it were for charity by name sclaunder to be a Papist Wherfore the sayd Hippinus wordes shal be as I thinke more weighty to oppresse this authors talke then mine be and therfore howsoeuer this author handleth before the wordes of S. Cyprian De vnctione chrismatis and the word shewing out of his epistles yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certayne otherwise as those places shall need no further aunswere of me here hauing brought forth the iudgement of Hippinus Melancton how they vnderstand S. Cyprians fayth which thou reader oughtest to regard
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
Now the sacrifice of the church coÌ„sisteth of two thinges of the sacrament and of the thing thereby signified that is to say the body of Christ. Therfore there is both the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament which is Christes body What can be deuised to be spoken more playnly agaynst the error of the Papistes which say that no bread nor wine remayneth in the sacrament For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures that is to say of his manhod and of his godhead and therfore both those natures remayne in Christ euen so sayth S. Augustine the sacrament consisteth of two natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures must nedes remayne in the sacrament For the more playne vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that there were certayne heretikes as Simon Menander Martion Valentinus Basilides Cerdon Manes Eutiches Manichaeus Apolinaris and Diuers other of like sortes which sayd that Christ was very God but not a very man although in eating drinking sleeping and all other operations of man to mens iudgementes he appeared like vnto a man Other there were as Artemon Theodorus Sabellius Paulus Samasathenus Marcellus Photinus Nestorius and many other of the same sectes which sayd that he was a very naturall man but not very God although in geuing the blind their sight the dumbe their speach the deafe their hearing in healing sodenly with his word all diseases in raysing to life them that were dead and in all other workes of God he shewed himselfe as he had bene God Yet other there were which seeing the scripture so plaine in those two matters confessed that he was both God and man but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation sayd they he was God onely and not man and after his incarnation he ceased from his Godhead and became a man onely and not God vntill his resurrection or ascension and then say they he left his manhod and was onely God agayne as he was before his incarnation So that when he was manne he was not God and when he was God he was not man But agaynst these vayne heresies the Catholike fayth by the expresse word of God holdeth and beleueth that Christ after his incarnation left not his diuine nature ' but remayned still God as he was before being togither at one tyme as he is still both perfect God and perfect man And for a playne declaration hereof the old auncient authors giue two examples one is of man which is made of two partes of a soule and of a body and ech of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that when the soule by the almighty power of god is put in to the body neither the body nor soule perisheth therby but therof is made a perfect man hauing a perfect soule and a perfect body remayning in him both at one tyme. The other example which the olde authors bring in for this purpose is of the holy Snpper of our Lord which consisteth say they of two partes of the sacrament or visible element of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receaue the sacrament the very natures of bread and wine ceasse not to be there but remayne there still and be eaten and drunken corporally as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually so likewise doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne still with his humanity Let now the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation that there remayneth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the Sacrament if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehersed that Christ is not God and man both togither But to proue that this was the mynd of the old authors beside the saying of S. Augustine here recited I shall also reherse diuers other Winchester In the 26. leafe this author bringeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which when this author wrote it is like he neither thought of the third or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare most euidently the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament affirming the same to be the sacrifice of the church wherby appeareth it is no figure onely In the first saying of S. Augustine is written thus how fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ now whatsoeuer fayth sheweth is a truth and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ which speach bread is the body of Christ is as much to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissene wrote by conuersion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ and as S. Augustine in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the flesh of Christ. As for the second saying of S. Augustine how could it with more playne wordes be written then to say that there is both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament which is Christes body calling the same the sacrifice of the church Now if Christes body be there it is truely there and in dede there which is really there as for there in a figure were as much to say as not there in truth and indede but onely signified to be absent which is the nature of a figure in his proper and speciall speach But S. Augustine sayth euen as the author bringeth him forth and yet he gaue his priuy nippe by the way thus It is sayd of S. Augustine there be two thinges in the sacrifice which be conteyned in it wherof it consisteth so as the body of Christ is conteined in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynd According whereunto S. Augustine is alleadged to say in the same booke from whence this author tooke this saying also these wordes following vnder the kindes of bread and wine which we see we honor thinges inuisible that is to say the flesh and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did before the consecration for we must faythfully confesse before the consecration to be bread and wine that nature formed and after consecration the flesh and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath consecrate Thus sayth S. Augustine as he is alleadged out of the booke which in deede I haue not but he hath the like sence in other places and for honoring of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the side and reall presence S. Augustine hath the like in his booke De Catâ—chisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader how this author concludeth himselfe in the fayth of the reall presence of Christes body by his owne collection of S. Augustine mynd which is as he confesseth in his owne wordes noting S. Augustine that as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures
is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do when he sayth it is vinificum which can be onely sayd of the very body and bloud of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of laudes and thankesgeuing cannot be sayd a pure and cleane Sacrifice whereby to fulfill the prophecy of Malachy and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church vnderstanded to be spoken of the dayly offering of the body and bloud of Christ for the memory of Christes death according to Christes ordinaunce in his supper as may at more length be opened and declared Thinking to the effect of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chiefe poyntes of the authors doctrine with such contradiction to thē as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessity require the more particuler confutation of that is vntrue on the aduersary part and confirmation of that is true in the Catholique doctrine requiring more tyme and leysure then I haue now and therefore offering my selfe ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shal be required I shall here end for this time with prayer to almighty God to graunt his truth to be acknowledged and confessed and vniformely to be preached and beleued of al so as all contention for vnderstanding of religion auoyded which hindereth Charity we may geue suche light abroad as men may see our good workes and glorify our father who is in heauen with the sonne and holy ghost in one vnity of godhead reigning without end Amen Caunterbury HIpinus sayth that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not beleue that Hipinus so sayd vntill you appoint me both the booke and place where he so sayth For the effect of his booke is cleane contrary which he wrote to reproue the propitiatory sacrifice which the Papistes fayne to be in the Masse Thus in deede Hipinus writeth in one place Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis sanguinis Christipraesentiam primo vocauerunt sacrificium deinde propter oblationes munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur conferebantur ad sacraministeria ad necessitatem credentium In which wordes Hipinus declareth that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two consideratiōs one was for the present of Christes flesh and bloud the other was for the offerynges which the people gaue there of their deuotion to the holy ministratiō and reliefe of the poore But Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporall presence nor of propitiatory Sacrifice but generally of presence and sacrifice which maketh nothyng for your purpose nor agaynst me that graunt both a presence and a sacrifice But when you shall shew me the place where Hipinus sayth that the old Fathers called the Lordes Supper a propitiatory sacrifice I shall trust you the better and him the worse And as for Cyrill if you will say of his head that the Sacrifice of the Church giueth life how agreeth this with your late saying that the sacrifice of the Church increaseth lyfe as the sacrifice on the Crosse giueth lyfe And if the Sacrifice made by the Priest both geue lyfe and encrease lyfe then is the Priest both the mother and nurse and Christ hath nothyng to do with vs at all but as a straunger And the sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is the sacrifice laud and thankes which all deuoute Christian people geue vnto God whether it be in the Lordes Supper in their priuate Prayers or in any worke they do at any tyme or place to the glory of God all which Sacrifices not of the Priestes onely but of all faythfull people be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ by whose bloud all their filthy and vnpurenes is cleane sponged away But in this last booke it seemeth you were so astonied and amased that you were at your wits end wist not where to become For now the Priest maketh a Sacrifice propitiatory now he doth not now he giueth lyfe now he giueth none now is Christ the full Sauiour and satisfaction now the Priest hath halfe part with him now the Priest doth all And thus you are so inconstant in your selfe as one that had bene netteled and could rest in no place or rather as one that had receaued such a stroke vpon his head that hee staggered with all and reeled here and there and could not tell where to become And your doctrine hath such ambiguities such perplexities such absurdities and such impieties in it and is so vncertaine so vncomfortable so contrary to Gods word and the old Catholicke Church so contrary to it selfe that it declareth from whose spirite it commeth which can be none other but Antichrist him selfe Where as on the other side the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure Church from the begynnyng is playne certaine without wrynkels without any inconuenience or absurditie so chearefull and comfortable to all Christen people that it must needes come from the spirite of God the spirite of truth and all consolation For what ought to be more certaine and knowen to all Christen people then that Christ dyed once and but once for the redemption of the world And what can be more true then that his onely death is our lyfe And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner that is sory for his sinne and returneth to God in his hart and whole mynde then to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heauy lode of his sinne and taketh the burden vpon his owne backe And if we shall ioyne the Priest herein to Christ in any part and giue a portion hereof to his sacrifice as you in your doctrine giue to the priest the one halfe at the least what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner that he may not hang wholly vpon Christ what perplexities and doubtes rise hereof in the sinners conscience And what an obscuryng and darkenyng is this of the benefite of Christ Yea what iniury and contumely is it to him And furthermore when we heare Christ speake vnto vs with his own mouth and shew him selfe to be seen with our eyes in such sorte as is conuenient for him of vs in this mortall lyfe to be heard and sene what comfort can we haue more The Minister of the Churche speaketh vnto vs Gods owne wordes whiche we must take as spoken from Gods owne mouth because that from his mouth it came and his word it is and not the Ministers Likewise when he ministreth to our sightes Christes holy Sacramentes we must thinke Christ crucified and presented before our eyes because the Sacraments so represent him and be his Sacraments and not the Priestes As in Baptisme we must thinke that as the Priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly and washeth him with water so must we thinke that God putteth to his hand inwardly and washeth the infant with his holy spirite and