corporal manducation of his most holy flesh and drincking of his most precious bloud which he gaue in his supper vnder the formes of bread and wine Caunterbury THis is the third euident and manifest vntruth whereof you note me And because you say that in citing of S. Augustin in this place I handle not the matter so sincerely as it requireth let here be an issue between you and me which of vs both doth hādle this matter more sincerely and I will bring such manifest euidence for me that you shall not be able to open your mouth against it For I alledge S. Augustine iustly as he speaketh adding nothing of my selfe The wordes in my booke be these Of these wordes of Christ it is plain and manifest that the eating of Christs body and drincking of his bloud is not like to the eating and drinking of other meates and drinkes For although without meat and drinke man cannot liue yet it followeth not that he that eateth and drinketh shall liue for euer But as touching this meate and drinke of the body and bloud of Christ it is true both he that eateth and drinketh them hath euerlasting life And also he that eateth and drinketh them not hath not euerlasting life For to eate that meate and drinke that drink is to dwell in Christ and to haue Christ dwelling in him and therfore no man can say or think that he eateth the body of Christ or drinketh his bloud except he dwelleth in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in him Thus haue you heard of the eating and drinking of the very fleshe and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. Thus alleadge I S. Augustin truely without adding any thing of mine own head or taking any thing away And what sleight I vsed is easy to iudge for I cite directly the places that euery man may see whether I say true or noe And if it be not true quarrell not with me but with S. Augustine whose wordes I onely rehearse And that which S. Augustine sayeth spake before him S. Ciprian and Christ himselfe also plainlye inough vpon whose wordes I thought I might be as bold to build a true doctrine for the setting forth of Gods glory as you may be to peruert both the words of Ciprian and of Christ him selfe to stablish a false doctrine to the high dishonor of God and the corruption of his most true word For you adde this word worthely wherby you gather such an vnworthy meaning of S. Augustines wordes as you list your self And the same you doe to the very words of Christ him selfe who speaketh absolutely and plainly without adding of any such word as you put thereto What sophistry this is you know well inough Now if this be permitted vnto you to adde what you list and to expound how you list then you may say what you list without controlment of any man which it seemeth you looke for And not of like sort but of like euilnes doe you handle in reprehending of my seconde vntruth as you call it an other place of S. Augustine in his booke de doctrina Christiana where he sayth that the eating and drinkinge of Christes flesh and bloud is a figuratiue speach which place you expound so farre from S. Augustines meaning that who soeuer looketh vpon his wordes may by and by discern that you do not or wil not vnderstand him But it is most like the words of him being so plain and easy that purposely you will not vnderstand him nor nothing els that is against your will rather then you will goe from any part of your will and receaued opinion For it is plain and cleare that S. Augustine in that place speaketh not one worde of the separation of the two natures in Christ and although Christs flesh be neuer so surely and inseparably vnited vnto his Godhead without which vnion it could profite nothing yet being so ioyned it is a very mans flesh the eating wherof after the proper speech of eating is horrible and abominable Wherfore the eating of Christes flesh must needes be otherwise vnderstanded then after the proper and common eatinge of other meates with the mouth which eating after such sort could auayle nothing And therefore S. Augustine in that place declareth the eating of Christes fleshe to be onely a figuratiue speach And he openeth the figure so as the eatinge must be ment with the minde not with the mouth that is to say by chawing and digesting in our mindes to our great consolation and profite that Christ dyed for vs. Thus doth S. Augustine open the figure and meaning of Christ when he spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud And his flesh being thus eaten it must also be ioyned vnto his diuinitie or els it could not geue euerlasting life as Cyrill and the councell Ephesin truly decreed But S. Augustine declared the figuratiue speech of Christ to be in the eating not in the vnion And where as to shift of the playn words of Christ spoken in the sixt of Iohn he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him you say that dwelling in Christ is not the manducation You say herein directly against S. Cyprian who saith quod mansio nostra in ipso sit manducatio that our dwelling in him is the eating And also against S. Augustine whose wordes be these Hoc est ergo manducare escam illam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere This is to eat that meat and drinke that drinke to dwell in Christ to haue Christ dwelling in him And although the eating and drinking of Christ be here defined by the effect for the very eating is the beleeuing yet where so euer the eating is the effect must be also if the definition of S. Augustine be truely geuen And therfore although good bad eate carnally with their teeth bread being the Sacrament of Christes body yet no man eateth his very flesh which is spiritually eaten but he that dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him And where in the end you referre the Reader to the declaration of Christes wordes it is an euill sequele you declare Christes wordes thus Ergo they be so ment For by like reason might Nestorius haue preuayled against Cyrill Arrius agaynst Alexander and the Pope against Christ. For they al proue their errors by the doctrine of Christ after their own declarations as you doe here in your corporall manducation But of the manducation of Christs flesh I haue spoken more fully in my fourth booke the second third and fourth chapters Now before I answere to the fourth vntruth which I am appeached of I will reherse what I haue said in the matter and what fault you haue found my booke hath thus Now as touching the Sacramentes of the same our Sauiour Christ did institute them in bread wine at his last Supper which
learne vs And yet these sayd wordes limit not the mistery of the supper for as much as that mistery of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud extendeth further then the supper and continueth so long as we be liuely membres of Christes body For none feede nor be nourished by him but that be liuely members of his body and so long and no longer feede they of him then they be his true membres and receaue life from him For feeding of him is to receaue life But this is not that inuisible sacrament which you say S. Augustin speaketh of in sermone Domini in monte the iij booke For he calleth there the dayly bread which we continually pray for eyther corporall bread and meate which is our dayly sustenaunce for the body or els the visible sacrament of bread and wine or the inuisible sacrament of gods word and cōmaundementes of the which sacramentes gods word is dayly heard and the other is dayly seene And if by the inuisible sacrament of goddes word S. Augustine ment our norishment by Christes flesh and bloud than be we nourished with them as well by gods word as by the sacrament of the lordes supper But yet who so euer tolde you that S. Augustine wrote this in the iij. booke de sermone Domini in monte trust him not much hereafter for he dyd vtterly deceaue you For S. Augustine wrote no more but .ij. bookes de sermone Domine in monte and if you can make iij. of ij as you do here and one of iiij as you dyd before in the substances of Christ you be a meruailouse auditour and then had all men neede to beware of your accomptes least you deceaue them And you cannot lay the fault here in the Printer for I haue seen it written so both by your own hand and by the hand of your secretary Now when you haue wrangled in this matter as much as you can at length you confesse the truth that who so feedeth vpon Christ spiritually must needes be a good man for only good men be membres of Christes misticall body which spirituall eating is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessarelye to be good And therfore it must be and is a certaine conclusion that onely good menne doe eate and drinke the bodye and bloude of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to lyfe This you write in conclusion and this is the very doctrine that I teache and in the same tearmes marry I adde therto that the eating of Christes body is a spirituall eating and the drinking of his bloud is a spirituall drinkyng and therfore no euill man can eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud as this my forth booke teacheth and is necessary to be writen For although neither good nor euell men eate Christes body in the sacrament vnder the visible signes in the which he is not but sacramentally yet the good feede of him spiritually being inhabiting spiritually within them although corporally he be absent and in heauen but the euell men neither feede vpon him corporally nor spiritually from whom he is both the sayd wayes absent although corporally they eate and drinke with theyr mouthes the sacramentes of his body and bloud Now where you note here three manner of eatinges and yet but two manner of eatinges of Christ this your noting is very true if it be truly vnderstand For there be in dede three maner of eatinges one spirituall onely an other spiritual and sacramentall both together the third sacramentall only and yet Christ him selfe is eaten but in the first two manner of waies as you truely teache And for to set out this distinctiō somewhat more playnly that playne menne may vnderstand it it may thus be tearmed That there is a spirituall eating only when Christ by a true fayth is eaten without the sacrament Also there is an other eating both spirituall and sacramental when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth and Christ him selfe is eaten with a true fayth The third eating is sacramentall only when the sacrament is eaten and not Christ himselfe So that in the fyrst is Christ eaten without the sacrament in the seconde he is eaten with the sacrament and in the thirde the sacrament is eaten without him and therfore it is called sacramentall eating onely bycause onely the sacramente is eaten and not Christ himselfe After the two first maner of wayes godly men do eate who feede and liue by Christ the thirde manner of wayes the wicked do eate and therfore as S. Augustine sayth they neither eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud although euery day they eat the sacrament therof to the condemnation of theyr presumption And for this cause also S. Paule sayth not He that eateth Christes body and drinketh his bloud vnworthely shall haue condemnation and be gilty of the Lordes body but he sayth he that eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely shal be giltie of the Lordes body and eateth and drinketh his owne damnation bycause he estemeth not the Lordes body And here you committe two fowle faultes One is that you declare S. Paule to speake of the body and bloud of Christ when he spake of the bread and wine The other fault is that you adde to S. Paules wordes this word there and so buylde your worke vpon a foundation made by your owne selfe And where you say that if my doctrine be true neyther good men nor euill eate but the sacramentall bread it can be none other but very frowardnes and mere wilfulnes that you will not vnderstand that thinge which I haue spoken so playnly repeted so many tymes For I say that good men eat the Lordes body spiritually to theyr eternall nourishment where as euyl men eat but the bread carnally to their eternall punishment And as you note of S. Augustine that baptisme is very well called health and the sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in which God gyueth health and lyfe if we worthely vse them so is the sacramentall bread very well called Christes body and the wine his bloud as in the ministration wherof Christ geueth vs his flesh and bloude if we worthely receaue them And where you teach how the workes of God in them selues be alway true and vniforme in all men without diuersitie in good and euill in worthy and vnworthy you bring in this misticall matter here clearly without purpose or reason farre passyng the capacitie of simple readers onely to blinde their eyes withall By which kynde of teaching it is all one worke of God to saue and to damne to kill and to gyue lyfe to hate and to loue to elect and to reiect and to be short by this kinde of doctrine God and all his workes be one without diuersite eyther of one worke from an other or of his workes from his substaunce And by this meanes it is all one worke of God in baptisme and in the Lordes supper
Eucharistia nourisheth our flesh and bloud by alteration which they could not do if no bread wine nor water were there at all But here is not to be passed ouer one exceeding great craft and vntruth in your translation that to cast a mist before the readers eyes you alter the order of Iustines wordes in that place where the pith of the matter standeth For where Iustine sayth of the foode of bread wine and water after the consecration that they nourish our flesh and bloud by alteration the nourishment which Iustine putteth after consecration you vntruly put it before the consecration and so wilfully and craftely alter the order of Iustinus wordes to deceaue the reader and in this poynt will I ioyne an issue with you Is such craft and vntruth to be vsed of Bishoppes and then in matters of fayth and religion wherof they pretend and ought to be true professors But I meruayle not so much at your sleights in this place seeing that in the whole booke through out you seeke nothing lesse then the truth And yet all your sleightes will not serue you for how can the foode called Eucharistia nourish before the consecration seeing it is not eaten vntill after the consecration The next author in my booke is Irene whome I alleadge thus Next him was Irenaeus aboue 150. yeares after Christ who as it is supposed could not be deceaued in the necessary poyntes of our fayth for he was a disciple of Policarpus which was disciple to S. Ihon the Euangelist This Irenaeus followeth the sense of Iustinus wholy in this matter and almost also his wordes saying that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of God is called vpon it it is not than common bread but the bread of thankes geuing hauing two thinges in it one earthly and the other heauenly What ment he by the heauenly thing but the sanctification which cōmeth by the inuocation of the name of God And what by the earthly thing but the very bread which as he sayd before is of the earth and which also he sayth doeth nourish our bodies as other bread doth which we do vse Winchester Next Iustine is Irene in the allegation of whome this author maketh also an vntrue reporte how hath not this for mē of wordes in the forth booke contra Valentinum that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of god is called vpon it is not thru common bread but the bread of thankes giuing hauing two thinges in it one earthly and the other heauenly This is Irene alleadged by this author who I say writeth not in such forme of wordes For his wordes be these Like as the bread which is of the earth receauing the calling of God is now no common bread but Eucharistia consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly so our bodies receauing Eucharistian be no more corruptible These be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receauing the calling of God the bread of thankes giuing but Eucharistia and in this Eucharistia he sheweth how that that he calleth the heauenly thinges is the body and bloud of Christ and therfore sayth in his fift booke When the chalice mixt and the bread broken receaue the word of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased And how say they that our flesh is not able to receaue gods gift who is eternall life which flesh is nourished with the body and bloud of Christ These be also Irenes wordes wherby appeareth what he ment by the heauenly thing in Eucharistia which is the very presence of Christes body and bloud And for the playne testimony of this fayth this Irene hath bene commonly alleadged and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius as one most auncient and most playnly testifying the same So as his very wordes truly alleadged ouerthrow this author in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament and therfore can nothing help this authors purpose agaynst Transubstantiation Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this Author in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both Caunterbury WHo seeth not that as you did before in Iustine so agayne in Irene you seeke nothing els but meare cauilations and wrangling in wordes Is not Eucharistia called in english thankes giuing If it be not tell you what it is called in English And doth not Iren say Panes in qup gratiae actae sunt that is so say bread wherein thankes be giuen what haue I offended then in englishing Eucharistiam thankes giuing Do not I write to English men which vnderstand not what this greeke word Eucharistia meaneth what greate offence is it then in me to put it into English that English men may vnderstaud what is sayde Should I do as you do put greeke for English and write so obscurely that English men should not know the authors meaning And do you not see how much the words of Ireneus by you aleadged make agaynst your selfe These be his wordes after your citation When the chalice mixt and the bread broken receaue the word of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is stayd and encreased Doth not Irene say here playnly that the chalice mixt and the bread broken after the word of God which you call the wordes of consecration is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ and not the body and bloud of Christ And sayth he not further that they stay and increase the substance of our bodies But how can those thinges stay and increase our bodies which be transubstantiated and gone before we receaue them And haue you forgotten now in Irene what you sayd in the next leafe before in Iustine that the alteration and nourishment by the foode of bread and wine was vnderstande before the consecration which you confesse now to be after the consecration And when you thus obscure the authors wordes peruerting and corrupting both the wordes and sences yet shall you conclude your vntrue dealing with these wordes concerning me Is not this a goodly and godly entres of this author in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both Now followeth Origene next in my booke Shortly after Ireneus was Origene about 200. yeares after Christs ascension Who also affirmeth that the materiall bread remayneth saying that the matter of the bread auayleth nothing but goeth downe into the bealy and is auoyded dounward but the word of God spoken vpon the bread is it that auayleth Winchester As for Origene in his owne wordes sayth the matter of the bread remayneth which as I haue before opened it may be graunted but yet he termeth it not as this author doeth to call it materiall bread When God formed Adam of clay
catholike Church But now what illusions and dreames you fantasy of Emissenes wordes it is a wonder to heare First that the substance of bread and wine is an inward nature and that in baptisme the whole man is not regenerated but the soule onely and that the soule of man is the substance of man and made the sonne of God And now when it serueth for your purpose the body of Christ is a corporall substance which in all your booke before was but a spirituall body and the substance of bread and wine be visible creatures which were wont with you to be inward and inuisible natures and now is the inward nature of the bread the substance of the bread where as in other places the outward fourmes be the substance so litle substance is in your doctrine that from tyme to tyme you thus alter your sayings This is no tripping but so shamefull a fall and in so foule and stincking a place that you shall neuer be able to spunge the filthines out of your clothes and to make your selfe sweete agayne And you appoynt at your pleasure both terminum a quo terminum ad quem and the changes and the thinges that be changed altogither otherwise then Emissene doth For in Emissene the changes be regeneration and nourishing or augmentation the thing that is changed is the man both in regeneration and in nutrition or augmentation and in regeneration terminus a quo is the sonne of perdition and terminus ad quem is the sonne of God And in nutrition terminus a quo is the hunger and thirst of the man and terminus ad quem is the feeding and satisfying of his hunger and thirst But you appoynt the changes to be Transubstātiatiō and regeneration and the thinges that be changed in Transubstantiation you say is the substance of bread and wine and the same to be terminum a quo and the flesh and bloud of Christ say you is terminus ad quem And in regeneration you assigne terminum a quo to be the soule of man onely and terminum ad quem to be regenerated the sonne of God And so being viii thinges in these ii mutations in each of them the change the thing that is changed the thing from whence it is changed and the thing wherunto it is changed you haue mist the butte clearly in all sauing ii that is to say regeneration and the thing wherunto regeneration is made and in all other vi you missed the quishion quite And yet if the change were in the substance of bread and wine proportionably to the change of the soule being the substance of man as you say if you should make the proportions agree then as the soule being the mans substance remayneth without Transubstantiation so must the bread and wine remayne without transubstantiation And if the substance of the bread and wine be not the visible signe in the lordes supper because substance as you say is a thing inuisible then is not the substance of water the visible signe in baptisme bring no more visible the substance of the one then the substance of the other Now of Hilary I write thus Hilarius also in few wordes sayth the same There is a figure sayth he for bread and wine be outwardly seene And there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued And this Hilarius was within lesse then 350. yeares after Christ. Winchester But I will examine moe particularieties I haue before answered to Hilary so whome neuerthelesse I would aptly haue sayd somewhat now to note how he distincteth outwardly and inwardly by beleefe and corporall sight For outwardly as Emissene sayth we see no change and therfore we see after Consecration as before which we may therfore call bread but we beleue that inwardly is which as Emissene sayth is the substance of the body of Christ wherunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread as by the comparison of Emissene doth appeare Caunterbury YOur distinction made here of outwardly and inwardly is a playne confusion of Hilarius mynd and contrary to that which you wrote before in Emissene For there you sayd that the visible creatures be changed meaning by the visible creatures the substances of bread and wine and now when Hilary sayth that bread and wine be seene you say that their substances be not seene but the outward formes onely which you say be called bread and wine But here appeareth into how narrow a straight you be driuen that be fayne for a shift to say that the accidents of bread without the substance be called bread Epiphanius is next in my booke And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme sayth that the bread is meat but the vertue that is in it is it that giueth life But if there were no bread at all how could it be meate Winchester These wordes of Epiphanius do playnly ouerturne this authors doctrine of a figuratiue speach for a figure can not geue life onely God giueth life and the speach of this Epiphanius of the sacrament doth necessarily imply the very true presence of Christes body author of life And then as often as the author is ouerthrowen in the truth of the presence so often is he by Zuinglius rule ouerthrowen in Transubstantiation As for the name of bread is granted bicause it was so and Transubstantiation doth not take away but it is meate bicause of the visible matter remayning These sayings be sought out by this author onely to wrangle not taken out where the mistery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine therof but onely signified by the way and spoken of vpon occasion the sence wherof faythfull men know otherwise then appeareth at the first readings to the carnall man but by such like speaches the Arrians impugned the diuinity of Christ. Caunterbury Epiphanius speaking of the bread in the Lordes supper and the water in baptisme sayth that they haue no power nor strength of thē selues but by Christ. So that the bread feedeth and the water washeth the body but neither the bread nor water giue life nor purge to saluation but onely the might and power of Christ that is in them And yet not in them reserued but in the action and ministration as it is manifest of his wordes And therfore as in baptisme is neyther the reall and corporall presence of Christes body nor transubstantiation of the water no more is in the Lordes supper eyther Christes flesh and bloud really and corporally present or the bread and wine transubstantiated And therfore Epiphanius calleth not bread by that name bicause it was so but bicause it is so in deede and nourished the body As Hilary sayd there is a figure for bread and wine be openly seene he sayth not there was a figure for bread and wine were openly seene And the figure giueth not life nor washeth not inwardly but Christ that is in the figure tanquam
body and bloud of Christ in all them that godly and according to their duety do receiue the sacramentall bread and wine And that S. Ambrose thus ment that the substaunce of bread and wine remayne still after the consecration it is most clere by three other examples of the same matter following in the same chapter One is of them that be regenerated in whom after their regeneration doth still remayn theyr former naturall substaunce An other is of the incarnation of our sauiour Christ in the which perished no substaunce but remayned aswell the substaunce of his godhead as the substaunce which he tooke of the blessed virgine Mary The third example is of the water in baptisme where the water still remaineth water although the holy ghost come vpon the water or rather vpon him that is baptised therein And although the same S. Ambrose in an other booke entituled de sacrameÌ„tis doth say that the bread is bread before the wordes of consecration but wheÌ„ the consecration is done of bread is made the body of Christ Yet in the same booke in the same chapter he telleth in what mâ—â—ner and forme the same is done by the wordes of Christ not by taking away the substaunce of the bread but adding to the bread the grace of Christes body and so calling it the bodye of Christ. And hereof he bringeth foure examples The first of the regeneration of a man the second is of the standing of the water of the red sea the third is of the bitter water of Marath and the fourth is of the yron that swam aboue the water In euery of the which examples the former substaunce remayned still not withstanding alteration of the natures And he concludeth the whole matter in these few wordes If there be so much strength in the wordes of the Lord Iesu that things had their beginning which neuer were before how much more be they able to worke that those thinges that were before should remayne and also be chauÌ„ged into other thinges Which wordes do shew manifestly that notwithstanding this wonderfull sacramentall and spirituall chaunging of the bread into the body of Christ yet the substaunce of the bread remayneth the same that it was before Thus is a sufficient answere made vnto iij. principall authorities which the Papistes vse to alleadge to stablish their errour of transubstantiation The first of Cyprian the second of S. Iohn Chrisostome and the third of S. Ambrose Other authorities and reasons some of them do bring for the same purpose but forasmuch as they be of smale moment and waight and easy to be aunswered vnto I will passe theÌ„ ouer at this time and not trouble the reader with them but leaue them to be wayed by his discretion Winchester Now let vs heare what this author will say to S. Ambrose He reherseth him of good length but translateth him for aduauÌ„tage As among other in one place where S. Ambrose sayth This Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Chryst. This author translateth Is done by the word of Christ because making must be vnderstanded in the substaunce of the Sacrament chiefly before it is receiued and doing may be referred to the effect chiefly for which purpose it should seeme the author of this book caÌ„not away with the word made whereat it pleaseth him in an other place of this book to be mery as at an absurdity in the Papistes when in deed both S. Ambrose here S. Cyprian and S. Hierome also in their places vse the same word speaking of this sacrament and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordayning the substaunce of it by such a conuersion as bread is made the body of Christ. But as touching the answere of this author to S. Ambrose it is diuers For first he doth trauerse the authority of the book which allegation hath bene by other heretofore made and aunswered vnto in such wise as the book remayneth S. Ambroses still and Melancthon sayth it séemeth not to him vnlike his and therefore alleadgeth this very place out of him agaynst Decolampadius Thys author will not sticke in that allegation but for aunswere sayth that S. Ambrose sayth not that the substaunce of the bread and wine is gone and that is true he sayth not so in sillables but he sayth so in sence because he speaketh so plainly of a chaunge in the bread into that it was not whereunto this author for declaration of chaunge sayth the breade and wine be chaunged into an higher estate nature and condition which thrée words of estate nature and condition be good wordes to expresse the chaunge of the bread into the body of Christ which body is of an other nature an other state and condition then the substaunce of the bread without comparison hier But then this author addeth to be taken as holy meates and drinkes wherin if he mean to be taken so but not to be so as his teaching in other places of this booke is the bread to be neuer the holier but to signifie an holy thing then is the change nothing in deed touching the nature but onely as a coward may be changed in apparayle to play Hercules or Sampsons part in a play himselfe therby made neuer the hardier man at all but onely appoynted to signifie an hardy man of which mans change although his estate and condition might in speach be called changed for the tyme of the play yet no man would terme it thus to say his nature were changed whether he ment by the word nature the substance of the mans nature or property for in these two poyntes he wer still the same man in Hercules coate that he was before the play in his owne so as if ther be nothing but a figure in the bread then for so much this authors other teaching in this booke where he sayth the bread is neuer the holier is a doctrine better then this to teach a change of the bread to an higher nature when it is onely appoynted to signifie an holy thing And therfore this authors answer garnished with these three gay wordes of estate nature and condition is deuised but for a shift such as agreeth not with other places of this booke not it selfe neyther And where S. Ambrose meruayleth at gods worke in the substance of the sacrament this author shifteth that also to the effect in him that receaueth which is also meruaylous in deede but the substance of the sacrament is by S. Ambrose specially meruayled at how bread is made the body of Christ the visible matter outwardly remayning and onely by an inward change which is of the inward nature called properly substance in learning and a substance in deede but perceaued onely by vnderstanding as the substance present of Christes most precious body is a very substance in deede of the body inuisibly present but present indeede and onely vnderstanded by most true and certayne knowledge of fayth And although this author noteth how in the examples of
fayth to snare them rather thē to saue them But what skilleth that to the Papistes how many men perish which seeke nothing elles but the aduaūcement of their Pope whom they say no man can finde fault withall For though he neither care for his own soules health nor of his christen brother but draw innumerable people captiue with him into hell yet say the Papistes no man may reprehēd him nor aske the question why he so doth And where you speake of the sobernesse and deuotion of the schoole authors whom before you noted for boasters what sobernesse and deuotion was in them being all in manner monkes and fryers they that be exercised in them do know wherof you be none For the deuotion that they had was to their God that created them which was their Pope by contention sophistication and all subtle meanes they could deuise by their witte or learning to confirme and establish whatsoeuer oracle came out of theyr Gods mouth They set vp their Antichrist directly agaynst Christ and yet vnder pretence of Christ made him his vicar generall giuing him power in heauen earth and in hell And is not then the doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the reall and sensuall presence of Christ in the sacrament to be beleued trow you seing that it came out of such a gods mouth was set abroad by so many of his Aungels And is not this a simple and playne doctrine I pray you that visible formes and substances be transubstantiated and yet accidents remayn A playne doctrine be you assured which you confesse your selfe that the simple and playne people vnderstand not nor your selfe with the helpe of all the Papistes is not able to defend it where the true doctrine of the first catholick christian fayth is most playne cleare and comfortable without any difficulty scruple or doubt that is to say that our Sauiour Christ although he be sitting in heauē in equality with his father is our life strēgth◠food and sustenaunce who by his death deliuered vs from death and daily nourisheth and increaseth vs to eternall life And in tokē hereof he hath prepared bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken of vs in his holy supper to put vs in remembrance of his sayd death and of the celestiall feeding nourishing increasing and of all the benefites which wee haue thereby which benefites through fayth and the holy ghost are exhibited and geuen vnto all that worthely receiue the sayd holy supper This the husbandman at his plough the weauer at his loume and the wife at her rocke can remember and geue thankes vnto God for the same This is the very doctrine of the Gospel with the consent wholly of al the old ecclesiastial doctors howsoeuer the Papistes for their pastime put vysers vpon the sayd doctors and disguise them in other coates making a play and mocking of them Now followeth the second absurdity Secondly these Transubstantiatours do say contrary to all learning that the accidentes of bread and wine doe hang alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And what can be sayd more foolishly Winchester The Mayster of the sentences shewing diuers mens sayings in discussion as they can of this mistery telleth what some say that had rather say somewhat then nothing which this author rehearseth as a determination of the church that indéede maketh no doctrine of that poynt so but acknowledgeth the mistery to exéede our capacity And as for the accidentes to be stayd that is to say to remayne without their naturall substaūce is without difficulty beleued of men that haue fayth considering the almighty power of Christ whose diuine body is there present And shall that be accounted for an inconuenience in the mistery that any one man saith whose saying is not as a full determination approued If that man should encounter with this author if he were aliue so to do I think he would say it were more tolerable in him of a zeale to agrée with the true doctrine to vtter his conceit fondly then of a malice to dissent from the true doctrine this author so fondly to improue his saying But if he should appose this author in learning and aske him how he will vnderstand Fiat lux in creation of the world where the light staied that was then create But I will proceed to peruse the other differences Caunterbury THe doctrine that euen now was so simple and playne is now agayne waxed so full of ambiguities and doubtes that learned men in discussing therof as they can be fayne to say rather some thing than nothing and yet were they better to say nothing at all then to say that is not true or nothing to purpose And if the master of the sentences saying in this poynt vary from the cōmon doctrine of the other Papists why is not this his errour reiected among other wherin he is not commonly helde And why do your selfe after approue the same saying of the Master as a thing beleeued without difficultie that the accidents be stayed without their naturall substāce And then I would know of you wherin they be stayed seeing they be not stayed in the ayre as in their substance nor in the bread and wine nor in the body of Christ For eyther you must appoynt some other stay for them or els graunt as I say that they hange alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And eyther I vnderstand you not in this place you speake so diffusely or els that thing which the Master spake and your self haue here affirmed you cal it a tollerable conceit fondly vttered And where as to answere the matter of the staying of the accidents you aske wherin the light was stayed as the creation of the world this is a very easy opposall and soone answered vnto For first God created heauen and earth and after made light which was stayed in them as it is now although not deuided from the darkenes in such sort as it was after Now followeth the third absurdity Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there really corporally and naturally present without any accidents of the same And so the Papistes make accidents to be without substances and substances to be without accidents Winchester How Christes body is in circumstance present no man can define but that it is truly present and therfore really present corporally also and naturally with relation to the truth of the body present and not to the maner of presence which is spirituall exceeding our capacitye and therefore therein without drawing away accidentes or adding wee beleeue simplye the trueth howesoeuer it liketh this author without the booke to terme it at his pleasure and to speake of substaunce without accidentes and accidents without substance which perplexity in wordes can not iest out the truth of the catholike beleefe And this is on the authors part nothing but iesting with a wrong surmise and supposall as
AN AVNSVVERE BY THE REVEREND FATHER in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitane Vnto a craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour IESV CHRIST Wherein is also as occasion serueth aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng Here is also the true Copy of the booke written and in open Court deliuered by D. Stephen Gardiner not one word added or diminished but faythfully in all pointes agreeyng with the Originall Reuised and corrected by the sayd Archbyshop at Oxford before his Martyrdome Wherein hee hath beautified Gardiners doynges with asmuch diligence as might be by applying Notes in the Margent and markes to the Doctours saying which before wanted in the first Impression Hereunto is prefixed the discourse of the sayd Archbyshops lyfe and Martyrdome briefly collected out of his Hystory of the Actes and Monumentes and in the end is added certaine Notes wherein Gardiner varied both from him selfe and other Papistes gathered by the sayd Archbyshop Read with Iudgement and conferre with diligence laying aside all affection on either partie and thou shalt easely perceaue good Reader how slender and weake the allegations and perswasions of the Papistes are wherewith they goe about to defende their erroneous and false doctrine and to impugne the truth Anno. M. D. LI. AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Daye dwellyng ouer Aldersgate beneath S. Martines Anno. 1580. Cum gratia Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis A PREFACE TO THE READER I Thinke it good gentle Reader here in the begynnyng to admonish thee of certaine wordes kyndes of speaches which I do vse sometyme in this myne aunswere to the late Byshop of Winchesters book least in mistakyng thou doe as it were stumble at them First this word Sacrament I doe sometymes vse as it is many tymes taken among writers and holy Doctours for the Sacramentall bread water or wine as when they say that Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum a Sacrament is the signe of an holy thyng But where I vse to speake sometymes as the old Authors do that Christ is in the Sacramentes I mean the same as they did vnderstand the matter that is to say not of Christes carnall presence in the outward Sacrament but sometymes of his Sacramentall presence And sometyme by this word Sacrament I meane the whole ministration and receiuyng of the Sacramētes either of Baptisme or of the Lordes Supper and so the old writers many tymes doe say that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the Sacramentes not meanyng by that maner of speach that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the water bread or wine which be onely the outward visible Sacramentes but that in the due ministration of the Sacramentes accordyng to Christes ordinaunce and institution Christ and his holy spirite be truely and in deede present by their mightie and sanctifiyng power vertue and grace in all them that worthely receiue the same Moreouer when I say and repeat many tymes in my book that the body of Christ is present in them that worthely receaue the Sacrament least any man should mystake my woordes and thinke that I meane that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signes yet hee is corporally in the persons that duely receiue them this is to aduertise the Reader that I meane no such thyng but my meanyng is that the force the grace the vertue and benefite of Christes body that was Crucified for vs and of his bloud that was shed for vs be really and effectually present with all them that duely receaue the Sacramentes but all this I vnderstand of his spirituall presence of the which he sayth I will be with you vntill the worldes ende And wheresoeuer two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the myddest of them And hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Nor no more truely is he corporally or really present in the due ministration of the Lordes Supper than hee is in the due ministration of Baptisme That is to say in both spiritually by grace And wheresoeuer in the Scripture it is sayd that Christ God or the holy Ghost is in any man the same is vnderstand spiritually by grace The thyrd thyng to admonish the Reader of is this that when I name Doctour Stephen Gardiner Byshop of Winchester I meane not that he is so now but forasmuch as he was Byshop of Winchester at the tyme when he wrote his booke agaynst me therfore I aunswere his booke as written by the Byshop of Winchester whiche els needed greatly none aunswere for any great learnyng or substaunce of matter that is in it The last admonition to the Reader is this where the sayd late Byshop thinketh that he hath sufficiently proued Transubstantiation that is to say that the substaunce of bread and wine can not be in the Sacrament if the body and bloud of Christ were there bycause two bodyes can not be togethers in one place although the truth be that in the Sacrament of Christes bodye there is corporallye but the substaunce of bread onelye and in the Sacrament of the bloud the substaunce of wine onelye yet how farre hee is deceiued and doth vary from the doctrine of other Papistes and also from the principles of Philosophy whiche he taketh for the foundation of his doctrine in this point the Reader hereby may easely perceiue For if we speake of Gods power the Papistes affirme that by Gods power two bodyes may be together in one place and then why may not Christes bloud be with the wyne in the cup and his fleshe in the same place where the substaunce of the bread is And if we consider the cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place by the rules of nature it shall euidently appeare that the body of Christ may rather be in one place with the substaunce of the bread thē with the accidents therof and so likewise his bloud with the wine For the naturall cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place as the Philosophers say is their accidentes their bignes and thicknes and not their substaunces And then by the very order of nature it repugneth more that the body of Christ should be present with the accidentes of bread and his bloud with the accidentes of wyne then with the substaunces either of bread or wyne This shall suffice for the admonition to the Reader ioynyng thereto the Preface in my first booke whiche is this A PREFACE TO THE READER OVr Sauiour Christ Iesus according to the will of his eternall Father when the time thereto was fully complished taking our nature vpon him came into this world from the high throne of hys Father
tyme to the entent he may be there quiet to accomplish my request let him lacke neither bookes ne any thing requisite for his study And thus after the kynges departure Doct. Cranmer went with my Lord of Wiltshyre vnto his house where he incontinent wrote his mynde concernyng the kynges question addyng to the same besides the authorities of Scriptures of generall Councels and of auncient writers also his opinion which was this that the Byshop of Rome had no such authoritie as wherby he might dispence with the word of God and the Scriptures When Doct. Cranmer had made this booke and committed it to the kyng the kyng sayd to him will you abide by this that you haue here written before the Bishop of Rome That will I do by Gods grace quoth Doct. Cranmer if your Maiestie do send me thether Mary quoth the kyng I will send you euen to him in a sure Ambassage And thus by meanes of Doct. Cranmers handlyng of this matter with the kyng not onely certaine learned men were sent abroad to the most part of the Uniuersities in Christendome to dispute the question but also the same beyng by Commission disputed by the Diuines in both the Uniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford it was there concluded that no such Matrimony was by the word of God lawfull Wherupon a solēne Ambassage was prepared and sent to the Byshop of Rome then beyng at Bonony wherein went the Earle of Wiltshyre Doct. Cranmer Doct. Stokesly Doct. Carne Doct. Bennet and diuers other learned men and Gentlemen And when the tyme came that they should come before the Bishop of Rome to declare the cause of their Ambassage the Byshop sittyng on high in his cloth of estate and in his rich apparell with his sandales on his féete offeryng as it were his foote to be kissed of the Ambassadours the Earle of Wiltshyre with the rest of the Ambassadours disdainyng thereat stoode still made no coūtenaunce thereunto and so kept them selues from that Idolatry In fine the Pontificall Byshop seyng their constancie without any farther ceremonie gaue eare to the Ambassadours Who entryng there before the Byshop offered on the kynges behalfe to be defended that no man Iure diuine could or ought to mary his brothers wife and that the Byshop of Rome by no meanes ought to dispence to the contrary Diuers promises were made and sundry dayes appointed wherein the question should haue bene disputed and when our part was ready to aunswere no mā there appeared to dispute in that behalfe So in the end the Byshop makyng to our Ambassadours good countenaunce and gratiffyng Doctour Cranmer with the Office of the Penitentiarishyp dismissed them vndisputed withall Wherupon the Earle of Wiltshyre and other Commissioners sauyng Doct. Cranmer returned home agayne into England And forthwith Doct. Cranmer went to the Emperour beyng in his iourney towardes Vienna in expedition agaynst the Turke there to aunswere such learned men of the Emperours Coūsaile as would or could say any thyng to the contrary part Where amongest the rest at the same tyme was Cornelius Agrippa an high Officer in the Emperours Court who hauyng priuate conference with Doct. Cranmer in the question was so fully resolued and satisfied in the matter that afterwardes there was neuer disputation openly offered to Doct. Cranmer in that behalfe For through the perswasion of Agrippa all other learned men there were much discouraged This matter thus prosperyng on D. Cranmers behalfe aswell touchyng the kynges questiō as concernyng the inualiditie of the Byshop of Romes authoritie Byshop Warrham then Archbyshop of Caunterbury departed this transitorie lyfe wherby that dignitie then beyng in the kynges gift and disposition was immediatly giuen to Doct. Crāmer as worthy for his trauaile of such a promotiō Thus much touchyng the prefermēt of Doct. Cranmer vnto his dignitie and by what meanes he atchiued vnto the same not by flattery nor by bribes nor by none other vnlawfull meanes whiche thyng I haue more at large discoursed to stoppe the raylyng mouthes of such who beyng them selues obscure and vnlearned shame not so to detract a learned mā most ignominiously with the surname of an Hostler whom for his godly zeale vnto sincere Religion they ought with much humilitie to haue had in regard and reputation Now as concernyng his behauiour and trade of lyfe towardes God and the world beyng entered into his sayd dignitie True it is that he was so throughly furnished withall properties qualities and conditions belongyng to a true Byshop as that it shal be very hard in these straunge dayes to finde many that so nearely resemble that liuely exemplar described by S. Paule the Apostle in his seueral Epistles to Titus and Timothée So farre he swarued from the common course of common Byshops in his tyme. But bicause the same is very well decipbred in the story at large it shall not be so néedefull to discourse all the partes therof in this place Yet may not this be forgotten That notwithstandyng the great charge now cōmitted vnto him The worthy Prelate gaue him selfe euermore to continuall study not breakyng the order that he vsed commonly in the Uniuersitie To wit by v. of the clocke in the mornyng in his study and so vntill ix continuyng in prayer and study From thence vntill dyner tyme to heare suters if the Princes affaires did not call him away committyng his temporall affaires aswell of houshold as other foreine busines to his officers For the most part hee would occupy him selfe in reformatiō of corrupt Religion and settyng forth true and sincere doctrine wherein he would associate him selfe alwayes with learned men for the siftyng boultyng out one matter or other for the commoditie and profite of the Church of England After dynner if any suters were he would diligently heare them and dispatch them in such sort as euery man commended his lenitie and gentlenes That done to his ordinary study agayne vntill fiue of the clocke whiche houre hee bestowed in hearyng common prayer After Supper he would consume an houre at the least in some godly conference and then agayne vntill it of the clocke at one kynde of study or other So that no houre of the day was spent in vayne but was bestowed as tended to Gods glory the seruice of his Prince or the commoditie of the Church As touching his affabilitie easines to be entreated it was such as that in all honest causes wherin his letter counsell or speach might gratifie either nobleman Gentlemā meane man or poore man no mā could be more tractable or sooner wonne to yeld Onely in causes appertainyng to God and his Prince no man more stoute more constant or more hard to be wonne as in that part his earnest defence in the Parlamēt house aboue thrée dayes together in disputyng agaynst the vi Articles of Gardiners deuise cā testifie And though the kyng would néedes haue them vpon some
with whose burnyng and bloud his handes had bene before any thyng polluted But especially he had to reioyce that dying in such a cause hee was to be numbred amongest Christes Martyrs much more worthy the name of S. Thomas of Caunterbury then he whom the Pope falsely before did Canonise The end of Cranmers lyfe Archb. of Cant. The burnyng of the Archbyshop of Canterbury Doct. Cranmer in the Townedich at Oxford thrustyng his hand first into the fire flame wherewith he had subscribed A craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by M. Steuen Gardiner Doctor of Law late Bishop of Winchester against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ called by him An explication assertion therof with an aunswer vnto the same made by the most reuerend father in God Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitane The title of the booke of Steuen Gardiner late Bishop of Winchester ¶ An Explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth touching the most blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutation of a booke written against the same ¶ The aunswer of Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury c. HERE before the beginning of your booke you haue prefixed a goodly title but it agreeth with the argument and matter therof as water agreeth with the fire For your booke is so farre from an explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth in the matter of the sacrament that it is but a crafty cauillation and subtile sophisticatiō to obscure the truth therof and to hyde the same that it should not appeare And in your whole booke the reader if he marke it wel shal easily perceiue how little learning is shewed therin and how few authors you haue alleadged other then such as I brought forth in my booke and made aunswer vnto but there is shewed what may be done by fine wit and new deuises to deceiue the reader and by false interpretations to auoyde the plain wordes of scripture and of the old authors Wherfore in as much as I purpose God willing in this defēce of my former book not only to aunswer you but by the way also to touch D. Smith two things I would wish in you both The one is truth with simplicitie the other is that either of you both had so much learning as you think you haue or els that you thought of your selfe no more then you haue in dede but to aūswer both your bokes in few words that one sheweth nothing els but what rayling without reason or learning the other what frowardnes armed with wit and eloquence be able to do against the truth And Smith because he would be vehement and shew his heat in the maner of speach where the matter is cold hath framed in a maner all his sentēces through out his whole booke by interrogations But if the reader of both your bookes do no more but diligently read ouer my booke once agayn he shal fynde the same not so slenderly made but that I haue foreseene all that could be sayd to the contrary and that I haue fully aunswered before hand all that you both haue sayd or is able to say Winchester FOrasmuch as amonge other myne allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued against me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kinges most excellent maiestie touching partly the catholike fayth of the most precious sacrament of the aulter which I see now impugned by a booke set forth vnder the name of my lord of Canterburies grace I haue thought expedient for the better opening of the matter and considering I am by name touched in the sayd booke the rather to vtter partly that I haue to say by confutation of that booke wherin I thinke neuerthelesse not requisite to direct any speach by speciall name to the person of him that is entituled author because it may possible he that his name is abused wherwith to set forth the matter beyng himselfe of such dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which consideration I shal in my speach of such reproofe as the vntruth of the matter necessarily requireth omitting the speciall title of the author of the booke speake onely of the author in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be meruayled at that such matter should now be published out of my lord of Canterburies pen but because he is a man I will not wonder and because he is such a man I will reuerently vse him and forbearing further to name him talke only of the author by that general name Caunterbury THe first entrie of your booke sheweth to them that be wise what they may looke for in the rest of the same except the beginning vary from all that followeth Now the beginning is framed with such sleight subtletie that it may deceiue the reader notably in two thinges The one that he should thinke you were called into iudgement before the kinges maiesties commissioners at Lamhith for your catholike faith in the Sacrament The other that you made your booke for your defence therein which be both vtterly vntrue For your booke was made or euer ye were called before the said commissioners and after you were called then you altered only two lines in the beginning of your booke and made that beginning which it hath now This am I able to proue as well otherwise as by a booke which I haue of your owne hand writing wherin appeareth plainly the alteration of the beginning And as concerning the cause wherfore ye were called before the Commissioners whereas by your owne importune sute and procurement and as it were enforcing the matter you were called to iustice for your manifest contempt and continuall disobedience from tyme to tyme or rather rebellion against the kinges maiestie and were iustly depriued of your estate for the same you would turne it now to a matter of the sacrament that the world should thinke your trouble rose for your fayth in the sacrament which was no matter nor occasion therof nor no such matter was obiected against you wherfore you nede to make any such defence And where you would make that matter the occasion of your worthy depriuation and punishment which was no cause therof and cloke your wilfull obstinacie and disobedience which was the onely cause therof all mē of iudgement may well perceiue that you could meane no goodnes therby neither to the kinges maiestie nor to his realme But as touching the matter now in controuersie I impugn not the true catholike faith which was taught by Christ and his Apostles as you say I do but I impugne the false Papisticall faith inuented deuised and imagined by Antichrist and his ministers And as for further forbearing of my name and talking of the Author in generall after that you haue named me once and your whole booke is directed against my booke openly set out in my
name all men may iudge that your doing herein is not for reuerence to be vsed vnto me but that by suppressing of my name you may the more vnreuerently and vnseemely vse your scoffing taunting rayling and defaming of the author in generall and yet shall euery man vnderstand that your speach is directed to me in especiall as wel as if you had appointed me with your finger And your reuerent vsing of your selfe before the kings highnes commissioners of late doth plainly declare what reuerent respect you haue to them that be in dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth Winchester THis author denieth the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament This author denieth Transubstantiation This author denieth euill men to eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne and tend to destroy that faith which this author fermeth the Popish to erre in calling now all popish that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth wherof shall hereafter be opened Now because faith affirmeth some certaintie if we aske this author what is his saith which he calleth true and catholike it is onely this as we may learne by his booke that in our Lordes supper be consecrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens only to signifie Christes body and bloud he calleth them holy tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he sayth neuerthelesse they be not bare tokens and yet coÌ„cludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but only as a thyng is present in that which signifieth it which is the nature of a bare token saying in an other place there is nothing to be worshipped for there is nothyng present but in figure in a signe which who so euer saith calleth the thyng in deede absent And yet the author sayth Christ is in the man that worthely receiueth spiritually present who eateth of Christes flesh and his bloud reigning in heauen whether the good beleuing man ascendeth by his faith And as our body is nourished with the bread and wyne receyued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fed with the body and bloud of Christ. And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the true catholike fayth Caunterbury I Desire the Reader to iudge my faith not by this short enuious and vntrue collection and reporte but by mine owne booke as it is at length set out in the first part from the 8. vnto the 16. chapter And as concerning holynes of bread and wine wherunto I may adde the water into baptisme how can a dombe or an insensible and liuelesse creature receiue into it selfe any foode and feede thereupon No more is it possible that a spiritlesse creature should receiue any spirituall sanctification or holynes And yet do I not vtterly depriue the outward sacrameÌ„ts of the name of holy thinges because of the holy vse wherunto they serue not because of any holynesse that lyeth hid in the insensible creature Which although they haue no holynes in them yet they be signes and tokens of the meruailous workes and holy effects which god worketh in vs by his omnipotent power And they be no vayne or bare tokens as you would perswade for a bare token is that which betokeneth only and geneth nothing as a painted fire which geueth neither light nor heate but in the due ministration of the Sacramentes God is present working with his worde and Sacramentes And although to speake properly in the bread and wine be nothing in dede to be worshipped yet in them that duely receiue the sacramentes is Christ himself inhabiting and is of all creatures to be worshipped And therfore you gather of my sayings vniustly that Christ is in deede absent for I say according to Gods worde and the doctrine of the olde writers that Christ is present in his sacramentes as they teach also that he is present in his worde when he worketh mightely by the same in the hartes of the hearers By which maner of speach it is not ment that Christ is corporally present in the voyce or sound of the speaker which sound perisheth as soone as the wordes be spoken but this speach meaneth that he worketh with his word vsing the voyce of the speaker as his instrument to worke by as he vseth also his sacramentes wherby he worketh therfore is said to be present in them Winchester Now a catholike faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receiued and beleued agreable and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writinges geuen knowledge therof which be the tokens and markes of a true catholike faith whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth catholike First there is no scripture that in letter maynteineth the doctrine of this authors booke for Christ sayth not that the bread doth oâ—â—ly signifie his body absent nor S Paul saith not so in any place ne any other Canonicall Scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence and vnderstanding of Christes wordes there hath not bene in any age any one approued and knowen learned man that hath so declared and expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signifie Christes body and the wyne his bloud as thinges absent Caunterbury THe first part of your description of a catholike faith is crafty and full of subtletie for what you meane by all you do not expresse The secoÌ„d part is very true and agreeth fully with my doctrine in euery thing as wel in the matter of transubstantiation of the presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the eating and drinking of him as in the sacrifice propitiatory For as I haue taught in these 4. matters of controuersie so learned I the same of the holy scripture so is it testified by all olde writers learned men of all ages so was it vniuersally taught and preached receiued beleued vntill the sea of Rome the chiefe aduersary vnto Christ corrupted all together and by hypocrisie and simulation in the stede of Christ erected Autichrist who being the sonne of perdition hath extolled and aduanced himselfe and sitteth in the temple of God as he were God himselfe losing and bynding at his pleasure in heauen hell and earth condemning absoluing canonising damning as to his iudgement he thinketh good But as concerning your doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body in the bread and bloud in the wyne that ill men do eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that Christ is many tymes offred there is no scripture that in letter mainteyneth any of them as you require in a catholike faith but the scripture in the letter doth mainteine this my doctrine plainly that the bread remaineth Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio
seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request it is not like that he would write against the receiued doctrine of the church in those daies And if he had it is without all doubt that some learned man either in his tyme or fithens would haue written against him or at the least not haue commended him so much as they haue done Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish recantation as I haue declared in my first booke the 17. chapter And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple boasting himselfe as god hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres And as touching Martin Luther it semeth you be sore pressed that be faine to pray aide of him whom you haue hitherto euer detested The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift or to run for succour vnto a beast which he most hateth And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse more seuerely and earnestly then doth Martin Luther But it appeareth by your conclusion that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike that you haue forgotten your logike For this is your argumeÌ„t Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not Berengarius attempted the same and failed in his purpose Wickliffe enterprised the same whose teaching god prospered not therefore god hath not prospered fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching I will make the like reason The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of god to bring them from their abhominable superstitions and idolatry Ioell Amâ—s and Mitheas attempted the same whose doctrine preuailed not god prospered not their teaching among those people but they were condemned with their doctrine therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching If you will aunswer as you must nedes do that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not was by reason of the aboundant superstition idolatry that blinded their eies you haue fully answered your own argument and haue plainly declared the cause why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares the church of Rome which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry therfore might not abide to heare of the truth And the true doctrine of the sacrament which I haue set out plainly in my booke was neuer condemned by no councell nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second with his monkes and friers to condemne the truth and confirme these your heresies And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prosperous successe in this matter the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while persecute the truth And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife For he perceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those dayes to idolatry hypocrisie and superstition through traditions of Phariseis and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine religion which was approued by God least in so doing they should not onely resist the Apostles but God himselfe which counsail if you had marked followed you would not haue done so vnsoberly in many things as you haue done And as for the prosperitie of them that haue professed Christ his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes as S. Iohn Baptist prospered with Herode and our sauiour Christ with Pilate Annas and Caiphas Now which of these prospered best say you Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same Winchester But all this set apart and putting aside all testimonies of the olde church and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to search out an vnderstanding and in doyng therof to forget what hath bene taught hitherto How shall this author establish vpon scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is there in scripture that enâ—ountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body wherby to alter the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper verily and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God exclodeth that repugnance which mans reason would déeme of Christes departyng from this world and placing his humanitie in the glory of his Father Caunterbury THe Scripture is playne and you confesse also that it was bread that Christ spake of when he sayd This is my body And what nede we any other scripture to encounter with these words seyng that all men know that bread is not Christes body the one hauing sense and reason the other none at all Wherfore in that speach must nedes be sought an other sence meanyng then the wordes of themselues do geue which is as all olde writers do teach and the circumstances of the text declare that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christes body And yet as he geueth the bread to be eaten with our mouthes so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith And therfore I say that Christ geueth himselfe truely to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with fayth not with mouth And yet you would beare me in hand that I say that thing which I say not that is to say that Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body And because you be not able to confute that I say you would make me to say that you can confute As for the great power and omnipotency of God it is no place here to dispute what God can do but what he doth I know that he can do what he will both in heauen and in earth no man is able to resist his wil. But the question here is of his will not of his power And yet if you caÌ„ ioyne together these two that one nature singuler shal be here and not here both at one time and that it shal be gone hence when it is here you haue some stroÌ„g syment and be a cunning Geometrician but yet you shall neuer be good Logician that woulde
and manifest vntruth and that I vntruely charge you with the enuious name of a papisticall faith But in your issue you terme the wordes at your pleasure and reporte mee otherwise then I doe say for I doe not say that the doctrine of the reall presence is the papistes faith onely but that it was the papists faith for it was their deuise And herein will I ioyne with you an issue that the papisticall church is the mother of transubstantiation and of all the foure principall errors which I impugne in my booke Winchester It shal be now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the Sacrament which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the maiesty therof requireth in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of S. Iohn he beginneth a litle to low and passeth ouer that pertaineth to the matter and therfore should haue begun a litle higher at this clause and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde The Iewes therfore striued between themselues saying How can this man geue his flesh to be eaten Iesus therfore sayd vnto theÌ„ Uerely verely I say vnto you except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man drink his bloud ye haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life I will rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meat and my bloud very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the lyuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father Euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here is also a faulte in the translation of the text which should be thus in one place For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke In which speach the verbe that coupeleth the words flesh and meate together knitteth them together in their proper signification so as the flesh of Christ is verely meate and not figuratiuely meate as the author would perswade And in these wordes of Christ may appeare plainly how Christ taught the mistery of the food of his humanity which he promised to geue for food euen the same flesh that he sayd he would geue for the life of the world and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholy brought forth that is to say and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I shall geue for the life of the world and so is it plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sence that S. Iohn speaketh in saying The word was made flesh signifying by flesh the whol humanity And so did Cyril agrée to Nestorius when he vpon these textes reasoned how this eating is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitye to which nature in Christes person is properly attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man dispenced and geuen in the Sacrament And betwéene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstanding the misterye that Nestorius estéeming of ech nature in Christ a seuerall person as it was obiected to him and so dissoluinge the ineffable Unitie did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man seperate Cyrill maintayned the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseperable vnited to the Godhead and for the ineffable mistery of that Union the same to be a flesh that geueth life And then as Christ sayth If we eate not the fleshe of the Sonne of man we haue not life in vs because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and bloud to nourish such as be by his holy Spirite regenerate And as in Baptisme we receaue the Spirite of Christe for the renuinge of our lyfe so doe wer in this Sacrament of Christes most precious body and bloud receaue Christes very flesh and drinke his very bloud to continue and preserue increase and augment the life receaued And therefore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme that he speaketh here of the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud and in both Sacramentes geueth dispenseth and exhibiteth in déede those celestiall giftes in sensible elementes as Chrisostome sayth And because the true faithfull beléeuing men doe only by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnity of person the sonne of God so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ in one person the flesh of the Sonne of man is the proper flesh of the sonne of God Saint Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ Uerely verely vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. to be a figuratiue speach because after the bare letter it séemeth vnprofitable considering that flesh profiteth nothing in it self estemed in the own nature alone but as the same flesh in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature so is it as Christ sayd after Cyrilles exposition spirite and life not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therunto It is viuificatrix as Cyrill sayde and as the holy Ephcâ—ine Councell decreed A flesh geuing life according to Christes wordes Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the later day And then to declare vnto vs how in géeuinge this life to vs Christe vseth the instrument of his very humayne body it followeth For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly spirite so doth he sanctifie vs by his godly flesh and therefore repeteth agayn to inculcate the celestiall thing of this mistery and saieth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth to me and I in him which is the naturall and corporall vnion betwéene vs and Christ. Whereupon followeth that as Christ is naturally in his Father and his Father in him so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ he is by nature in Christ and Christ is naturally in him and the worthy receauer hath life increase augmented and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ. And because of the ineffable vnion of the two natures Christ sayd This is the food that came downe from heauen because God whose proper flesh it is came downe from heauen and hath an other vertue then Manna had because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it which Manna being but a figure thereof did not but being in this foode Christes very flesh inseparably vnited to the Godhead the same is of such efficacye as he that worthely eateth of it shall liue for euer And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the
foūd this matter so fully prooued that he neither is nor neuer shal be able to answere thereto For I haue alleadged the scripture I haue alleadged the consent of the old writers holy fathers and martirs to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud For the Euangelistes speaking of the Lords supper say that he took bread blessed it brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body and of the wine he sayd Take this deuide it among you drinke it this is my bloud I haue alleadged Irene saying that Christ confessed bread to be his body and the cup to be his bloud I haue cyted Tertulliā who sayth in many places that Christ called bread his body I haue brought in for the same purpose Cyprian who sayth that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he named his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes I haue written the wordes of Epiphanius which be these that Christ speakinge of a loafe which is round in fashion and can neither see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierom writing ad Hedibiam sayth that Christ called the bread which he brake his body And S. Augustine sayth that Iesus called meate his body and drinke his bloud And Cyrill sayth more plainly that Christ called the peeces of bread his body And last of all I brought forth Theodorete whose saying is this that when Christe gaue the holy mysteries he called bread his body and the cuppe mixt with wine and water he called his bloud All these Authors I alleadged to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud Which because they speak the thinge so plainly as nothing can be more and Smith seeth that he can deuise nothinge to answere these Authors like a wily fox he stealeth away by them softly as he had a flea in his eare saying nothing to all these authors but that they proue not my purpose If this be a sufficient answere let the Reader be iudge for in such sort I could make a short answere to Smithes whol booke in this one sentence that nothing that he sayth proueth his purpose And as for proofes of his saying Smith hath vtterly none but onely this fond reason That if Christ had called bread his body then should bread haue been crucified for vs because Christ added these words this is my body which shal be geuē to death for you If such wise reason shall take place a man may not take a loafe in his hand made of wheate that came out of Danske and say this is wheate that grew in Danske but it must follow that the loafe grew in Danske And if the wife shall say this is butter of my own cow Smith shall proue by this speach that her mayd milked butter But to this fantasticall or rather frantike reason I haue spoaken more in mine aunswere to Smithes preface How be it you haue taken a wiser way then this graunting that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud but adding thereto that Christs calling was making Yet here may they that be wise learn by the way how euil fauoredly you and Smith agree among your selues And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answere vnto the Authors by me alleadged in this parte I may iustly require that for lacke of answere in time and place where he ought to haue answered he may be condemned as one that standeth mute And being condemned in this his chiefe demur he hath after nothing to answere at al. For this foundation being ouerthrown all the rest falleth down withall Wherefore now will I returne to aunswere you in this matter which is the last of the euident and manyfest vntruthes wherof you appeach me I perceaue here how vntoward you be to learn the truth being brought vp all your life in Papisticall errors If you could forget your law which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth and specially the Canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of Gods word you should be much more apte to vnderstand and receaue the secretes of holy scripture But before those scales fall from your sawlish eyes you neither can nor will perceaue the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christes body bloud But yet I shall doe as much as lyeth in me to teach and instruct you as occasion shall serue so that the fault shall be either in your euill bringing vp altogether in popery or in your dulnes or frowardnes if you attaine not true vnderstanding of this matter Where you speake of the miraculous workinge of Christ to make bread his body you must first learne that the bread is not made really Christes body nor the wine his bloud but sacramētally And the miraculous working is not in the bread but in them that duely eate the bread and drink that drink For the marueylous worke of God is in the feeding and it is Christen people that be fed and not the bread And so the true confession and beleefe of the vniuersall Church from the beginning is not such as you many times affirme but neuer can proue for the Catholicke church acknowledgeth no such diuision betweene Christes holy flesh and his spirite that life is renued in vs by his holy spirite and increased by his holy flesh but the true fayth confesseth that both be done by his holy spirite and flesh iointly together as well the renouation as the increace of our life Wherfore you diminish here the effect of baptisme wherin is not geuen only Christes spirite but wholl Christ. And herein I will ioyne an issue with you And you shall finde that although you thinke I lacke law where with to follow my plea yet I doubt not but I shall haue helpe of Gods word inough to make al men perceiue that you be but a simple diuine so that for lacke of your proofes I doubt not but the sentence shall be geuen vpon my side by all learned and indifferent iudges that vnderstand the matter which is in controuersy betweene vs. And where you say that we must represse our thoughtes and imaginations and by reason of Christes omnipotency iudge his intent by his wil it is a most certayne truth that Gods absolute and determinate wil is the chiefe gouernour of all thinges and the rule wherby all things must be ordered and therto obey But where I pray you haue you any such will of Christ that he is really carnally corporally naturally vnder the formes of bread and wine There is no such will of Christ set forth in the scripture as you pretend by a false vnderstanding of these wordes this is my body Why take you then so boldly vpon you to say that this is Christs will and intent when you haue no warrant in scripture to beare you It is not a sufficient
for your catholick confessiō that Christ doth in deed fede such as be regenerated in him not only by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud at his holy table this I confesse also but that he feedeth Iewes Turkes and Infidels if they receaue the sacrament or that he corporally feedeth our mouthes with his flesh and bloud this neither I confesse nor any scripture or auncyeut writer euer taught but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hartes and by fayth not with mouth and teeth except our hartes be in our mouthes and our fayth in our teeth Thus you haue labored sore in this matter and sponne a fayre threde and brought this your first booke to a goodly conclusion For you conclude your booke with blasphemous wordes agaynst both the sacrament of baptisme and the Lordes supper nigardly pinching gods giftes and diminishing hys lyberall promises made vnto vs in them For where Christ hat◠promised in both the sacramentes to be assistant with vs wholl both in body and spirite in the one to be our spirituall regeneration and apparell and in the other to be our spirituall meate and drinke you clyp hys liberall benefites in such sorte that in the one you make him to geue but onely his spirite and in the other but onely hys body And yet you call your booke an Explication and assertion of the true catholicke fayth Here you make an ende of your first booke leauing vnanswered the rest of my booke And yet forasmuch as Smith busieth him selfe in this place with the aunswere therof he may not passe vnanswered againe where the matter requireth The wordes of my booke be these But these thinges cannot manifestly appeare to the reader except the principall poyntes be first set our wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods word which be chiefly fower First the Papistes say that in the supper of the Lord after the wordes of consecration as they call it there is none other substaunce remaining but the substaunce of Christes flesh and bloud so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten nor wine to be dronken And although there be the colour of bread and wine the sauour the smell the bignesse the fashion and all other as they call them accidentes or qualities and quantitees of bread and wine yet say they there is no very bread nor wine but they be turned into the flesh bloud of Christ. And this conuersion they call transubstantiation that is to say turning of one substance into an other substance And although all the accidentes both of the bread and wine remaine still yet say they the same accidentes be in no maner of thing but hang alone in the ayre without any thing to stay them vpon For in the body and bloud of Christ say they these accidentes cannot be nor yet in the ayre for the body and bloud of Christ and the ayre be neither of that bignesse fashion smell nor colour that the bread and wine be Nor in the bread and wine say they these accidentes can not be for the substance of bread and wine as they affirm be clean gone And so there remaineth whitenes but nothing is white there remaineth colours but nothing is colored therwith there remaineth roundnes but nothing is round and there is bignes and yet nothing is bigge there is sweetenes without any sweet thing softnes without any soft thing breaking without any thing broaken diuision without any thing deuided and so other qualities and quantities without any thing to receiue them And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith But it is not the doctrine of Christ but the subtile inuention of Antichrist first decreed by Innocent the third and after more at large set forth by schoole authors whose study was euer to defend and set abroad to the world all such matters as the bishoppe of Rome had once decreed And the Deuill by his minister Antichrist had so daseled the eyes of a great multitude of christian people in these latter dayes that they sought not for their faith at the cleere light of Gods word but at the Romish Antichrist beleeuing what so euer he prescribed vnto them yea though it were against all reason al sences Gods most holy word also For els he could not haue been very Antichrist in deede except he had been so repugnant vnto Christ whose doctrine is clean contrary to this doctrin of Antichrist For Christ teacheth that we receaue very bread and wine in the most blessed Supper of the Lord as Sacraments to admonish vs that as we be fedde with bread and wine bodely so we be fedde with the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spirituallye As in our baptisme we receiue very water to signify vnto vs that as water is an elemēt to wash the body outwardly so be our soules washed by the holy ghost inwardly The second principall thinge wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods worde is this They say that the very naturall fleshe and bloud of Christ which suffred for vs vpon the crosse sitteth at the right hād of father in heauen is also really substancially corporally naturally in or vnder the accidents of the sacramental bread wine which they call the fourmes of bread and wine And yet here they vary not a litle among thē selues for some say that the very naturall body of Christ is there but not naturally nor sensibly And other say that it is there naturally and sensibly and of the same bignes and fashion that it is in heauen and as the same was borne of the blessed virgine Mary and that is there broken and torne in peces with our teeth And this appeareth partly by the schole authors partely by the confession of Berengarius which Nicholas the second constrained him to make which was this That of the Sacramentes of the Lordes table the said Berengarius should promise to hold that faith which the sayd Pope Nicholas his counsel held which was that not only the sacramēts of bread wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar broken and torne with the teeth of the faithful people But the true catholick faith grounded vpon Gods most infallible word teacheth vs that our sauiour Christ as concerning his mans nature and bodily presence is gone vp vnto heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father and there shall he tary vntill the worldes ende at what time he shall come againe to iudge both the quick and the dead as he saith him self in many Scriptures I forsake the world saith he and goe to my Father And in another place he saith You shal euer haue poore men among you but me shall not you euer haue And againe hee saith Many hereafter shall come and say looke here is Christ or looke there
he is but beleeue them not And S. Peter saith in the Actes that heauen must receaue Christ vntill the time that all thinges shall be restored And S. Paule writing to the Colossians agreeth hereto saying Seeke for thinges that be a-aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father And Saint Paul speaking of the very Sacrament saith As often as you shall eate this bread and drinke this cuppe shew forth the Lordes death vntill he come Till he come saith Saint Paule signifying that he is not there corporally present For what speech were this or who vseth of him that is already present to say vntill he come For vntill he come signifieth that he is not yet present This is the catholicke faith which we learne from our youth in our common Creede and which Christ taught the Apostles followed and the Martirs confirmed with their bloud And although Christ in his humain nature substantially really corporally naturally and sensibly be present with his Father in heaueÌ„ yet Sacramentally and Spiritually he is here present For in water bread and wine he is present as in signes and Sacramentes but he is in deede Spiritually in those faithfull christian people which according to Christes ordinaunce be baptized or receaue the holy communion or vnfainedlye beleeue in him Thus haue you heard the second principall article wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of Gods word and from the Catholick faith Now the third thing wherein they vary is this The Papistes say that euill and vngodly men receaue in this Sacrament tâ—â— very body and bloud of Christ and eate and drinke the self same thing that the good and godly men doe But the truth of Gods word is contrary that all those that be godly members of Christ as they corporally eate the bread and drinke the wine so spiritually they eate and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud And as for the wicked members of the Deuill they eate the Sacramental bread and drinke the SacrameÌ„tall wine but they doe not spiritually eate Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud but they eate and drinke their own damnation The fourth thing wherein the Popish priestes dissent froÌ„ the manifest word of God is this They say that they offer Christ euery day for remission of sinne and distribute by their Masses the merits of Christs passion But the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists doe say that Christ himselfe in his own person made a sacrifice for our sinnes vpon the Crosse by whose woundes all our diseases were healed and our sinnes pardoned and so did neuer no priest man nor creature but he nor he dyd the same neuer more then once And the benefit hereof is in no mannes power to gyue vnto any other but euery man must receaue it at Christes handes himselfe by his own fayth and beliefe as the Prophet saieth Here Smith findeth him selfe much greeued at two false reports wherwith he saith that I vntruely charge the Papists One when I write that some say that the very naturall body of Christ is in the Sacrament naturally and sensibly which thing Smith vtterly denieth any of them to say and that I falsely lay this vnto their charge And moreouer it is very false saith he that you lay vnto our charges that we say that Christes body is in the Sacrament as it was borne of the virgin and that it is broken and torne in peeces with our teeth This also Smith saith is a false report of me But whether I haue made any vntrue report or no let the bookes be iudges As touching the first the Bishop writeth thus in his booke of the Deuils sophistry the 14. leafe Good men were neuer offended with breaking of the hoost which they daily saw being also perswaded Christes body to be present in the Sacrament naturally and really And in the 18. leafe he saith these words Christ God and man is naturally present in the Sacrament And in ten or twelue places of this his last booke he saith that Christ is present in the SacrameÌ„t naturally corporally sensibly and carnally as shall appeare euidently in the reading therof So that I make no false reporte herein who report no otherwise then the â—apistes haue written and published openly in their bookes And it is not to be passed ouer but worthy to be noted how manifest falshoode is vsed in the printing of this Bishoppes booke in the 136. leafe For where the Bishoppe wrote as I haue two coppies to shew one of his own hand and another exhibited by him in open court before the Kinges Commissioners that Christes body in the Sacrament is truely present therfore really present corporally also and naturally The printed booke now set abroad hath changed this word naturally and in the stede therof hath put these wordes but yet supernaturally corrupting and manifestly falsefying the Bishops booke Who was the Author of this vntrue acte I cannot certainly define but if coniectures may haue place I think the Bishop himselfe would not commaund to altar the booke in the printing and then set it forth with this title that it was the same booke that was exhibited by his own hand for his defence to the kinges maiesties commissioners at Lamhith And I thinke the Printer being a French man would not haue enterprised so false a deed of his own head for that which he should haue no thanks at all but be accused of the Author as a falsifier of his booke Now for as much as it is not like that either the Bishop or the Printer would play any such pranks it must then be some other that was of counsell in the printing of the booke which being printed in Fraunce whether you be now fled from your own natiue countrey what person is more like to haue done such a noble acte then you who being so full of craft and vntruth in your own countrey shew your selfe to be no changeling where soeuer you become And the rather it seemeth to me to be you then any other person because that the booke is altred in this word naturally vpoÌ„ which word standeth the reproofe of your saying For he saith that Christ is in the Sacrament naturally and you deny that any man so saith but that Christ is there supernaturally Who is more like therefore to change in his booke naturally into supernaturall then you whom the matter toucheth and no maÌ„ els but whether my coniectures be good in this matter I will not determine but referre it to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader Now as concerning the second vntrue report which I should make of the Papistes I haue alleadged the wordes of Berengarius recantation appointed by Pope Nicholas the 2. and written De consecrat dist 2. which be these that not only the Sacraments of bread and wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ are sensibly handeled of the Priest in the Altar broaken and torne with the teeth of
the faithfull people Thus the Reader may see that I misreport not the Papists nor charge them with any other words then they doe write that is to say that the body of Christ is naturally and sensibly in the Sacrament and broken and torne in peeces with our teeth But saith Smith the meaning of Berengarius in his recantatiō was otherwise that the formes of bread and wine are broaken and torne with our teeth but Christ is receaued wholly without breaking of his body or tearing with our teeth Well what so euer the meaninge of Berengarius was his wordes be as I report so that I make no false report of the Papistes nor vntruely charge them with that they say not But how should men know what the Papists meane when they say one thing and meane another For Berengarius said that not only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth and you say he ment contrary that only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth Berengarius said that also the very flesh and bloud of Christ be broken and torne and you say he ment clean contrary that the flesh and bloud of Christ be not broaken and torne Well then would I faine learne how it may be knowen what the Papists meane if they mean yea when they say nay and mean nay when they say yea And as for S. Iohn Chrisostom and other old authors by whom you would excuse this manner of speech they helpe you herein nothing at all For not one of them speake after this sorte that Berengarius doth For although though they say sometimes that we see Christ touch him and breake him vnderstanding that speech not of Christ him selfe but of the Sacraments which represent him yet they vse no such forme of speech as was prescribed to Berengarius that we see feele and break not only the sacraments but also Christ him selfe And likewise of Loth Abraham Iacob Iosue Mary Magdalen and the Apostles whom you bring forth in this matter there is no such speeche in the scripture as Berengarius vseth So that all these things be brought out in vame hauing no colour to serue for your purpose sauing that same thing you must say to make out your booke And as for al the rest that you say in this proces concerning the presence of Christ visible and inuisible nedeth no answere at all because you prooue nothing of all that you say in that matter which may easely therfore be denied by as good authoritie as you affirme the same And yet all the olde writers that speake of the diuersity of Christes substantiall presence and absence declare this diuersitie to be in the diuersity of his two natures that in the nature of his humanitie he is gone hence and present in the nature of his diuinitie and not that in diuers respectes and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent which I haue proued in my third booke the fifth chapter And for as much as you haue not brought one author for the proofe of your saying but your own bare wordes nor haue aunswered to the authorities alleadged by me in the forsaid place of my third booke reason would that my proofes should stand and haue place vntill such time as you haue proued your sayings or brought some euidēt matter to improue mine And this I trust shall suffice to any indifferent Reader for the defence of my first booke Winchester Wherein I will kéepe this order First to consider the third booke that speaketh against the faith of the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament then against the fourth and so returne to the second speaking of Transubstantiation wherof to talke the reall presence not being discussed were cleerely superfluous And finally I will somewhat say of the fifte booke also Caunterbury BUt now to returne to the conclusion of the Bishops booke As it began with a marueilous sleight and suttlety so doth he conclude the same with a like notable suttlety changing the order of my bookes not answering thē in such order as I wrote them nor as the nature of the thinges requireth For seeing that by all mennes confessions there is bread and wine before the consecration the first thing to be discussed in this matter is whether the same bread and wine remain still after the cōsecratiō as Sacraments of Christs most precious body and bloud And next by order of nature and reason is to be discussed whether the body and bloud of Christ represented by those Sacramentes be present also with the said Sacramentes And what manner of presence Christ hath both in the Sacraments and in thē that receiue the Sacramentes But for what intent the Bishoppe changed this order it is easie to perceiue For he saw the matter of Transubstantiation so flat plain against him that it was hard for him to deuise an answere in that matter that should haue any apparance of truth but all the world should euidētly see him cleerely ouerthrowen at the first onset Wherefore he thought that although the matter of the reall presence hath no truth in it at all yet for as much as it seemed to him to haue some more apparaunce of truth then the matter of Transubstantiatiō hath he thought best to beginne with that first trusting so to iuggle in the matter and to dasell the eyes of them that be simple and ignorant and specially of such as were alredy perswaded in the matter that they should not well see nor perceiue his lieger de main And whē he had won credite with them in that matter by making them to wonder at his crafty iuggeling then thought he it should be a fitte and meete time for him to bring in the matter of Transubstantiation For when men be amased they doe wonder rather then iudge And when they be muffeled and blindfolded they cannot finde the right way though they seek it neuer so fast nor yet follow it if it chaunce them to finde it but geue vp cleerely their own iudgement and follow whom so euer they take to be their guid◠And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of Transubstantiation thought the bishop if I can first perswade them and get their good willes in the reall presence This sleight and suttlety thou maist iudge certainly good Reader to be the cause and none other wherefore the order of my booke is chaunged without ground or reason The ende of the first booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE THIRD BOOKE IN the beginning of the third booke the author hath thought good to note certain differences which I wil also particularly consider It followeth in him thus They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine But we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine Note here Reader euen in the entry of the comparison of these differences how vntruly the true faith of the Church is reported
which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine which was the doctrine of Luther but the true faith is that Christes most precious body and bloud is by the might of his word and determination of his will which he declareth by his word in his holy Supper present vnder forme of bread and wine The substance of which natures of bread and wine is conuerted into his most precious body bloud as it is truely beleeued taught in the Catholick church of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant So as the Author of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittingly against his conscience to say they teach calling them papists that Christ is in the bread and wine but they agrée in forme of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holy Communion in that it is there said the body and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wine And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong vntrue report of the faith of the Catholick Church made of this Author in the setting forth of this difference on that parte which it pleaseth him to name Papistes And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference such as no Catholick man would deny For euery Catholick teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament vnles he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him For otherwise such one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condemnation Christ cannot be receued worthely but into his own temple which be ye S. Paul saith and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him is not his As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecration in substance Wherefore appeareth how the Author of this booke in the lieu and place of a difference which he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholick man must néedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud or the bread and wine as this Author speaketh But as this Author would haue speaken plainly and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges he should in the second parte haue said from what contrary to that the Catholick Church teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaration of the second parte to say that repugneth not to the first matter and that no Catholicke man will deny considering the said two teachinges be not of one matter nor shoote not as one might say to one marke For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely as before is sayd which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy so both the differences thus taught make but one Catholick doctrine Let vs sée what the Author saith further Caunterbury NOw the craftes wiles and vntruthes of the first booke being partly detected after I haue also answered to this booke I shall leaue to the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answere I shall rehearse the wordes of mine owne thirde boke which you attēpt next out of order to impugne My words be these Now this matter of Transubstantiatiō being as I trust sufficiently resolued which is the first part before rehearsed wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth order requireth next to intreate of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacramēt thereof wherin is no lesse cōtentiō thē in the first part For a plain explication whereof it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people that our Sauiour Christ being perfecte God and in all thinges equall and coeternall with his Father for our sakes became also a perfect man taking flesh and bloud of his blessed mother and virgin Mary sauing sinne being in all thinges like vnto vs adioyning vnto his diuinity a most perfect soul of man And his body being made of very flesh and bones not onely hauing all members of a perfect mannes body in due order and proportion but also being subiect to hunger thirst labour sweate werines cold heate and all other like infirmities and passions of a manne and vnto death also and that the most vile and painfull vpon the crosse and after his death he rose againe with the self same visible and palpable body and appeared therewith and shewed the same vnto his Apostles and specially to Thomas making him to put his handes into his side and to feele his woundes And with the selfe same body he forsooke this world and ascended into heauen the Apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father there shall remaine vntill the last day when he shall come to iudge the quick dead This is the true Catholick faith which the Scripture teacheth and the vniuersall Church of Christ hath euer beleeued from the beginning vntill within these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares last passed that the Bishop of Rome with the assistance of his Papistes hath set vp a new faith and beleefe of their own deuising that the same body really corporally naturally and sensibly is in this worlde still and that in an hundred thousand places at one time being inclosed in euery pixe and bread consecrated And although we doe affirme according to Gods word that Christ is in all persons that truly beleeue in him in such sort that with his flesh and bloud he doth spiritually nourish and feede them and geueth them euerlasting life doth assure them thereof as well by the promise of his word as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper which he did institute for the same purpose yet we doe not a little vary from the hainous errors of the Papists For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine but we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the bread wine Here it pleaseth you to passe ouer all the rest of my sayinges and to aunswere onely to the difference betweene the Papists and the true Catholicke faith Where in the first ye finde fault that I haue vntruely reported the Papisticall faith which you
call the faith of the Church which teacheth not say you that Christ is in the bread and wine but vnder the formes of bread and wine But to aunswere you I say that the Papists do teach that Christ is in the visible signes and whether they list to call them bread and wine or the formes of bread and wine all is one to me for the truth is that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine nor in or vnder the formes figures of them but is corporally in heauen and spiritually in his liuelye members which be his tēples where he inhabiteth And what vntrue reporte is this when I speake of bread and wine to the Papistes to speak of them in the fame sence that the Papistes meane taking bread and wine for the formes and accidences of bread and wine And your selfe also doe teach to vnderstand by the bread and wine not their substances but accidentes And what haue I offended then in speaking to you after your own māner of speach which your self doth approue and allow by and by after saying these wordes As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name If a Catholick man forbeareth not that name and Catholick men be true men then true men forbeare not that name And why then charge you me with an vntruth for vsing that name which you vse your selfe and affirme Catholicke men to vse But that you be geuen altogether to finde faultes rather in other then to amend your own and to reprehend that in me which you allow in your selfe and other and purposely will not vnderstand my meaning because ye would seeke occasion to carpe and controll For els what man is so simple that readeth my booke but he may know well that I meane not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine For I know that you say ther is nether bread nor wine although you say vntruely therein but yet for as much as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine and say that in them is Christ therfore I reporte of you that you say Christ is in the bread and wine meaning as you take bread and wine the accidentes thereof Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent Reader of my booke then you in this place who vnderstoode my wordes as I meante and as the Papistes vse and therefore would not purposely calūniate and reprehend that was well spoaken But there is no man so dull as he that will not vnderstand For men know that your witte is of as good capacitie as D. Smithes is if your will agreed to the same But as for any vntrue reporte made by me herein willingly against my conscience as you vntruely report of me by that time I haue ioyned with you throughout your booke you shall right well perceiue I trust that I haue sayd nothing wittingly but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day in the sight of the euerliuing God and that I am able before any learned and indifferent iudges to iustifie by holy Scriptures and the auncient Doctors of Christes church as I will appeale the consciences of all godly men that be any thing indifferent ready to yealde to the truth when they reade and consider my booke And as concerning the forme of doctrine vsed in this church of Englād in the holy Communiō that the body and bloud of Christ be vnder the formes of bread and wine whē you shall shew the place where this forme of words is expressed then shall you purge your selfe of that which in the meane time I take to be a plain vntruth Now for the second parte of the difference you graunt that our doctrine is true that Christ is in them that worthely eate and drunke the bread and wine and if it differ not from youres then let it passe as a thing agreed vpon by both partes And yet if I would captiously gather of your wordes I could as well prooue by this second parte that very bread and wine be eatē and drunken after consecration as you could prooue by the first that Christ is in the very bread and wine And if a Catholick man call the bread wine as you say in the second parte of the difference what ment you then in the first parte of this difference to charge me with so hainous a crime with a note to the Reader as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost because I said that the Papistes doe teach that Christ is in the bread and wine doe not you affirme here yourselfe the same that I reporte that the Papistes which you call the Catholickes doe not forbeare to call the Sacrament wherein they put the reall and corporall presence bread and wine Let the Reader now iudge whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the successe of them that study to wrangle in wordes without any respecte of opening the truth But letting that matter passe yet we vary from you in this difference For we say not as you doe that the body of Christ is corporally naturally and carnally either in the bread and wine or formes of bread and wine or in them that eate and drinke thereof But we say that he is corporally in heauen onely and spiritually in them that worthely eate and drink the bread and wine But you make an article of the faith which the olde Church neuer beleeued nor heard of And where you note in this second parte of the difference a sleight and crafte as you note an vntruth in the first euen as much crafte is in the one as vntruth in the other being neither sleight nor vntruth in either of both But this sleight say you I vse putting that for a difference wherein is no difference at all but euery Catholick man must needes confesse Yet once againe there is no man so deafe as he that will not heare nor so blinde as he that will not see nor so dul as he that wil not vnderstand But if you had indifferent eares indifferent eyes and indifferent iudgement you might well gather of my wordes a plain and manifest difference although it be not in such tearmes as contenteth your mind But because you shall see that I meane no sleight nor crafte but goe plainly to worke I shall set out the difference truely as I ment and in such your own tearmes as I trust shall content you if it be possible Let this therfore be the difference They say that Christ is corporally vnder or in the formes of bread and wine We say that Christ is not there neither corporally nor spiritually but in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine he is spiritually and corporally in heauen Here I trust I haue satisfied as well the vntrue report wittingly made as you say in the first parte of the difference against my conscience as the crafte and sleight vsed
much as you say that it liketh me to reporte this most vntruely reade what the glose saith vpō the chapter Tribus gradibus de Consecrat dist a there you shall finde these words Certum est quod species quam citó dentibus teruntur tam citó in Coelum rapitur corpus Christi And if this glose be false and erroneous why was it published and set out by the authority of the Papistes Why hath it been writtē and printed in so many countreis and so many yeares without reprofe of any fault found therein by any man But here may wise men learn to beware of your doctrine For you reproue those Papistes which haue written of this matter 4. or 5. hundreth yeares past and doe inuent a new deuise of your own And therefore wise men when they see you teach one doctrine and the Papistes that were before your time teach another they will beleeue none of you all And where you say that in the beleefe of this mistery is great benefitte and consolation What benefitte I beseech you is it to vs if Christ be really and corporally in the formes of bread and wine a moneth or two or a yeare or two And if we receaue him really and corporally with the bread and wine into our mouthes or stomackes and no further and there he tarieth not in that sorte but departeth away from vs by and by agayn what great benefit or comforte I pray you is such a corporall presence vnto vs And yet this is the teaching of all the Papistes although you seeme to vary from them in this last point of Christes sodayne departure But when the matter shall be throughly answered I weene you will agree with the rest of the Papistes that as concerning his carnall presence Christ departeth from vs at the least wheu the formes of bread and wine be altered in the stomack And then I pray you declare what comfort and benefitte we haue by this carnall presence which by and by is absent and taryeth not with vs Such comfort haue weake and sick consciences at the Papistes handes to tell them that Christ was with them and now he is gone from them Neuerthelesse in the beleef of this mistery if it be vnderstāded according to Gods word is great benefit and consolation but to beleeue your addition vnto Gods word is neither benefit nor wisedome And I pray you shew in what place the Scripture saith that vnder the formes of bread and wine is the body of Christ really corporally and naturally or els acknowledge them to be your own additiō beside Gods word and your stout assertion herein to be but presumptuous boldnesse and wicked temeritie affirming so arrogantly that thing for the which you haue no authority of Gods word And where you seeme to be offended with the discussion of this matter what hurte I pray you can gold catch in the fire or truth with discussing Lyes onely feare discussing The Deuill hateth the light because he hath been a lyar from the beginning and is loth that his lies should come to light and triall And all Hipocrites and Papistes be of a like sorte afraide that their doctrine should come to discussing whereby it may euidently appeare that they be indued with the spirite of error and lying If the Papists had not feared that their doctrines should haue bene espied and their opions haue come to discussing the scriptures of God had bene in the vulgare and English tounge many yeares ago But God be praysed at the length your doctrine is come to discussing so that you can not so craftely walke in a cloude but the light of Gods word will alwaies shew where you be Our Sauiour Christ in the fifth of Iohn willeth vs to search the scriptures and to trie out the trueth by them And shall not we then with humble reuerence search the trueth in Christes Sacramentes And if we can not tel how Christ is present why do you then say that he is substantially present corporally present naturally and carnally present And how sure be you that Christ is in substaunce present because he is truely present Are you assured that this your doctrine agreeth with Gods word Doth not Gods word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit where he is not present in his corporall substance As when he saith Where two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them And also when he sayth I shall be with you till the end of the world Was it not a true presence that Christ in these places promised And yet can you not of this true presence gather such a corporall presence of the substance of Christs manhod as you vnlearnedly contrary to the scriptures◠go about to proue in the Sacramēt For when Christ said This is my body it was bread which is called his body in a figuratiue speach as all olde authors teach and as I haue proued in my third booke the 8 and 11 chap. And the manner how Christ caried himfelfe in his own handes sainct Augustine declareth it to be figuratiuely And because you can finde no repugnaunce betweene the two partes of this comparison to make them more plaine I shall fill them vp with more wordes as I did the other comparisons before This therefore shall be the comparison They say that Christ is really and corporally in the sacramentall bread beyng reserued so long as the forme of bread remayneth although it be an whole years and more but after the receiuing thereof he flyeth vp from the receauer into heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or digested in the stomacke But we say that after what manner Christ is receaued of vs in the same wise he remaineth in vs so long as we remaine the members of Christ. And where in the end you admonish the reader that what so euer you affirme or precisely deny you meane within the compasse of your knowledge and of publicke doctrine and of doctrine by consent receaued what do you here else but deuise certayne sleightes and prepare for your selfe priuy holes to start out at when so euer you should be taken with a manifestly So that you should not be cōpelled to abide by any word that you say For by these crafty sleightes and shifts of the compasse of your knowledge and of publick doctrine and of doctrine by common consent receaued you meane to say euer what you list And though neuer so manyfest a lye or vntruth be layd to your charge yet shall no manne neuer be able to proue it so manifestly against you but you shall haue one of these thre shiftes to flee out at for your defence Now foloweth in my booke the fift comparison They say that in the Sacrament the corporall members of Christ be not distant in place one frō an other but that where so euer the head is there be the feete and where so euer
most certayne truth that Christs body is not made of bread And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place why stand you not constantly therin but goe from it againe in all the rest of your booke defending the Papisticall doctrine cleane contrary to yours in this pointe in that they teach that Christes body is made of bread And you varry so much from your selfe herein that although you deny the Papistes sayinges in wordes that Christes body is made of bread yet in effect you graunt and maintayn the same which you say is intollerable and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play For you say that Christ calleth bread his body and that his calling is making And then if he make bread his body it must needes follow that he maketh his body of the bread moreouer you say that Christes body is made present by conuersion or turning of the substance of bread into the substance of his precious bodye where of must follow that his body is made of bread For when so euer one substāce is turned into another thē the second is made of the first As because earth was turned into the body of Adam we say that Adam was made of earth and that Eue was made of Adams ribbe And the wine in Galily made of water because the water was turned into wine and the ribbe of Adames side into the body of Eue. If the water had beene put out of the pottes and wine put in for the water we might haue saide that the wine had been made present there where the water was before But then we might not haue said that the wine had been made of the water because the water was emptied out and not turned into wine But when Christ turned the water into the wine then by reason of that turning we say that the wine was made of the water So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ his body we must not only say that the body of Christ is present where the bread was before but also that it is made of the bread because that the substance of the bread is conuerted and turned into the substaunce of his bodye Which thing the papists saw must needes follow and therfore they plainly confessed that the body of Christ was made of bread which doctrine as you truely say in this place is intollerable and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play when his fellow had forgotten his parte And yet you so far forget your selfe in this booke that throughout the same what so euer you say here you defend the same intollerable doctrin not to be deuised by a scoffer And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lye that I say that the Papistes say that Christes body is made of bread and wine Here Smith and you agree both together in one lye For it is truth and no lye that the Papistes so say and teach as Smith in other parts of his booke saith that Christes body is made of bread and that priestes doe make Christes body My 12. comparison is this They say that the masse is a Sacrifice satisfactory for sinne by the deuotion of the Priest that offreth and not by the thing that is offered But we say that their saying is a most haynous yea and detestable error against the glory of Christ for the satisfaction for our sinnes is not the deuotion nor offering of the Priest but the only host and satisfactiō for all the sinnes of the world is the death of Christ and the oblation of his body vpon the Crosse that is to say The oblation that Christ him selfe offred once vpon the crosse and neuer but once not neuer any but he And therfore that oblation which the Priestes make dayly in their papisticall masses cannot be a satisfaction for other mennes sinnes by the Priests deuotion but it is a mere illusion and suttle crafte of the Deuil wherby Antichrist hath many yeares blinded and deceiued the world Winchester This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament which presence this author in the first part of his comparison semeth by implication to graunt when he findeth fault that the priestes deuotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory and not the thing that is offered which maner of doctrine I neuer read I thinke my selfe it ought to be improued if any such there be to make the deuotion of the Priest a satisfaction For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully who hath payd our wholl debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his iust wrath againste vs and hath cancelled the bill obligatory as S Paul saith that was against vs. For further opening whereof if it be asked how he satisfied we answere as we be taught by the Scriptures By the accomplishment of the will of his Father in his innocent willing obedient suffering the miseries of this world without sinne and the violent persecution of the world euen to the death of the Crosse and sheading of his most precious bloud Wherein was perfited the willing Sacrifice that he made of him selfe to God the Father for vs of whom it was written in the beginning of the booke that he should lie the body and perfectt accomplishment of all Sacrifices as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadowes and figures And here is to be considered how the obedient will in Christes Sacrifice is specially to be noted who suffered because he would Which S. Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christes humility And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on the crosse to the which it continued from the beginning by reason wherof the oblatiō is in S. Paules spéech attributed thereunto Yet as in the Sacrifice of Abraham when he offered Isaac the earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering in déede whereupon it is said in Scripture that Abraham offered Isaac and the declaration of the will of Abraham is called the offering So the declaration of Christes will in his last Supper was an offering of him to God the Father assuring there his Apostles of his will and determination and by them all the world that his body should be betrayed for them and vs and his precious bloud shed for remission of sinne which his word he confirmed then with the gifte of his precious body to be eaten and his precious bloud to be dronken In which mistery he declared his body and bloud to be the wery Sacrifice of the world by him offered to God the father by the same will that he said hid body should be betrayed for vs. And thereby ascertained vs that to be in him willing that the Iewēs on the crosse séemed to execute by violence and force against his will And therfore as Christ offred himself on the crosse in the execution of the worke of his will so he offered himself in his Supper in
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
also in the middest of them that know him not and thus he reasoneth If he be here among vs still how can he be gone hence as a straunger departed into another countrey wherunto he answereth that Christ is both God and man hauing in him two natures And as a man he is not with vs vnto the worldes end nor is present with all his faihtfull that be gathered together in his name But his diuine power and spirite is euer with vs. Paule saith he was absent from the Corinthes in his body when he was present with thē in his spirite So is Christ sayth he gone hence and absent in his humanitie which in his diuine nature is euery where And in this saying sayth Origen we diuide not his humanitie ` for S. Iohn writeth that no spirite that deuideth Iesus can be of God but we reserue to both his natures their own properties In these wordes Origen hath playnly declared his mynd that Christes body is not both present here with vs and also gone hence and estranged from vs. For that were to make two natures of one body and to deuide the body of Iesus forasmuch as one nature can not at one tyme be both with vs and absēt from vs. And therefore sayth Origen that the presence must be vnderstanded of his diuinitie and the absence of his humanitie And according hereunto S. Austine writeth thus in a pistle Ad dardanum Doubt not but Iesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there from whence he shall come And remember well and beleeue the profession of a christian man that he rose frō death ascended into heauen sitteth at the right hand of his father and from that place and none other shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead And he shall come as the Aungels sayd as he was seene go into heauen that is to say in the same forme and substance vnto the which he gaue immortallytie but chaunged not nature After this forme sayth he meaning his mans nature we may not thynke that he is euery wher For we must beware that we doe not so stablish his diuinity that we take away the veritie of his body These be S. Augustines playne wordes And by and by after he addeth these wordes The Lord Iesus as God is euery where and as man is in heauen And finally he concludeth this matter in these few wordes Doubt not but our Lord Iesus Christ is euery where as God and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God and he is in a certain place in heauen because of the measure of a very body And agayne S. Augustin writeth vpon the Gospel of S. Iohn Our sauiour Iesus Christ sayth S. Augustine is aboue but yet his truth is here His body wherein he arose is in one place but his truth is spred euery where And in an other place of the same booke S. Augustine expounding these wordes of Christ. You shall euer haue poore men with you but me you shall not euer haue saith that Christ spake these words of the presence of his body For saith he as concerning his diuine maiesty as concerning his prouidence as concerning his infallible and inuisible grace these words be fulfilled which he spake I am with you vnto the worldes ende But as concerning the fleshe which he tooke in his carnation as concerning that which was borne of the virgine as concerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vpon a tree and taken downe frō the crosse lapped in linnen clothes and buried and rose againe and appered after his resurrection as concerning that flesh he sayd You shall not euer haue me with you Wherefore senig that as concerning his flesh he was conuersant with his disciples forty dayes and they accompanying seeing and not following him he went vp into heauen both he is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet he is here for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his diuine Maiesty As concerning the presence of his Maiesty we haue Christ euer with vs but as concerning the presence of his flesh he said truely to his disciples ye shall not euer haue me with you For as concerning the presence of his flesh the church had Christ but a few dayes yet now it holdeth him fast by faith though it see him not with eyes All these be S. Augustines wordes Also in an other booke intitled to S. Augustine is written thus We must beleeue and confesse that the Sonne of God as concerning his diuinitie is inuisible without a body immortall and in circumscriptible but as concerning his humanitie we ought to beleeue and confesse that he is visible hath a body and it contayned in a certayn place and hath truely all the members of a man Of these wordes of S. Augustine it is most cleere that the profession of the catholick faith is that Christ as concerning his bodely substance and nature of man is in heauen and not present here with vs in earth For the nature and property of a very body is to be in one place and to occupy one place and not to be euery where or in many places at one time And though the body of Christ after his resurrectiō and ascention was made immortall yet this nature was not taken away for then as S. Augustine saith it were no very body And further S. August sheweth both the maner fourme how Christ is here present with vs in earth how he is absent saying that he is present by his diuine nature and maiesty by his prouidence by grace But by his humain nature and very body he is absent from this world and present in heauen Cyrillus likewise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn agreeth fully with S. Augustin saying Although Christ tooke away from hence the presence of his body yet in Maiestie of hys Godhead he is euer here as he promised to his disciples at his departing saying I am with you euer vnto the worldes end And in an other place of the same booke saynct Cyrill sayth thus Christian people must beleeue that although Christ be absent from vs as concerning hys body yet by his power he gouerneth vs and all thinges and is present with all them that loue hym Therfore he sayd Truely truely I say vnto you where so euer there be two or three gathered together in my name there am I in the middes of them For lyke as when he was conuersant here in earth as a man yet then he filled heauen and did not leaue the company of angelles euē so beyng now in heauen with hys flesh yet he filleth the earth and is in them that loue hym And it is to be marked that although Christ should go away onely as concerning hys flesh for he is euer present in the power of hys diuinitie yet for a little time he sayd he would be with hys disciples
is such a sleight vsed by you as is worthy to be noted of all men For I goe not onely about to proue in this place onely that Christ as concerning his humain nature is in heauē which I know you deny not but I proue also that he is so in heauen that he is not in earth which you vtterly deny and it is the chiefe point in contention betwene vs. But by this crafte of appeaching me of sleight that I goe about to proue that thing which you deny not which is vntrue you haue vsed such a sleight that you passe ouer 8. leaues of my booke together wherin I proue that Christ as concerning his corporall presence is not here in earth and you answere not one word to any of my argumentes And I pray thee note good Reader what a strange manner of sleight this is to passe ouer eight leaues together cleerely vnanswered and that in the chief point that is in variance betweene vs vnder pretence that I vse sleight where in deede I vse none but proue plainly that Christ is not bodely in heauen and in eareh both at one time If he had but touched mine argumēts glauncing by them it had been somewhat but vtterly to fly away and not once to touch them I think thou wilt iudge no smal sleight and craft therin And me think in good reason the matter ought to be iudged against him for default of answere who being preseut answereth nothing at all to the matter wherof he is accused seeing that the Law sayth Qui tacet consentire videtur Yet Smith is to be commended in respect of you who attempteth at the least to see what shiftes he could make to auoyd my profes and busyeth himself rather thē he would stand mute to say somthing to them And yet in deede it had been as good for him to haue said nothing at all as to say that which is nothing to the purpose First to the Scriptures by me alleadged particularly he vtterly answereth nothing To Origen and S. Augustine by name and to all the other Authors by me alleadged he maketh this brief answere in generall that whatsoeuer those authors say they meane no more but that Christ is not here in earth visibly naturally by circumscriptiō and yet neuerthelesse he is in the sacrament aboue nature inuisibly and without circumscription This suttle distinction hath Smith deuised or rather followeth other Papistes therin to answere the Authors which I haue alleadged And yet of Smithes own distinction it followeth that Christ is not in the sacrament carnally and corporally For if Christ be in the Sacrament but supernaturally inuisibly without circumscription then he is not there carnally and corporally as S. Augustine reasoneth ad Dardanum But yet Smith onely saith that the Authors so meant and proueth not one word of his saying supposing that the old holy writers be like to the Papistes which write one thing and when they list not or cannot defend it they say they meane another For those Authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of affirming diuers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in diuers respectes but their distinction is of the two natures in Christ that is to say the nature of his Godhead and the nature of his manhode And they affirme plainly that the diuersity wherof they spake cannot be in one nature as you say it is but must needes argue proue diuersity of natures And therfore by that diuersity and instinctiō in Christ they proue against the heretickes that Christ hath two natures in him which were vtterly no proofe at all if one nature in diuers respectes might haue that diuersity For the heretickes should haue had a ready answere at hand that such diuersitie proueth not that Christ had two natures for one nature may haue such diuersity if it be true that Smith saith And so Smith with other papists which saith as he doth putteth a sword in the hereticks hands to fight against the catholick faith This good Reader thou shalt easely perceiue if thou doe no more but read the authors which I haue in this place alleadged And yet for thy more ready instruction I shall make a brief rehearsal of the chief effect of them as concerning this matter To aunswere this question how it can be sayd that Christ is a stranger and gone hence into heauen and yet is also here with vs in earth Smith and other Papistes resolue this matter by diuers respectes in one nature of Christ but the old catholick wryters which I alleadged resolue the matter by two natures in Christ affirming most certainly that such two diuers thinges can not haue place both in one nature And therfore say they that Christ is gone hence and is absent in his humanitie who in his Deity is still here with vs. They say also that as concerning his mannes nature the Catholicke profession in our Creede teacheth vs to beleeue that he hath made it immortall but not changed the nature of a very mannes body for his body is in heauen and in one certain place of heauen because that so requireth the measure and compasse of a very mannes body It is also say they visible and hath all the members of a perfecte mannes body And further they say that if Christes body were not conteyned within the compasse of a place it were no body in so much that if the Godhead were a body it must needes be in a place and haue quantitie bignes and circumscription For all creatures say they visible and inuisible be circumscribed and conteyned within a certain compas ether locally within one place as corporall and visible thinges be or els within the property of their own substance as angels and inuisible creatures be And this is one strong argument whereby they proue that the holy Ghost is God because he is in many places at one time which no creature can be as they teach And yet they say moreouer that Christ did not ascend into heauen but by hys humanitie nor is not heare in earth but by hys diuinitie which hath no compasse nor measure And finally they say that to go to hys father from vs was to take from vs that nature which he receaued of vs and therfore when hys body was in earth then surely it was not in heauen and now when it is in heauē surely it is not in earth For one nature can not haue in it selfe two sundry and contrary thinges All things here rehearsed be written by the old auncient authors which I haue alleadged and they conclude the whole matter in this wise that this is the fayth and Catholique confession which the Apostles taught the Martyres did corroborate and faythfull people keepe vnto this day Wherby it appeareth euidently that the doctrine of Smyth and the Papistes at that day was not yet sprong nor had taken no roote Wherfore diligently ponder and way I besech thee gentle
reader the sayinges of these authors and see whether they say that one nature in Christ may be both in heauen and in earth both here with vs and absent from vs at one tyme and whether they resolue this matter of Christs being in heauen and in earth as Smith doth to be vnderstand of his māhoode in diuersitie of these respectes visible and inuisible And when thou hast well considered the authors sayinges then geue credite to Smith as thou shalt see cause But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hote that the Bishop of Winchester durste not once touch it and Smith as soone as he had touched it felt it so scawlding hote that he durst not abyde it but shranke away by and by for feare of burning his fingers Now here what followeth further in my booke But now seeing that it is so euident a matter both by the expresse words of Scripture and also by all the old authors of the same that our Sauiour Christ as concerning his bodely presence is ascended into heauen and is not here in earth And seeing that this hath been the true confession of the Catholicke faith euer since Christes ascention it is now to be considered what mooued the Papistes to make a new and contrary faith and what Scriptures haue they for their purpose What moued them I know not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condition of the sea of Rome which is of al other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for Scripture they alleadge none but onely one and that not truely vnderstanded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to iarre and sound contrary to all other Scriptures pertaining to the matter Christ toke bread say they blessed brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body These words they euer still repeate and beate vpon that Christ sayd this is my body And this saying they make their shooteanker to proue therby as well the reall and naturall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these words of Christ say they be most plain and most true Then for as much as he said This is my body it must needes be true that that thing which the Priest holdeth is his hands is Christs body And if it be Christes body then can it not be bread Whereof they gather by their reasoning that there is Christes body really present and noe bread Now forasmuch as all their proofe hangeth onely vpon these wordes this is my body the true sence and meaning of these wordes must be examined But say they what neede they any examination what wordes can be more plain then to say This is my body Truth it is in deed that the wordes be as plain as may be spoaken but that the sence is not so plain it is manifest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For when Christ gaue bread to his disciples and said This is my body there is no man of any discretiō that vnderstandeth the english tongue but he may well know by the order of the speache that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the old authors also do affirme although some of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the wordes seeme and purport but there must needes be some figure or mistery in this speech more then appeareth in the playne wordes For by this manner of speeche plainly vnderstand without any figure as the wordes lye can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread which all Christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherefore in these wordes must needes be sought out another sence meaning then the words of themselues do beare And although the true sense and vnderstanding of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the matter so playne that no scrouple or doubt shall remayne here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whiche processe shal be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speches And although it be manifest inough by the playn wordes of the gospel and proued before in the processe of Transubstantiation that Christ spake of bread when he sayd This is my body likewise that it was very wyne which he called his bloud yet least the Papistes should say that we sucke this out of our own fyngers the same shall be proued by testimony of the old authors to be the true and old fayth of the catholicke Church Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any auncient author to the contrary First Ireneus writing against the Valentinians in his fourth booke sayeth that Christ confessed bread which is a creature to be his body and the cuppe to be his bloud And in the same booke he writeth thus also The bread wherin the thanks be geuen is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same booke he saith that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice was his bloud And in the fift booke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his body a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plain that Christ taking very materiall bread a creature of God and of such sort as other bread is which we doe vse called that his body when he said this is my body and the wine also which doth feede and nourish vs he called his bloud Tertullian likewise in his booke written against the Iewes saith that Christ called bread his body And in his booke against Martian he oftentimes repeateth the selfe same wordes And S. Cipryan in the first booke of his epistles saith the same thing that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he called his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes and made into mine And in his second booke he saith these wordes Water is not the bloud of Christ but wine And againe in the same epistle he saith that it was wine which Christ called hys bloud and that if wine be not in the chalice then we drinke not of the fruit of the vine And in the same Epistle he saith that meale alone or water clone is not the body of Christ except they be both ioyned together to make therof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speaking of a lofe which is round in fashion and cannot see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierome wryting ad Hedibiam saith
that there is onely bread in the Sacrament sayth Smith and not Christes body what then What is that to purpose here in this place I pray you For I goe not about in this place to proue that onely bread is in the sacrament and not Christes body but in this place I proue onely that it was very bread which Christ called his body and very wine which he called his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud Which Smith with all his rablement of the Papistes deny and yet all the old Authors affirme it with Doctor Steuen Gardiner late Bishope of Winchester also who sayth that Christ made demonstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body And as all the old Authors be able to counteruayle the Papistes so is the late Bishope able to matche Smith in this mater so that we haue at the least a Rowland for an Oliuer But shortly to comprehend the aunswere of Smith where I haue proued my sayinges a dosen leaues together by the authoritie of Scripture and old catholike writers is this a sufficient aunswer onely to say without any proofe that al my trauayl is lost and that all that I haue alleadged is nothing to the purpose Iudge indifferently gentle Reader whether I might not by the same reason cast away all Smithes whole booke and reiect it quite cleane with one word saying All his labore is lost and to no purpose Thus Smith and Gardiner being aunswered I will returne agayne to my booke where it followeth thus Now this being fully proued it must needes folow consequently that this manner of speaking is a figuratiue speach For in playne and proper speach it is not true to say that bread is Christes body or wine his bloud For Christes body hath a soule lyfe sence and reason but bread hath neither soule lyfe sence nor reason Lykewise in playne speche it is not true that we eate Christes body and drinke his bloud For eating drinking in their proper and vsuall signification is with the tongue teeth and lyppes to swallow diuide and chawe in peeces which thinge to do to the flesh and bloud of Christ is horrible to be heard of any Christian. So that these speaches To eate Christes body and drinke his bloud to call bread his body and wine his bloud be speches not taken in the proper signification of euery worde but by translation of these wordes eating and drinking from the signification of a corporall thing to signifie a spirituall thing and by calling a thing that signifieth by the name of the thing which is signified thereby Which is no rare nor straunge thing but an vsuall manner and phrase in common speech And yet least this faulte should be imputed vnto vs that we do fayne thinges of our owne heades without auctoritie as the papistes be accustomed to do here shall be cited sufficient authoritye as well of Scriptures as of olde auncient authors to approue the same First when our Sauiour Christ in the sixt of Iohn sayd that he was the bread of lyfe which who so euer did eate should not dye but liue for euer and that the bread which he would geue vs was his flesh and therefore who so euer should eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should haue euerlasting lyfe and they that should not eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should not haue euerlasting lyfe When Christ had spoken these wordes with many moe of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud both the Iewes and many also of his disciples were offended with his wordes and sayd This is an hard saying For howe can hee geue vs his flesh to be eaten Christ perceiuing their murmuring hartes because they knew none other eating of his flesh but by chawing and swallowing to declare that they should not eate his body after that sort nor that he ment of any such carnall eating he sayd thus vnto them What yf you see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before It is the spirite that geueth life the flesh auaileth nothing the words which I spake vnto you be spirite and lyfe These wordes our Sauiour Christ spake to lift vp their mindes from earth to heauen and from carnall to spirituall eating that they should not phantasy that they should with their teeth eate him present here in earth for his flesh so eaten sayth he should nothing profite them And yet so they should not eate him for he would take his body away from them and ascend with it into heauen and there by fayth and not with teeth they should spiritually eate him sitting at the right hand of his father And therefore sayth he The wordes which I do speake be spirite and lyfe That is to say are not to be vnderstand that we shall eate Christ with our teeth grossely and carnally but that we shall spiritually and gostly with our fayth eate him being carnally absent from vs in heauen And in such wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eate him many yeares before he was incarnated and borne as Saint Paule sayth that all they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doo and drinke the same spirituall drinke that is to say Christ. For they spiritually by their fayth were fed and nourished with Christes body and bloud and had eternall lyfe by him before he was borne as we haue now that come after his ascention Thus haue you heard the declaration of Christ himselfe and of Saint Paul that the eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud is not taken in the common signification with mouth and teeth to eate and chaw a thing being present but by a liuely fayth in hart and minde to chaw and digest a thing being absent either ascended hence into heauen or els not yet borne vpō earth Winchester In the lx leaf the auctor entreateth whether it be a plaine spéech of Christ to say eate and drincke speaking of his body and bloud I answer the spéech of it selfe is propre commaunding them present to eate and drincke that is proponed for them and yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like cōmon effect worke in eating and drinking that heauenly meate drincke as it doth in earthly and carnall meates In this mistery man doth as Christ ordeined that is to say receyue with his mouth that is ordered to be receiued with his mouth graunting it neuerthelesse of that dignitie and estimation that Christes wordes affirms and whether he so doth or no Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it selfe alone whereof no good man iudgeth carnally or grosely ne discusseth the vnfaythfull question how which he can not conceiue but leaueth the déepenes thereof and doth as he is bidden This misterie receiueth no mans thoughtes Christes institution hath a propertie in it which can not be discussed by mans sensuall reason Christes wordes be spirite and life which this auctor wresteth with
of Christ of the eating of his flesh to be onely a figure this author had nothing aduanced his purpose As for spiritual vnderstanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter wher the same may stand with the rules of our faith All Christes words be life and spirit contayning in the letter many tymes that is aboue our capacity as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh to discusse the particularities of how yet we must beleue to be true that Christ sayth although we can not tell how For when we go about to discusse of Gods mistery how then we fall from fayth and waxe carnall men and would haue Gods wayes like ours Caunterbury HEre may euery man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see that you seek in this waighty matter nothing by shifts and cauillatioÌ„s For you haue nothing aunswered directly to Origen although he directly writeth agaynst your doctrine For you say that the eating of Chrstes flesh is taken in the proper signification without a fygure Origen sayth there is a figure And Origen sayth further that it is onely a figuratiue spech although not adding this word onely yet adding other words of the same effect For he sayth that we may not vnderstand the words as the letter soundeth And sayth further that if we vnderstand the words of Christ in this place as the letter soundeth the letter killeth Now who knoweth not that to say these words not as the letter soundeth and that letter killeth be as much to say as onely spiritually and only otherwise then the letter soundeth Wherfore you must spit vpon your hands aud take better hold or els you can not be able to plucke Origen so shortly from me And I maruayle that you be not ashamed thus to trifle with the auncient authors in so serious a matter and such places where the reader onely looking vpon the authors wordes may see your dealing The next is Chrysostome whom I cite thus And Saynct Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth the same saying that if any man vnderstand the words of Christ carnally he shall surely profit nothing therby For what meane these words the flesh auayleth nothing He ment not of flesh God forbid but he ment of them that fleshly and carnally vnderstood those things that Christ spake But what is carnall vnderstanding To vnderstand the words simply as they be spoken and nothing els For we ought not so to vnderstaÌ„d the things which we see but all misteries must be considered with inward eyes and that is spiritually to vnderstand them In these words S. Iohn ChrisostoÌ„ sheweth plainly that the words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud are not to be vnderstand simply as they be spoken but spiritually and figuratiuely Winchester Sainct Chrisostom declareth himself how misteries must be considered with inward eyes which is a spirituall vnderstanding wherby the truth of the mistery is not as it were by a figuratiue spech empayred but with an humility of vnderstanding in a certayn fayth of the truth maruayled at And here the author of this book vseth a sleight to ioyne figuratiuely to spiritually as though they were alwayes all one which is not so Caunterbury AS you haue handled Origen before euen so do you haÌ„dle ChrisostoÌ„ Wherfore I only refer the reader to looke vpon the words of Chrysostome recited in my book who sayth that to vnderstand the words of eating of Christes flesh symply as they be spoken is a carnall vnderstanding And then can it be no proper speech as you say it is bicause it can not be vnderstand as the wordes be spoken but must haue an other vâ—derstanding spiritually Then followeth next Sainct Augustine of whom I write thus And yet most planely of all other S. Augustine dooth declare this matter in his booke De doctrina christiana in which book he instructeth christian people how they should vnderstand those places of Scripture which seem hard and obscure Seldome sayth he is any difficulty in proper words but either the circumstance of the place or the conferring of diuers translations or els the originall toung wherin it was written will make the sence playn But in words that be altered from their proper signification there is great diligence and hede to be taken And specially we must beware that we take not litterally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely Nor contrary wise we must not take for a figure any thing that is spoken properly Therfore must be declared sayth S. Augustine the maner how to discerne a proper spech from a figuratiue Wherin sayth he must be obserned this rule that if the thing which is spoken be to the furtherance of charity then it is a proper spech and no figure So that if it be a commaundement that forbiddeth any euill or wicked act or commaundeth any good or beneficiall thing then it is no figure But if it commaund any ill or wicked thing or forbiddeth any thing that is good and beneficiall then it is a figuratiue spech Now this saying of Christ Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you seemeth to commaund an haynons and wicked thing therfore it is a figure commaunding vs to be partakers of Christes passion keeping in our mindes to our great comfort and profite that his flesh was crucified and wouÌ„ded for vs. This is briefly the sentence of S. Augustine in his booke De doctrina Christiana And the like he writeth in his book De catechisandis rudibus and in his book Contra aeduersarium legis prophet arum and in diuers other places which forte diowsnes I passe ouer For if I should reherse all the authorityes of S. Augustine and other which make mention of this matter it would weary the reader to much Wherfore to all them that by any reasonable meanes will be satisfied these things before rehearsed are sufficient to proue that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud is not to be vnderstanded simply and playnly as the words do properly signify that we do eat and drinke him with our mouthes but it is a figuratiue spech spiritually to be vnderstanded that we must deeply print and fruitfully beleue in our harts that his flesh was crucified and his bloud shed for our redemption And this our beliefe in him is to eat his flesh and drink his bloud although they be not present here with vs but be asceÌ„ded into heauen As our forefathers before Christs tyme did likewise eat his flesh and drinke his bloud which was so farre from them that he was not yet then borne Winchester Sainct Augustine according to his rules of a figuratiue and proper spéech taketh this spéech Except ye eat c. for a figuratiue spéech because it semeth to commaund in the letter carnally vnderstanded an hainous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man as mans carnal imagination conceiueth
only similitude or an only signification which is the issue with this author Canterbury HEre you shift of S. Ciprian and Chrisostom with fayre promise to make answer to them hearafter who aproue playnly my saying that the bread representeth Christes body and the wine his bloud and so you aunswer here only to S. Hierom. In aunswering to whom you wer loth I se well to leaue behind any thing that might haue any colour to make for you that expound this word represent in S. Hierom to signifie reall exhibition Here appeareth that you can when you list change the signification of wordes that can make vocare to signifie facere and facere to signifie sacrificare as you do in your last booke And why should you not than in other wordes when it wil serue for like purposes haue the like libertie to change the signification of words when you list And if this word represent in saynt Hieroms wordes signifie reall exhibition then did Melchisedech really exhibit Christes flesh bloud who as the same saynt Hierom sayth did represent his flesh and bloud by offering bread and wine And yet in the lordes supper ryghtly vsed is Christes body exhibited in dede spiritually and so really if you take really to signifie only a spirituall and not a corporall and carnall exhibition But this reall and spirituall exhibition is to the receiuers of the sacrament and not to the bread and wine And mine issue in this place is no more but to proue that these sayings of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speaches signifying that the bread representeth Christes body and the wine his bloud which for as much as you confesse ther neded no great contention in this poynt but that you would seme in wordes to vary where we agre in the substance of the matter and so take occasion to make a longe booke where a short would haue serued And as for the exelucion onely many of the authors as I proued before haue the same exclusiue or other wordes equiualent therto And as for the sacramentall signes they be onely figures And of the presence of Christes body your selfe hath this exclusiue that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present and I say he is but spiritually present Now followeth Saynt Augustine And yet S. Augustine sheweth this matter more clearly and fully then any of the rest specially in an epistle which he wrot ad Bonifacium where he sayth that a day or two before good Friday we vse in common speach to say thus To morow or this day .ij. dayes Christ suffered his passiō Where in very dede he neuer suffered his passion but once and that was many yeares passed Likewise vpon Easter day we say This day Christ rose from death Where in very dede it is many hundreth yeares sithens he rose from death Why then do not men reproue vs as lyars when we speake in this sort But bicause we call these dayes so by a similitude of those dayes wherin these thinges were done in dede And so it is called that day which is not that day in dede but by the course of the yeare it is a like day And such thinges be sayd to be done that day for the solemne celebration of the sacramēt which thinges indede were not done that day but long before Was Christ offered any more but once And he offered him selfe and yet in a sacrament or representation not onely euery solemne feast of Easter but euery day he is offered to the people so that he doth not lye that sayth He is euery day offered For if sacramentes had no some similitude or likenes of those thinges whereof they be Sacramentes they could in no wise be sacramentes And for their similitude and likenes commonly they haue the name of the thinges wherof they be sacramentes Therfore as after a certayne maner of speach the sacramēt of Christes body is Christs body the sacrament of Christes bloud is Christes bloud so likewise the sacrament of fayth is fayth And to beleue is nothing els but to haue fayth And therfore when we answer for yong children in their baptisme that they beleue which haue not yet the minde to beleue we answer that they haue fayth bicause they haue the sacrament of fayth And we say also that they tourne vnto God because of the sacrament of conuersion vnto God for that answer pertayneth to the celebration of the sacramēt And likewise speaketh the Apostle of baptisme saying that by Baptisme we be buryed with him into death he sayth not that we signifie buriall but he sayth playnly that we be buried So that the sacramēt of so great a thing is not called but by the name of the thing it selfe Hitherto I haue rehersed the answer of S. Augustine vnto Boniface a learned bishop who asked of him how the parentes and frendes could answer for a yong babe in baptisme and say in his person that he beleueth conuerteth vnto God when the child can neither do nor think any such thinges Wherunto the answer of S. Augustine is this that for as much as baptisme is the sacrament of the profession of our fayth and of our conuersion vnto God it becometh vs so to answer for yong children comming therunto as to the sacramēt apertayneth although the children indeed haue no knowledge of such thinges And yet in our sayd answers we ought not to be reprehended as vayn men or lyers forasmuch as in common speach we vse dayly to call sacramētes and figures by the names of the thinges that be signified by them although they be not the same thing indede As euery Goodfriday as often as it returneth from yeare to yeare we call it the day of Christes passion and euery Easter day we call the day of his resurrection and euery day in the yeare we say that Christ is offered and the sacrament of his body we call it his body and the sacrament of his bloud we call it his bloud and our baptisme S. Paul calleth our buriall with Christ. And yet in very dede Christ neuer suffered but once neuer arose but once neuer was offered but once nor in very dede in baptisme we be not buried nor the sacrament of Christes body is not his body nor the sacrament of his bloud is not his bloud But so they be called bicause they be figures sacramentes and representations of the thinges them selfe which they signifie and whereof they beare the names Thus doth saynt Augustine most playnly open this matter in his epistle to Bonifacius Of this maner of speach wherin a signe is called by the name of the thing which it signifieth speaketh S. Augustine also right largely in his questions super Leuiticum contra Adamantium declaring how bloud in scripture is called the soule A thing which signifieth sayth he is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth as it is writen in the scripture The vij
in the sacrament I graunt that he is really present after such sort as you expound really in this place that is to say indede and yet but spiritually For you say your selfe that he is but after a spirituall maner there and so is he spiritually honored as S Augustine sayth But as concerning heat of disputation marke well the wordes of S. Augustine good reader cited in my booke and thou shalt see clerely that all this multiplication of wordes is rather a iugling then a direct answer For saynt Augustine writeth not in heate of disputation but temperatly and grauely to a learned Bishop his deare frend who demanded a question of him And if Saynt Augustine had aunswered in heate of disputation or for any other respect otherwise then the truth he had not done the part of a friend nor of a learned and godly Bishop And who so euer iudgeth so of Saynt Augustine hath small estimation of him and sheweth him selfe to haue litle knowledge of Saynt Augustine But in this your answer to saynt Augustine you vtter where you learned a good part of your diuinitie that is of Albertus Pighius who is the father of this shift and with this fleight eludeth Saynt Augustin when he could no otherwise answer As you do now shake of the same Saynt Augustine resembling as it were in that poynt the liuely countenauÌ„ce of your father Pighius Next in my booke foloweth Theodoret And to this purpose it is both pleasaunt comfortable and profitable to read Theodoretus in his Dialogs where he disputeth and sheweth at length how the names of things be chaunged in scripture and yet thinges remayne still And for example he proueth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vayle or coueryng sometime a cloth sometyme a vestment and sometyme a stole the bloud of the grape is called Christes bloud and the names of bread and wine and of his flesh and bloud Christ doth so chaunge that sometyme he calleth his body corne or bread and sometime contrary he calleth bread his body And likewise his bloud sometime he calleth wine and sometime contrary he calleth wine his bloud For the more playne vnderstanding wherof it shall not be amisse to recite his owne sayings in his foresayd dialogs touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud The speakers in these dialogs be Orthodoxus the right beleuer and Eranistes his companyon but not vnderstanding the right fayth Orthodoxus saith to his companion Doost thou not know that god caleth bread his flesh Eran. I know that Orth. And in an other place he calleth his body corne Eran. I know that also for I haue heard him say The houre is come that the sonne of man shal be glorified c. Except the grayne of come that falleth in the ground dye it remayneth sole but if it dye then it bringeth forth much fruite Orth. When he gaue the mysteries of sacraments he called bread his body and that which was mixt in the cup he called bloud Eran. So he called them Orth. But that also which was his naturall body may well be called his body and his very bloud also may be called his bloud Eran. It is playne Orth. But our sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to the body the name of the signe or token and to the token he gaue the name of the body And so wheÌ„ he called himself a vyne he called bloud that which was the token of bloud Eran. Surely thou hast spokeÌ„ the truth But I would know the cause wherfore the names were changed Orth. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments should not set their mindes vpon the nature of the things which they see but by the changing of the names should beleue the things which be wrought in them by grace For he that called that which is his naturall body corne and bred and also called himselfe a vyne he did honor the visible tokeÌ„s and signes with the names of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not Ortho. Seyng then that it is certayne that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell and that now we be entred to speak of godly sacraments tell me truely of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a tokeÌ„ and figure of Christes diuinity or of his body and bloud Eran. It is cleare that it is the figure of those thinges whereof it beareth the name Orth. Meanest thou of his body and bloud Eran. Euen so I meane Orth. Thou hast spoken as one that loueth the truth for the Lord when he tooke the token or signe he sayd not This is my diuinity but This is my body this is my bloud And in an other place The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whiche I will geue for the life of the world Eran. These things be true for they be Gods words All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue ' And in the second he writeth the same in effect yet in some thing more playnly agaynst such heretiques as affirmed that after Christes resurrection ascention his humanity was changed from the very nature of man turned into his diuinity Agaynst whom thus he writeth Orth. Corruption healeth sicknes and death be accedents for they goe come Era. It is meet they be so called Orth. Mens bodies after their resurrection be delyuered from corruption death mortalitie and yet they lose not theyr proper nature Eran. Truth it is ' Orth. The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption death and is impassible immortall glorified with the glory of God is honored of the powers of heauen and it is a body hath the same bignes that it had before Era. Thy saying seeme true according to reason but after he was ascended vp into heauen I thinke thou wilt not say that his body was not tourned into the nature of his godhead Orth. I would not so say for the persuation of mans reason nor I am not so arrogant and presumptious to affirme any thing which scripture passeth ouer in silence But I haue heard S. Paule cry that God hath ordayned a day when he will iudge all the world in iustice by that man which he appoynted before performing his promise to all men and raysing him from death I haue learned also of the holy angels that he will come aâ—ter that fashion as his disciples saw him goe to heauen But they saw a nature of a certayn bignesse not a nature which had no bignes I heard furthermore the lord say You shall see the sonne of man come in the cloudes of heauen And
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
supper the gospell red or himself or an other saying his Crede which in words signify as much as the bread doth if it be but a signification And Peter Martyr sayth that wordes signify more clerely then these signes do and sayth further in his disputation with Chedsay that we receiue the body of Christ no lesse by wordes then by the Sacramentall signes which teaching if it were true why should this Sacrament be trembled at But because this author noteth the Epistle of Clement to be fayned I will not make with him any foundation of it but note to the reader the third note gathered by this author of Clementes wordes which is that Priestes ought not to receiue alone which the words of the epistle proue not It sheweth in déed what was done and how the feast is indéed prepared for the people as well as the Priest And I neuer red any thing of order in law or ceremony forbidding the people to coÌ„municate with the Priest but all the old prayers and ceremonies sounded as the people did communicate with the Priest And when the people is prepared for and then come not but fearyng and treÌ„bling forbeare to come that then the Priest might not receiue his part alone the words of this epistle shew not And ClemeÌ„t in that he speaketh so of leauings semeth to thinke of that case of disappointment of the people that should come prouiding in that case the clearkes to receiue the residue whereby should appeare if ther we no store of clerkes but onely one clearke as some poore churches haue no mo then a man might rather make a note of clements mind that in that case one Priest myght receiue all allone and so vpon a chaunce kepe the feast allone But what soeuer we may gather that note of this author remayneth vnproued that the priest ought not to receiue alone And here I dare therefore ioyne an issue with this author that none of his thrée fained notes is grounded of any wordes of this that he noteth a fayned Epistle taking only wordes that he alleageth here This author vpon occasion of this epistle which he calleth fayned speaketh more reuerently of the Sacrament then he doth in other places which me think worthy to be noted of me Here he sayth that very Christ himselfe is not onely represented but also spiritually geuen vnto vs in this table for so I vnderstand the word wherein And then if very Christ himselfe be represented and geuen in the table the author meaneth not the materiall table but by the word table the meat vpon the table as the word Mensa a table doth signify in the xvi of the artes the x. of the Corinth Now if very Christ himself be geuen in the meat then is he preseÌ„t in the meat to be geuen So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not onely figuratiuely in the table that is to say the meat of the table which this author now calleth representing but is also spiritually geuen in the table as these wordes sound to me But whether this author wil say very Christ himself is geuen spiritually in the meat or by the meat or with the meat what scripture hath he to proue that he sayth if the wordes of Christ be onely a figuratiue spech and the bread onely signify Christes body For if the wordes of the institution be but in figure man cannot adde of his diuise any other substance or effect then the words of christ purport so this supper after this authors teaching in other places of his book where he would haue it but a signification shall be a bare memory of Christs death and signify onely such communication of Christ as we haue otherwise by fayth in that benefite of his passion without any speciall communication of the substaunce of his flesh in this Sacrament beyng the same onely a figure if it were true that this author would persuade in the conclusion of this booke although by the way he saith otherwise for fear percase and trembling that he conceiueth euen of an Epistle which he himself saith is fayned Canterbury IT is no maruayle though this Epistle fayned by the Papistes many yeres passed doe vary from the Papistes in these latter dayes For the Papisticall church at the beginning was not so corrupt as it was after but from time to tyme encreased in errours and corruption more more and still dooth acording to S. Paules saying Euill men and deceiuers waxe euer worse both leading other into errour and erring them selues For at the first beginning they had no priuate Masses no pardons in purgatory no reseruation of the bread they knew no masses of Scala coeli no Lady psalters no transubstantiation but of latter dayes all these and an infinite number of errors besides wer inuented and deuised without any aucthority of Gods word As your selfe haue newly inuented a great sort of new deuises contrary to the Papists before your tyme as that Christ is in the sacrament carnally and naturally that the demonstration was made vpon the bread when Christ sayd This is my body that the word satisfactorie signifyeth no more but the Priest to do his duety with many other things which here for shortnes of tyme I will omit at this present purposing to speake of them more hereafter And the epistles of Clement were fayned before the Papistes had run so far in errors as they be now For yet at that tyme was not inuented as I sayd the error of transubstantiation nor the reseruation of the sacrament nor the priestes did not communicate alone without the people But that the sayd epistle of Clement was fayned be many most certayne arguments For there be v. epistles of ClemeÌ„t so knit together and referring one to an other that if one be fayned all must needes be fayned Now neither Eusebius in Ecclesiastica historia nor S. Hierom nor Gennadius nor any other old writer maketh any meâ—tion of those epistles which authors in rehersing what workes Clement wrotte not leauing out so much as one epistle of his would surely haue made some mention of the v. Epistles which the papistes long before our tyme fayned in his name if there had ben any such in their time Moreouer those Epistles make mention that Clement at Iames request wrot vnto him the maner of Peters death but how could that be seyng that Iames was dead vii yeres before Peter For Iames died the vii yere And Peter the xiiii yere of Nero the Emperour Thirdly it is contayned in the same epistles that Peter made ClemeÌ„t his successor which could not be true forasmuch as next to Peter succeeded Linus as all the histories tel Fourthly the author of those Epistles sayth that he made the booke called Itenerarium Clementis which was but fayned in Clements name as it is declared dist 15. Sancta And then it followeth likewise of the other Epistles Fiftely the author of those Epistles taketh vpon him
doubt not but the priest would haue absteined from ministration vnto more opportunitie and more accesse of Christian people as he would haue done likewise in saying of mattens and preaching Wherfore in your case I might well answer you as S. Hierom answered the argument made in the name of the heretike Iouinian which myght be brought agaynst the commendation of virginitie What if all men would liue virgines and no man marry How should then the world be mayntayned What if heauen fall sayd S. Hierom What if no man will come to the church is your argument for all that came in those dayes receaued the communion What if heauen fall say I For I haue not so euill opinion of the holy church in those dayes to think that any such thing could chaunce among them that no one would come when all ought to haue come Now when you come to your issue you make your case to straight for me to ioyne an issue with you bynding me to the bare and onely wordes of Clement and refusing vtterly his mynd But take the wordes and the mynd together and I dare aduenture an Issue to passe by any indiferent readers that I haue proued all my three notes And where you say that vpon occasion of this epistle I speake more reuerently of the sacrament then I do in other places if you were not giuen all together to calumniate and depraue my words you should perceaue in all my booke thorough euen from the beginning to the end therof a constant and perpetuall reuerence giuen vnto the sacramentes of Christ such as of dutie all Christian men ought to giue Neuerthelesse you interpret this word Wherin farre from my meaning For I meane not that Christ is spiritually eyther in the table or in the bread and wine that be sette vpon the table but I meane that he is present in the ministration and receauing of that holy supper according to his owne institution and ordinaunce Like as in baptisme Christ and the holy ghost be not in the water or fonte but be giuen in the ministration or to them thāt be duly baptised in the water And although the sacramental tokens be onely significations and figures yet doth almighty God effectually work in them that duely receaue his sacramentes those deuine and celestiall operations which he hath promised and by the sacramentes be signified For else they were vayne and vnfrutfull Sacramentes as well to the godly as to the vngodly And therfore I neuer sayd of the whole supper that it is but a significatiō or a bare memory of Christes death but I teach that it is a spirituall refreshing wherein our soules be fedde and nourished with Christes very flesh and bloud to eternall life And therfore bring you forth some place in my booke where I say that the Lordes suppper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same or else eate your wordes agayne and knowledge that you vntruly report me But heare what followeth further in my book Here I passe ouer Ignatius and Ireneus which make nothing for the papists opinions but stand in the commendation of the holy Communion and in exhortation of all men to the often and godly receauing therof And yet neither they nor no man else can extoll and commend the same sufficiently according to the dignitie therof if it be godly vsed as it ought to be Winchester This author sayth he passeth ouer Ignatius and Ireneus and why Bicause they make nothing he sayth for the Papistes purpose With the word papist the author playth at his pleasure But it shal be euident that Irene doth playnly confound this authors purpose in the deniall of the true presence of Christes very flesh in the sacramēt who although he vse not the wordes reall and substanciall yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speach of the sacrameut the vertue aud strength of those wordes And for the truth of the sacrament is Ireneus specially alleaged in so much as Melanghton when he writeth to Decolampadius that he will alleage none but such as speake playnly he alleageth Ireneus for one as apeareth by his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius And Decolampadius himselfe is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape any manner of euasion as to answer Ireneus in whome he notably stumbleth And Peter Martyr in his work graunteth Irene to be specially alledged to whome when he goeth about to answer a man may euidently see how he masketh him selfe And this author bringeth in Clementes epistle of which no great count is made although it be not contemned and passeth ouer Ireneus that speaketh euidently in the matter and was as old as Clement or not much yonger And bicause Ignatius was of that age and is alleadged by Theodorete to haue written in his epistle ad Smirnenses whereof may apeare his fayth of the mistery of the sacrament it shall serue to good purpose to write in the wordes of the same Ignatius here vpon the credite of the sayd Theodoret whome this author so much commendeth the wordes of Ignatius be these Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit Which wordes be thus much in english they do not admitte Eucharistias and oblations bycause they do not confesse Eucharistiam to be the flesh of our sauiour Iesu Christ which flesh suffered for our sinnes which flesh the father by his benignitie hath stirred vp These be Ignatius wordes which I haue not throughly englished bicause the word Eucharistia can not be well englished being a word of mistery and signifieng as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacrament heauenly and earthly visible and inuisible But in that Ignatius openeth his fayth thus he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our sauiour Christ that suffered for vs he declareth the sence of Christes wordes This is my body not to be figuratiue onely but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there giuen and therfore Ignatius sayth Eucharistia is the flesh of our sauior Christ the same that suffered and the same that rose agayne Which wordes of Ignatius so pithely open the matter as they declare therwith the fayth also of Theodoret that doth alleage him so as if the author would make so absolute a worke as to peruse all the fathers sayinges he should not thus leape ouer Ignatius nor Irene neither as I haue before declared But this is a color of rethorik called Reiection of that is hard to answer and is here a prety shift or slaight wherby thou reader mayst consider how this matter is handled Caunterbury IT shall not nede to make any further answer to you here as cōcerning Ireneus but onely to note one thing that if any place of Ireneus had serued for your purpose you would
that Christes flesh is a spirituall meat and hys bloud a spirituall drink and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud may not be vnderstand litterally but spiritually it is manifested by Origens own words in his seuenth Homily vpon the booke called Leuiticus where he sheweth that those words must be vnderstand figuratiuely and whosoeuer vnderstandeth them otherwise they be deceiued and take harme by their owne grosse vnderstanding Winchester Origens wordes be very playne and meaning also which speake of manifestation and exhibition which be two things to be verified thrée wayes in our religion that is to say in the word and regeneration and the sacramēt of bread and wine as this author termeth it which Origen sayth not so but thus the flesh of the word of God not meaning in euery of these after one sort but after the truth of the Scripture in ech of them Christ in his word is manifest and exhibited vnto vs and by fayth that is of hearyng dwelleth in vs spiritually for so we haue his spirit Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as many as be baptysed be clad in christ Now in the sacramēt of bred wine by Origens rule Christ should be manifested and exhibited vnto vs after the scriptures so as the sacrament of bread and wine should not onely signify Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him sensibly as Origens wordes be reported here to be So as Christes wordes This is my body should be wordes not of fygure or shewing but of exhibiting Christes body vnto vs and sensibly as this author alleageth him which should signifye to be receiued with our mouth as Christ commaunded when he sayd Take eat c. diuersely from the other two wayes in which by Christes spirite we be made participant of the benefite of his passion wrought in his manhode But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanity exhibit vnto vs for food and so in this mistery we receaue him man and God and in the other by meane of his godhead be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhod In this sacrament Christes manhode is represented and truly present whereunto the godhead is most certaynly vnited wherby we receaue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the general resurrection spirituall with our soule as we haue bene in baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfect And therfore this author may not compare baptisme with the sacrament throughly in which Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present although the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there but the truth of the mistery of this sacrament is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherunto eating and drinking is by Christ in his supper apropriate In which supper Christ sayd This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not This is my spirite This is my vertue Wherfore after Origenes teaching if Christ be not onely manifested but also exhibited sensibly in th◠sacrament then is he in the sacrament indede that is to say Really and then is he there substancially because the substaunce of the body is there and is there corporally also bycause the very body is there and naturally bicause the naturall body is there not vnderstanding corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly neither For then were the maner of presence within mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the catholique teaching is that the maner of Christes presence in the sacrament is spirituall and supernaturall not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall the how and maner wherof God knoweth and we assured by his word know onely the truth to be so that it is there indede and therfore really to be also receaued with our handes and mouthes and so sensibly there the body that suffered and therfore his naturall body there the body of very flesh and therfore his carnall body the body truely and therfore his corporall body there But as for the maner of presence that is onely spirituall as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this author enforceth me therunto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosely sensibly naturally applying them to the maner of presence doth maliciously and craftely cary away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these words grosely vnderstanded import astonieth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these wordes as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repeate the vnderstanding of these words oftener then elswere necessary These thinges well considered no man doth more playnly confound this author then this saying of Origene as he alleageth it whatsoeuer other sentences he would pycke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise And as I haue declared a fore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church and to esteme godes misteries most true in the substaunce of the thing so to be although the maner excedeth our capacities which is a spirituall vnderstanding of the same And here also this author putteth in for figuratiuely spiritually to deceaue the reader Caunterbury YOu obserue my wordes here concerning Origene so captiously as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayinges word by word which I did not but bicause they were very long I went about onely to rehearse the effect of his mind brefely and playnly which I haue done faythfully and truely although you captiously carpe and reprehend the same And where as craftely to alter the sayinges of Origene you goe about to put a diuersitie of the exhibition of Christ in these iii. thinges in his worde in baptisme and in his holy supper as though in his worde and in baptisme he were exhibited spiritually in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouthes this distinction you haue dreamed in your slepe or imagined of purpose For Christ after one sort is exhibited in all these iii. in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say spiritually and for so much in one sorte as before you haue confessed your selfe And Origene putteth no such diuersitie as you here imagine but declareth one maner of giuing of Christ vnto vs in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say in all these iii. secundum speciem That as vnto the Iewes Christ was geuen in figures so to vs he is geuen in specie that is to say in rei veritate in his very nature meaning nothing els but that vnto the Iewes he was promised in figures and to vs after his incarnation
he is maried and ioyned in his proper kynd and in his wordes and sacramentes as it were sensibly geuen But how so euer I report Origene you captiously and very vntruely do report me For wheras I say that in Gods word and in the sacramēts of baptisme and of the Lordes supper Christ is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly you leauing out these wordes as it were make a quarell to this word sensibly or rather you make that word sensibly the foundation of all your weake building as though there were no difference betwene sensibly and as it were sensibly and as it were all one thing a man to lye sleaping and as he were sleaping or deade and as he were dead Do not I write thus in my first booke that the washing in the water of baptisme is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes and a sensible touching feeling and groping of him And do these wordes import that we see him grope him indede And further I say that the eating and drinking of the sacramentall bread and wine is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes a smelling of him with our noses and a feeling groping of him with our handes And doe we therfore see him indede with our corporall eyes smell him with our noses and put our handes in his side and fele his woundes If it were so indede I would not adde these wordes as it were For what speach were this of a thing that is in dede to say as it were For these wordes as it were signifie that it is not so indede So now likewise in this place of Origene where it is sayd that Christ in his wordes and sacramentes is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly it is not ment that Christ is so exhibited in dede face to face and sensibly but the sence is cleane contrary that he is not there geuen sensibly nor face to face Thus it apeareth how vprightly you handell this matter and how truely you reporte my wordes But the further you proceade in your aunswer the more you shew crafty iuggeling legier de mayne passe a gods name to blynd mens eyes strange speaches new inuentions not without much impietie as the wordes sound but what the meaning is no man can tell but the maker him selfe But as the words be placed it seemeth you meane that in the Lordes supper we be not made by Christes spirite participant of the benefyt of his passion nor by baptisme or Gods word we be not made participant of his godhead by his humanite and furthermore by this distinction which you fayne without any ground of Origene we receaue not man and God in baptisme nor in the Lordes supper we be not by meanes of his godhead made participant of the effect of his passion In baptisme also by your distinction we receaue not a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh but in the Lordes supper nor Christ is not truely present in baptisme Which your sayd differences do not onely derogate and diminish the effect and dignitie of Christes sacraments but be also blasphemous agaynst the ineffable vnite of Christes person separating his diuinitie from his humanitie Here may all men of iudgement see by experience how diuinity is handled when it cometh to the discussion of ignoraunt lawyers And in all these your sayinges if you meane as the wordes be I make an yssue with you for the price of a fagot And where you say that our flesh in the generall resurrection shal be spirituall here I offer a like yssue except you vnderstand a spirituall body to be a sensible and palpable body that hath all perfect members distinct which thing in sundrie places of your booke you seeme vtterly to deny And where you make this difference betwene baptisme and this sacrament that in baptisme Christ is not really present expounding Really present to signifie no more but to be indede present yet after a spirituall manner if you deny that presence to be in baptisme yet the third fagot I will aduenture with you for your strange and vngodly doctrine within xx lines togither who may in equalitie of errour contend with the Ualentines Arrians or Anabaptistes But when you come here to your lies declaring the wordes sensibly really substancially corporally and naturally you speake so fondly vnlearnedly and ignorantly as they that know you not might thinke that you vnderstood neither grammer english nor reason For who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that aduerbes that ende in ly be aduerbes of quallity and being added to the verbe they expresse the manner forme and fashion how a thing is and not the substance of it As speaking wisely learnedly and playnly is to speake after such a forme and manner as wise men learned and playn men do speake And to do wisely and godly is to do in such sort and fashion as wise and godly men do And sometyme the aduerbe ly signifieth the maner of a thing that is indede and sometyme the maner of a thing that is not As when a man speaketh wisely that is wise indede And yet somtyme we say fooles speake wisely which although they be not wise yet they vtter some speaches in such sorte as though they were wise The King we say vseth him selfe princely in all his doinges who is a prince in dede but we say also of an arrogant wilfull and proude man that he vseth him selfe princely and Imperiousely although he be neither Prince nor Emperoure and yet we vse so to speake of him bicause of the maner forme and fashion of vsing him selfe And if you aunswer foolishly and vnlearnedly be you therfore a foole and vnlearned Nay but then your aūswers be made in such wise maner sort and fashion as you were neither learned nor wise Or if you send to Rome or receaue priuate letters from thence be you therfore a Papist God is iudge therof but yet do you Popishly that is to say vse such maner and fashion as the Papistes do But where the forme and maner lacketh there the aduerbes of qualitie in ly haue no place although the thing be there indede As when a wise man speaketh not in such a sorte in such a fashion and wise as a wise man should speake not withstanding that he is wise in dede yet we say not that he speaketh wisely but foolishly And the godly King Dauid did vngodly when he took Bersabe and slew Urye her husband bicause that maner of doing was not godly So do all English men vnderstand by these wordes sensibly substancially corporally naturally carnally spiritually and such like the maner and forme of being and not the thing it selfe without the sayde formes and maners For when Christ was borne and rose from death and wrought miracles we say not that he did these thinges naturally bicause the meane maner was not after a naturall sort
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
more then the assertion of this Author specially when thou hast red how he hath handled Hilray Cyrill Theophilact and Damascene as I shall hereafter touch Caunterbury WHether I make an exposition of Cyprian by myne own deuise I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader And if I so doe why do not you proue the same substancially agaynst me For your own bare words without any proofe I trust the indifferent reader will not allow hauing such experience of you as he hath And if Cyprian of all other had writ most plainly agaynst me as you say without profe who thinketh that you would haue omitted here Cyprians wordes and haue fled to Melancthon and Epinus for succor And why do you alleage their authority for you which in no wise you admit when they be brought agaynst you But it semeth that you be faint harted in this mater and beginne to shrinke and like one that refuseth the combat and findeth the shift to put an other in his place euen so it semeth you would draw backe your selfe from the daunger and set me to fight with other men that in the meane tyme you might be an idle looker on And if you as graund capitayne take them but as meane souldiours to fyght in your quarell you shall haue little ayd at their hands for their writings declare opēly that they be agaynst you more then me although in this place you bring them for your part and report them to say more and otherwise then they say indeed And as for Cyprian and S. Augustine here by you alleaged they serue nothing for your purpose nor speake nothing against me by Epinus own iudgement For Epinus sayth that Eucharistia is called a sacrifice because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice which was offred vpon the cros and that in it is dispensed the very body and bloud yea the very death of Christ as he alleadgeth of S. Augustine in that place the holy sacrifice wherby he blotted out and canceled the obligation of death which was against vs nayling it vpon the crosse and in his owne person wanne the victory and tryumphed agaynst the princes powers of darknesse This passion death and victory of Christ is dispēsed and distributed in the Lords holy supper and dayly among Christs holy people And yet all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament nor the words of Cypriā ad Quirinum neither For if they did then was Christes flesh corporally present in the sacrifice of the old testament 1500. yeares before he was borne for of those sacrifices speaketh that text alleaged by Cyprian ad Quirinum whereof Epinus and you gather these wordes that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh And how so euer you wrast Melancthon or Epinus they condemne clearely your doctrine that Christes body is corporally contayned vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wine Next in my book of Hilarius But Hylarius thinke they is playnest for them in this matter whose words they translate thus If the word were made very flesh and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh in our lords meat how shal not Christ be thought to dwel naturally in vs Who beyng borne man hath taken vnto him the nature of our flesh that can not be seuered hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity vnder the sacrament of the communion of his flesh vnto vs. For so we be all one because the father is in Christ and Christ in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will deny the father to be naturally in Christ he must deny fyrst eyther himselfe to be naturally in Christ or Christ to be naturally in him For the beyng of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ haue taken verily the flesh of our body and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ and also we receaue vnder thè true mistery the flesh of his body by meanes wherof we shal be one for the father is in Christ and Christ in vs how shall that be called the vnity of will when the naturall property brought to passe by the Sacrament is the sacrament of vnity Thus doth the Papists the aduersaries of Gods word of his truth alleage the authority of Hilarius eyther peruersely and purposely as it semeth vntruely reciting hym and wrasting his words to their purpose or els not truely vnderstanding him For although he sayth that Christ is naturally in vs yet he sayth also that we be naturally in him And neuerthelesse in so saying he ment not of the natural and corporall presence of the substaunce of Christes body and of ours for as our bodyes be not after that sort within his body so is not his body after that sort within our bodies but he ment that Christ in his incarnation receyued of vs a mortal nature and vnited the same vnto his diuinity and so be we naturally in him And the sacraments of Baptisme of his holy supper if we rightly vse the same do most assuredly certify vs that we be partakers of his godly nature hauing geuen vnto vs by him immortality and life euerlasting and so is Christ naturally in vs. And so be we one with Christ and Christ with vs not onely in will and mind but also in very naturall properties And so concludeth Hylarius agaynst Arrius that Christ is one with his father not in purpose and will onely but also in very nature And as the vnion betwene Christ and vs in baptisme is spirituall and requireth no real and corporall presence so likewise our vnion with Christ in his holy supper is spirituall and therfore requireth no reall and coporall presence And therfore Hilarius speaking therof both the sacraments maketh no difference betwene our vnion with Christ in baptisme and our vnion with him in his holy supper And sayth further that as Christ is in vs so be we in him which the Papistes cannot vnderstand corporally and really except they will say that all our bodyes be corporally within Christes body Thus is Hylarius answered vnto both playnly and shortly Winchester This answere to Hylary in the lxxviii leafe requyreth a playne precise issue worthy to be tried apparant at hand The allegation of Hylary toucheth specially me who do say and mayntayne that I cited Hylary truely as the copy did serue and translate him truely in English after the same words in latin This is one issue which I qualyfy with the copy because I haue Hilary now better correct which better correctiō setteth forth more liuely the truth then the other did and therfore that I did translate was not so much to the aduantage of that I aledged Hylary for as is that in the book that I haue now better correct Hilaries words in the booke newly corrected be these Si enim verè verbum caro factum est nos
the author of this booke forgetteth himselfe to call Christ in vs naturally by his Godhead which were then to make vs al Gods by nature which is ouer great an absurdity and Christ in his diuine nature dwelleth only in his father naturally in vs by grace But as we receaue him in the sacrament of his flesh and bloud if we receiue hym worthily so dwelleth he in vs naturally for the naturall communication of our nature and hys And therfore where this author reporteth Hylary to make no difference betwéene our vnyon to Christ in Baptisme and in the supper let him trust in him no more that told hym so or if this author will take vpon him as of his owne knowledge then I must say and if he were another would say an aunswere in french that I will not expresse And hereupon will I ioynin the Issue that in Hylary the matter is so playn otherwise then this author rehearseth as it hath no coulor of defence to the contrary And what Hylary speaketh of Baptisme and our vnity therin I haue before touched and this vnity in flesh is after treated apart What shall I say to this so manifest vntruth but that it confirmeth that I haue in other obserued how there was neuer one of them that I haue red writing against the Sacrament but hath in his writings sayd somewhat so euidently in the matter or out of the matter discrepant from truth as might be a certayn marke to iudge the quality of his spirite Canterbury HEre you confesse that you cited Hilary vntruely but you impute the fault to your copy What copy you had I know not but aswell the citation of Melancthon as all the printed bookes that euer I saw haue otherwise then you haue written and therfore it seemeth that you neuer red any printed booke of Hylarius Marry it might be that you had from Smyth a false copy written who informed me that you had of him all the authorityes that be in your booke And hauing al the authorities that he had with great trauell gathered by and by you made your booke and stale from him all his thanck and glory like vnto Esops choughe which plumed himselfe with other birds fethers But whersoeuer you had your copy all the books setforth by publike fayth haue otherwise then you haue cited And although the false allegatiō of Hylary toucheth you somewhat yet chiefly it toucheth Smyth who hath erred much worse in his translation then you haue done albeit nether of you both handle the matter sincerely and faithfully nor agree the one with the other But I trow it be your chaunce to light vpon false bookes For wheras in this sentence Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit negit prius naturaliter vel se in Christo vel Christum sibi inesse one false print for naturaliter hath non naturaliter it seemeth that you chaunced vpō that false print For if you haue found Hilary truely corrected as you say you haue your fault is the more that out of a true copy would pick out an vntrue translation And if you haue so done then by putting in a little prety not where none ought to be with that little prity trip you haue cleane ouerthrowne your selfe For if it be an errour to deny that Christ is not naturally in vs as it his rehersed for an errour then must it be an errour to affirme that Christ is naturally in vs. For it is all one thing that he is not and to affirme that he is naturally in vs. And so by your owne translation you ouerthrow your selfe quite and cleane in that you say in many places of your book that Christ is naturally in vs and ground your saying vpon Hylarie Whereas now by your owne translation Hylary reiecteth that clearely as an haynous error And as concerning this word truely it fetteth not liuely forth a real and substanciall presence as you say it doth for Christ is truely in all his faithfull people and there truely eate his flesh and drinke his bloud and yet not by a reall and corporall but by a spirituall and effectuall presence And as concerning the word perfecta or peafectae in the print which I haue of your book is neyther of both but be left quite out Neuerthelesse that fault I impute to no vntruth in you but rather to the negligence either of your pen or of the printer But for the perfectnes of the vnity between Christ and vs you declare here to be the perfect vnity to be that which is but the one halfe of it For the perfect vnity of vs with Christ is not onely to haue Christ corporally and naturally dwelling in vs but likewise we to dwell corporally and naturally in him And Hylary declareth the second part to pertain to our vnity with Christ aswell as the first which of sleight pollicy you leaue out purposely because it declareth the meaning of the first part which is not that Christ is in them that receaue the sacrament and when they receaue the sacrament only but that he naturally tarrieth and dwelleth in all them that partayn to him whether they receaue the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth naturally in them so do they in him And although you haue excused your peruersity by your false copy yet here I will ioyne an issue with you that you did neither aleage Hylaries wordes before truely nor yet now do truely declare them As for the fyrst part you haue confessed your selfe that you were deceiued by a false copy And therfore in this part I plead that you be gilty by your own cōfessiō And as concerniug the second part Hylary speaketh not of the vnitye of Christ with the sacrament nor of the vnity of Christ with vs onely when we receaue the sacrament nor of the vnity of vs with Christ onely but also with his father by which vnity we dwell in Christ and Christ in vs also we dwell in the Father and the father in vs. For as Christ beyng in his father his father in him hath lyfe of his father so he beyng in vs we in him geueth vnto vs the nature of his eternity which he receiued of his father that is to say immortality and life euerlasting which is the nature of his Godhead And so haue we the Father and the Sonne dwelling in vs naturally and we in them forasmuch as he geueth to vs the nature of his eternitie which he had of his father and honoureth vs with that honoureth vs with that houour which he had of his father But Christ giueth not this nature of eternity to the Sacrament except you will say that the sacrament shall haue euerlasting lyfe as you must needes say if Christ dwell naturally in it after Hylaries maner of reasoning For by the saying of Hylary where Christ dwelleth there dwelleth his father giueth eternall lyfe by his sonne And so be
vs doth it not make Christ by communication of his flesh to dwell corporally in vs Why be the members of faythfull mennes bodyes called the members of Christ Know you not sayth S. Paule that your members be the members of Christ And shall I make the members of Christ partes of the whores body God forbid And our sauiour also sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Although in these wordes Cyrill doth say that Christ doth dwel corporally in vs when we receaue the misticall benediction yet he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally only at such tymes as we receaue the sacrament nor that he dwelleth in vs and not we in him but he sayth as well that we dwell in him as that he dwelleth in vs. Which dwelling is neyther corporall nor locall but an heauenly spirituall and supernaturall dwelling wherby so long as we dwell in him and he in vs we haue by him euerlasting life And therfore Cyril sayth in the same place that Christ is the vine and we the branches bicause that by him we haue lyfe For as the branches receaue lyfe and nourishment of the body of the vine so receaue we by him the naturall property of his body which is life and immortality and by that meanes we being his members do liue and are spiritually nourished And this ment Cirill by this word Corporally when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs. And the same ment also S. Hilarius by this worde Naturally when he sayd that Christ dwelleth naturally in vs. And as S. Paule when he sayd that in Christ dwelleth the full diuinity Corporally by this word Corporally he ment not that the diuinity is a body and so by that body dwelleth bodily in Christ. But by this word Corporally he ment that the diuinity is not in Christ accidentally lightly and slenderly but substancially and perfectly with all his might and power so that Christ was not onely a mortall man to suffer for vs but also he was immortall God able to redeeme vs. So S. Ciril when he sayd that Christ is in vs Corporally he ment that we haue him in vs not lightly and to small effect and purpose but that we haue him in vs substancially pithely and effectually in such wise that we haue by him redemption and euerlasting life And this I sucke not out of mine owne singers but haue it of Cirils owne expresse wordes where he sayth A litle benediction draweth the whole man to God and filleth him with his grace and after this manner Christ dwelleth in vs and we in Christ. But as for corporall eating and drinking with our mouthes and digesting with our bodyes Cirill neuer ment that Christ doth so dwell in vs as he playnly declareth Our sacrament sayth he doth not affirme the eating of a man drawing wickedly christen people to haue grosse imaginations and carnall fantasies of such thinges as be fine and pure and receaued onely with a sincere fayth But as two waxes that be molten and put togither they close so in one that euery part of the one is ioyned to euery part of the other euen so sayth Cirill he that receaueth the flesh and bloud of the Lord must needes be so ioyned with Christ that Christ must be in him and he in Christ. By these wordes of Cirill appeareth his mynd playnly that we may not grossely and rudely think of the eating of Christ with our mouthes but with our fayth by which eating although he be absent hence bodely and be in the eternall life and glory with his father yet we be made partakers of his nature to be immortall and haue eternall lyfe and glory with him And thus is declared the mind as well of Cirill as of Hilarius Winchester The author sayth such answer as he made to Hilary will serue for Cyrill and indeede to say truth it is made after the fame sort and hath euen such an error as the other had sauing it may be excused by ignorance For where the author trauayleth here to expound the word corporally which is a sore word in Cirill agaynst this author and therfore taketh labour to temper it with the word Corporaliter in S. Paule applied to the dwelling of the diuinity in Christ and yet not content therwith maketh further search and would gladly haue somewhat to confirme his phansy out of Cirill him selfe and seeketh in Cirill where it is not to be found and seeketh not where it is to be found For Cirill telleth him selfe playnly what he meaneth by the word corporally which place and this author had found be might haue spared a great many of wordes vttered by diuination but then the truth of that place hindreth and quayleth in manner all the booke I will at my perill bring forth Cirils owne wordes truely vpon the seuententh chapiter of S. Iohn Corporaliter filius per benedictionem misticam nobis vt homo vnitur spiritualiter autem vt deus Which be in English thus much to say The sonne is vnite as man corporally to vs by the misticall benediction spiritually as god These be Cirils wordes who nameth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the misticall benediction land sheweth in this sentence how him selfe vnderstandeth the wordes corporally and spiritually That is to say when Christ vniteth him selfe to vs as man which he doth geuing his body in this Sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it then he dwelleth in them corporally which Christ was before in them spiritualy or els they could not worthely receaue him to the effect of the vnity corporal corporal dwelling by which word corporal is vnderstanded no grossenes at all which the nature of a mistery excludeth and yet kepeth truth still being the vnderstanding onely attayned by fayth But where the author of the booke alleadgeth Cirill in wordes to deny the eating of a man and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion that Cirill sayth not so and the translations of Cirill into Latine after the print of Basill in a booke called Antidotum and of whole Cirils workes printed at Colen haue not in that place such sentence So as following the testimony of those bookes set forth by publique fayth in two sundry places I should call the allegation of Cirill made by this author in this poynt vntrne as it is indeede in the matter vntrue And yet bicause the originall errour proceedeth from Decolampadius it shall serue to good purpose to direct the originall fault to him as he well deserueth to be as he is noted gilty of it whose reputation deceaued many in the matter of the sacrament and being well noted how the same Decolampadius corrupteth Cirill it may percase somewhat worke with this author to consider how he hath in this place bene
indifferent reader iudge whether you or I be in errour and whether of vs both hath most neede to excuse himselfe of ignorance Would god you were as ready humbly to yeld in those manifest errours which be proued agaynst you as you be stout to take vpon you a knowledge in those thinges wherein ye be most ignoraunt But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a perilous witch Now whereas I haue truly expounded this word corporally in Cirill when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs and haue declared how that word corporally as Cyrill vnderstandeth it maketh nothing for your purpose that Christes flesh should be corporally conteyned as you vnderstand the matter vnder the forme of bread for he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread nor that he dwelleth in them corporally that be not liuely members of his body nor that he dwelleth in his liuely members at such time onely as they receaue the Sacrament nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally and not we in him But he sayth as well that we dwell in him as that he dwelleth in vs and whē I haue also declared that Cyrills meaning was this that as the vine and branches be both of one nature so the sonne of God taking vnto him our humayne nature and making vs partakers of his diuine nature geuing vnto vs immortality and euerlasting life doth so dwell naturally and corporally in vs and maketh vs to dwell naturally and corporally in him And wheare as I haue proued this by Cyrills owne wordes as well in that place in his tenth booke vpon S. Iohns gospell the .xiii. chapiter as in his fourth booke the .xvii. chapiter you answere no more to all this but say that I seeke in Cirill where it is not to be found and seeke not where it is to be found A substanciall answere be you sure and a learned For you do here like a keper which I knew once required to follow a sute with his hound after one that had stolen a deare And when his hound was in his right sute and had his game fresh before him and came nere to the house and place where the deere was in deed after he had a little inkling that it was a speciall frend of his that killed the deare and then being loth to find the sute he plucked backe his hound being in the right way and appoynted him to hunt in an other place where the game was not and so deceaued all them that followed him as you would here doe to as many as will follow you For you promise to bring the reader to a place where he shall finde the meaning of this word corporally and when he commeth to the place where you appoynt the word is spoken of there but the meaning therof is not declared neither by you nor by Cirill in that place And so the reader by your fayre promise is brought from the place where the game is truely in deed and brought to an other place where he is vtterly disapoynted of that he sought for For where you send the reader to this place of Cirill The sonne is vnited as man corporally vnto vs by the misticall benediction spiritually as god here in deed in this sentēce Cirill nameth this word corporally but he telleth not the meaning therof which you promised the reader that he should fynde here Neuerthelesse Cirill meaneth no more by these wordes but that Christ is vnited vnto vs two manner of wayes by his body and by his spirite And he is also a band and knot to bynd and ioyne vs to his father being knit in nature vnto both to vs as a naturall man and to his father as naturall God himselfe knitting vs God his father together And although Cirill say that Christ is vnited vnto vs corporally by the mistical benedictiō yet in that place the material benedictiō may well be vnderstād of his incarnatiō which as Cirill and Hilary both call an hye mistery so was it to vs a meruailous benedictiō that he that was immortall God would become for vs a mortall man which mistery S. Paule sayth was without controuersye great and was hid from the world and at the last opened that Gentils should be made partakers of the promises in Christ which by his flesh came downe vnto vs. But to geue you all the aduantage that may be I will graunt for your pleasure that by the misticall benediction Cirill vnderstoode the sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud as you say and that Christ is therby vnited corporally vnto vs. Yet sayth not Cirill that this vnity is onely when we receaue the sacramēt nor extēdeth to all that receaue the sacramēt but vnto thē that being renued to a new life be made partakers of the diuine nature which nature Cirill himselfe vpō the vi chapiter of Iohn declareth to be life But he speaketh not one word of the corporall presence of Christ in the fourmes of bread and wine nor no more doth Hilary And therfore I may well approue that I sayd that the answer made vnto Hilary will very well also serue for Cirill And yet neyther of them both hath one word that serueth for your purpose that Christes flesh and bloud should be in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine And where you say that Christ vniteth himselfe to vs as man when he geueth his body in the sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it if you will speake as Cirill and other old authors vse to do Christ did vnite himselfe to vs as man at his incarnation And here agayne you geue euidence agaynst your owne issue affirming our vnity vnto Christ no further than we receaue the sacrament worthely And then they that receaue it vnworthely be not vnited corporally vnto Christ nor eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which is the playne mynd both of Hilary also of Cirill and directly with the state of my fourth booke agaynst your āswer to the same And here you pretending to declare agayne what is ment by this word corporall do tell the negatiue that there is no grosenes ment therby but the affirmatiue what is ment therby you declare not as you promised But if you meane playnly speake playnly whether Christes body being in the sacrament vnder the fourmes of bread and wine haue head feete armes legges backe and bely eyes eares and mouth distinct and in due order and proportion Which if he lacke the simplest man or woman knoweth that it can not be a perfect corporall mans body but rather an imaginatiue or phantasticall body as Martion and Ualētyne taught it to be Expresse here fully and playnly what manner of body you call this corporall body of Christ. And where you say that I alleadge Cirill to deny in wordes the eating of a man and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth and yet it shall appeare by further discussing say you that Cirill sayth not so
any reall and corporall conuersion of bread and wine vnto Christs body and bloud nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same but he speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wine and of a spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptisme as the same Eusebius playnly there declareth as he is in the Lordes table Which is not carnally and corporally but by fayth and spiritually But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstatiation Winchester This author sayth that Emissen is shortly aunswered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he sayth as Hylary was aunswered and Cyrill But els there can no short or long aunswere confound the true playne testimony of Emissen for the common true faith of the church in the Sacrament Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saying thus This is my bodye And aâ—ayne repeating the same sanctificatioÌ„ This is my bloud Wherfore as at the beck of him commauÌ„ding the heightes of heauens the depenes of the floudes and largenes of landes were founded of nothing by like power in spirituall Sacraments where vertue commaundeth the effect of the trueth serueth These bee Emissenes wordes declaring his fayth playnely of the Sacrament in such termes as can not be wrested or writhed who speaketh of a turning conuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body bloud he sayth not into the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud whereby he should meane a only sacramental conuersion as this author would haue it but he sayth into the substance of Christs body bloud to be in the sacrameÌ„t For the words substance and truth be of one strength shew a difference froÌ„ a figure wherein the truth is not in dede preseÌ„t but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle this Emissen represseth mans carnall reason and socoureth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of this world which were brought forth out of tyme by Emissene if Christes bodye were not in substaunce present as Emissenes wordes bee but in figure onely as this author teacheth And where this authour coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in eyther he putteth himselfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these misteries be both great and mans regeneration in baptisme is also a mistery and the secret worke of God and hath a great meruayle in that effect yet it differeth from the mistery of the sacrament touching the maner of Christes presence and the working of the effect also For in baptisme our vnion with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole Trinitie there working as author in whose name the sacrament is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body indede but in hope onely that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in baptisme bene buried with christ so we be assured to be partakers of his resurection And so in this sacrament we be vnite to Christes manhod by this deuinite But in the sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie which mistical vnion representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorification wherin body and soule shall in the generall resurection by a maruailous regeneration of the body be made both spirituall the speciall pledge wherof we receaue in this sacrament and therfore it is the sacrament as Hilary sayth of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious then the body and the nature of the godhead in Christ more excellent then the nature of man in him glorified and in baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passion and bloud Christes godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respectes the excelency of baptisme is great yet bicause the mistery of the sacrameÌ„t of the alter where Christ is present both man and God in the effectuall vnitie that is wrought betwene our bodies our soules and Christes in the vse of this sacrament signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurection which shall be the end and consumatioÌ„ of all our felicitie This sacrament of perfect vnitie is the mistery of our perfect estate when body and soule shal be all spirituall and hath so a degre of excelencie for the dignitie that is estemed in euery end and perfection wherfore the word spirituall is a necessary word in this sacrament to call it a spirituall foode as it is indede for it is to worke in our bodyes a spirituall effect not onely in our soules and Christes body and flesh is a spirituall body and flesh and yet a true body and very flesh And it is present in this sacrament after a spirituall maner graunted and taught of all true teachers which we should receaue also spiritually which is by hauing Christ before spiritually in vs to receaue it so worthely Wherfore like as in the inuisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnall but all spirituall taking the word carnall as it signifieth grossely in mans carnall iudgement So where the receiuers of that foode bring carnall lustes or desires carnall fansies or imaginations with them they receaue the same preciens foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condemnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christian fayth of the very presence of Christes body And this sufficeth to wipe out that this Author hath spoken of Emissen agaynst the truth Caunterbury I Haue so playnly aunswered vnto Emissene in my former booke partly in this place and partely in the second parte of my booke that he that readeth ouer those two places shall see most clearly that you haue speÌ„t a greate many of wordes here in vayne and nede no further answer at all And I had then such a care what I sayd that I sayd nothing but according to Emissenus owne mind and which I proued by his owne wordes But if you finde but one word that in speach soundeth to your purpose you sticke to that word tooth and nayle caring nothing what the authors meaning is And here is one great token of sleight and vntruth to be noted in you that you write diligently euery word so long as they seme to make with you And when you come to the very place
where Emissene declareth the meaning of his wordes there you leaue all the rest out of your booke which can not be without a great vntruth and fraud to deceaue the simple reader For when you haue recited these wordes of Emissene that the inuisible priest by the secret power with his word tourneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud and so further as serueth to your affection when you come euen to the very place where Emissen declareth these words there you leaue and cut of your writing But because the reader may know what you haue cut of and thereby know Emissens meaning I shall here rehearse Emisenes words which you haue left out If thou wilt know sayth Emissene how it ought not to seeme to thee a thing new and impossible that earthly and incorruptible things be tourned into the substance of Christ looke vpō thy self which art made new in baptisme When thou wast far from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast dead yet sodenly thou beganst an other new life in Christ and wast made new by holesome misteries and wast tourned into the bodye of the church not by seing but by beleuing of the child of damnatiō by a secret purenes thou wast made the sonne of God Thou visibly didst remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any encrease of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was mā made the sonne of Christ and Christ formed in the mind of man Therefore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receiue a new dignity not feling any chaunge in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not seene with thine eyes but beleued in thy minde so likewise when thou doost goe vp to the reuerend aulter to feed vpon the spirituall meat in thy fayth looke vpon the body and blud of him that is thy God honour hym touch him with thy minde take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man These be Emissens own wordes Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleadged For where you bring in these wordes that Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud straightwaies in these wordes by me now rehearsed he sheweth what maner of turning that is after what maner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ euē so saith he as it is in baptisme wherin is no Transubstantiation So that I gather his meaning of his own playne words and you gather his meaning of your own imagination deuisyng such phantasticall things as neither Emissen sayth nor yet be catholike And this word truth you haue put vnto the wordes of Emissen of your own head which is no true dealing For so you may proue what you lift if you may adde to the authors what words you please And yet if Emissē had vsed both the wordes substaunce and trueth what should that helpe you For Christ is in substaunce and truth present in baptisme aswell as he is in the Lords supper and yet is he not there carnally corporally and naturally I will passe ouer here to aggrauate that matter how vntruely you adde to my wordes this word onely in an hundred places where I say not so what true and sinsere dealing this is let all men iudge Now as concerning my coupling togither of the ii sacraments of baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ Emissene himself coupleth thē both together in this place sayth that the one is like the other without putting any difference euen as I truely recited him So that there appereth neither malice nor ignorāce in me but in you adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not to deceaue the simple reader and adding such your own inuentions as be neither true nor catholick appereth much shift and craft ioyned with vntruth and infidelity For what christian man would say as you do that Christ is not inded which you call really in baptisme Or that we be not regenerated both body and soule as well in baptisme as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ Or that in baptisme we be not vnited to Christes diuinity by his manhood Or that baptisme represēteth not to vs the high state of our glorification and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurrection In which thinges you make difference betweene baptisme and the sacrament as you call it of the aultare Or what man that were learned in gods word would affirme that in the general resurrection our bodies and soules shal be all spirituall I know that S. Paule sayth that in the resurrection our bodies shal be spirituall meaning in the respect of such vilenes filthines sinne and corruption as we be subiect vnto in this miserable world Yet he sayth not that our bodies shal be all spirituall For not withstanding such spiritualnes as S. Paule speaketh of we shall haue all such substantiall partes and members as pertaine to a very naturall mans body So that in this part our bodyes shall be carnall corporall reall and naturall bodies lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect mens bodies And in the respect is the body of Christ also carnall and not spirituall And yet we bring none other carnall imaginations of Christes body nor meane none other but that Christes body is carnall in this respect that it hath the same flesh and naturall substaunce which was borne of the virgine Mary and wherin he suffered and rose agayne and now sitteth at the right hand of his father in glory and that the same his naturall body now glorified hath all the naturall partes of a mans body in order proportion place distinct as our bodies shal be in these respects carnall after our resurrection Which maner of carnalnes and diuersitie of partes and members if you take away now from Christ in heauen from vs after our resurrectiō you make Christ now to haue no true mās body but a phantasticall body as Martion Ualentine did as concerning our bodies you run into the error of Origen which phansied imagined that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual that women should be turned into men and bodies into soules And yet it is to be noted by the way that in your aunswere here to Emissene you make spiriturally and a spirituall manner all one Now followeth myne aunswere to S. Ambrose in this wise And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose which is alwayes in their mouthes Before the consecration sayth he as
nature must needs be vnderstād fyguratiuely by some similitude or propriety of one substance vnto an other and can in no wise be vnderstand properly and playnly without a figure And therfore when Christ is called the sonne of God or bread is called bread it is a most playne and proper spech but when Christ is called bread or bread is called Christ these can in no wise be formall and proper speches the substāces and natures of them being so diuers but must nedes haue an vnderstanding in figure signification or similitude as the very nature of all sacramentes require as al the old writers do playnly teach And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ his body bycause it is so in deed for then it were no figuratiue speach as all the old authors say it is And as for this word corporall you openly confessed your owne ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambheth when I asked you what corporall body Christ hath in the sacrameut whether he had distinction of members or no your answere was in effect that you could not tell And yet was that a wiser saying then you spake before in Cyril where you sayd that Christ hath onely a spirituall body and a spirituall presence and now you say he hath a corporall presēce And so you confoūd corporal spiritual as if you knew not what either of them ment or wist not or cared not what you sayd But now I will returne to my booke rehearse myne aunswere vnto S. Iohn Chrysostome which is this Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrisostome who in sound of words maketh most for the aduersaries of the truth but they that be familiar and acquanted with Chrisostomes manner of speaking how in all his writynges he is full of allusions schemes tropes and figures shall soone perceyue that he helpeth nothing their purposes as it shall well appeare by the discussing of those places which the Papistes do alleadge of him which be spicially two One is in Sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs And the other is De proditione Iudae And as touching the first no man can speake more playnly agaynst them then S. Iohn Chrisostome speaketh in that sermon Wherfore it is to be wondred why they should alleage hym for their partie vnlesse they be so blind in their opinion that they can se nothing nor discerne what maketh for them nor what against thē For there he hath these wordes When you come to these misteries speaking of the Lordes boord and holy communion do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God meaning of Christ. These be S. Iohn Chrisostome his owne wordes in that place Than if we receiue not the body of Christ at the hands of a man Ergo the body of Christ is not really corporally and naturally in the Sacrament and so geuen to vs by the Priest And then it followeth that all the Papistes be lyers because they fayne and teach the contrary But in this place of Chrisostome is touched before more at lēgth in answering to the Papistes Transubstantiation Wherfore now shall be answered the other place which they alleadge of Chrisostome in these wordes Here he is present in the sacramēt and doth cōsecrate which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper For it is not man which maketh of the bread and wine being set forth to be consecrated the body and bloud of Christ but it is Christ himselfe which for vs is crucified that maketh himselfe to be there present The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest but the consecration is by the vertue might grace of God himselfe And as this saying of God Increase be multiplied fill the earth once spoken by God tooke alwayes effect toward generation euen so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken doth throughout all churches to this present shall to his last comming geue force and strength to this sacrifice Thus farre they reherse of Chrisostomes words Which wordes although they sound much for the purpose yet if they be throughly cōsidered and conferred with other places of the same author it shal well appeare that he ment nothing lesse thē that Christes body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine but that in such sort he is in heauen onely and in our mindes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen to eate him there although sacramētally as in a signe and figure he be in the bread wine and so is he also in the water of Baptisme and in them that rightly receaue the bread wine he is in a much more perfection then corporally which should auayle them nothing but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power geuing them eternall lyfe And as in the first creatiō of the world all liuing creatures had their first life by gods onely word for God onely spake his word and all things were created by and by accordingly and after their creation he spake these wordes Increase and multiply and by the vertue of those wordes all thinges haue gendred increased euersince that tyme euen so after that Christ sayd Eat this is my body drinke this is my bloud Do this hereafter in remembraunce of me by vertue of these wordes and not by vertue of any man the bread and wine be so cōsecrated that whosoeuer with a liuely fayth doth eat that bread and drinke that wine doth spiritually eat drinke and feede vpon Christ sitting in heauen with his Father And this is the whole meaning of S. Chrisostome And therfore doth he so often say that we receaue Christ in baptisme And when he hath spoken of the receauing of him in the holy communion by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme without declaring any diuersity of his presence in the one from his presence in the other He sayth also in many places that We ascend into heauen and do eat Christ sitting there aboue And where S. Chrisostome and other Authors do speak of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes passing all mans wit senses and reason they meane not of the working of God in the water bread wine but of the maruaylous working of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramētes secretly inwardly and spiritually transforming them renuing feding comforting and nourishing them with his flesh and bloud through his most holy spirite the same flesh and bloud still remayning in heauen Thus is this place of Chrisostome sufficiently aunswered vnto And if any man require any more thē let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of Transubstantiation Winchester This author noteth in Chrisostome two places and bringeth them forth and in handling the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reprofe For where in the second booke
of his worke entreating transubstantiation he would the same wordes of Chrisostome by this forme of spech in the negatiue should not deny precisely And when Chrisostome sayth Do not think that you by man receiue the body of God but that we should not consider man in the receiuing of it Here this author doth alleage these wordes and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of mere deniall But I would aske of this author this question If Chrysostomes fayth had bene that we receaue not the body of God in the Sacrament verily why should he vse wordes idlely to entreate of whom we receiued the body of God which after this authors doctrine we receaue not at all but in figure and no body at all which is of Christes humanity being Christ as this author teacheth spiritually that is by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receaueth and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in this booke onely fyguratiuely Turne back reader to the 36. leafe in the authors booke and read it with this and so consyder vpon what principle here is made an Ergo. I will aunswere that place when I speake of Transubstantiation which shall be after answered to the third and fourth booke as the naturall order of the matter requireth The second place of Chrisostome that this author bringeth forth he graunteth it soundeth much agaynst him fauoreth his aduersaryes but with conferring and considering he trusteth to alter it from the true vnderstanding And not to expound but confound the matter be ioyneth in spech the sacrament of baptisme with this sacramēt which shift this author vsed vntruely in Hylary and would now beare in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament then in baptisme which is not so for in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present and in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence therof for dispensatiō of that mistery as I haue before touched discussing the aunswere to Emissen where as Chrisostome speaking of this sacrament whereof I haue before spoken and Melancthon alleadging it to Decolampadius saith thus The great miracle and great beneuolence of Christ is that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre in our handes here to be embrased of vs. And therfore where this author would note the wonder of Gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonerfull for the worke and effect in man this is one peece of trueth but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the old Fathers wonder at the worke in the Sacrament how bread is chaunged into the body of Christ how Christ sitting in heauen God man is also man and God in the Sacramēt and being worthely receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hylary sayth and corporally as Cyrill sayth How this can be no man can tell no faythfull man should aske and yet it is the true catholick fayth to be truely so wrought For as Cinistene sayth he that is the author of it he is the witnes of it And therfore I will make it an issue with this author that the olde fathers speaking of the wonderfull operation of God in this Sacrament referre it not onely to the vertue and effect of this Sacrament nor to the vertue specially but chiefly to the operation of God in the substaunce of this Sacrament and the Sacrament selfe for such a difference S. Augustine maketh saying Aliud est Sacramentum aliud virtus sacramenti The Sacrament is one the vertue of the Sacramēt is an other Finally in aunswering to Chrisostome this author doth nothing but spend wordes in vayne to the more playne declaration of his owne ignoraunce or worse Caunterbury AS concerning Chrisostome you haue spent so many taunting and scornefull wordes in waste without cause that I need to wast no wordes here at all to make you aunswere but referre the reader to my booke the 25. leafe and 36. leafe and to the 32.33 and 34. leafe where the reader shall finde all that is here spoken fully aunswered vnto But alwayes you be like your selfe proceding in amplification of an argument agaynst me which you haue forged yourselfe and charge me therewith vntruely For I vse not this spech that we receaue not the body of God at all that we receaue it but in a figure For it is my constant fayth and beleefe that we receaue Christ in the sacrament verily and truely and this is plainely taught and set forth my book But that verily as I with Chrisostome and all the olde authors take it is not of such a sort as you would haue it For your vnderstanding of Uerily is so Capernaicall so grosse and so dul in the perceauing of this mistery that you thinke a man can not receaue the body of Christ verily vnles he take him corporally in his corporall mouth flesh bloud and bones as he was borne of the virgine Mary But it is certaine that Chrisostome ment not that we receaue Christes body verily after such a sort when he sayth Doe not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God And yet because I deny onely this grosse vnderstāding you misreport my doctrine that I should say we receaue not Christ at all but in a figure and no body at all wherin you vntruly and sclaundrously report me as my whole book and doctrine can witnesse agaynst you For my doctrine is that the very body of Christ which was borne of the virgine Mary and suffered for our sinnes geuing vs lyfe by his death the same Iesus as concerning his corporal presence is taken from vs and sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet is he by fayth spiritually present with vs and is our spirirituall foode and nourishment and sitteth in the middes of all them that-be gathered togither in his name And this feding is a spirituall feedyng and an heauenly feeding farre passing all corporall and carnall feeding and therfore there is a true presence and a true feding indeed and not in a figure onely or not at all as you most vntruely report my saying to be This is the true vnderstanding of the true presence receiuing feding vpon the body and bloud of our Sauior Christ and not as you depraue the meaning and true sence therof that the receiuing of Christ truly and verily is the receiuing corporally with the mouth corporall or that the spirituall receauing is to receaue Christ onely by his diuine nature which thing I neuer sayd nor mēt Turn I pray thee gētle reader to the 36 leaf of my booke and note these wordes there which I alledge out of Chrisostome Doe not thinke sayth he that you receaue by a man the body of God Then turne ouer the leafe and in the xx line note again my saying that in the holy communion Christ himselfe is spiritually eaten and drunken and
writer among the Grekes hath more playnly spokeÌ„ for you then Theophilacte hath and yet when that shal be well examined it is nothing at all as I haue playnly declared shewing your vntruth aswell in allegation of the authors wordes as in falsefying his name And as for the Catechisme of Germany by me translated into English to this I haue aunswered before and truth it is that eyther you vnderstand not the phrase of the old authors of the church or els of purpose you will not vnderstand me But hereunto you shall haue a more full aunswer when I come to the proper place therof in the iiij part of my booke And as coÌ„cerning the wordes of Theophilact vpon the gospel of Iohn he speaketh to one effect and vseth much like termes vpon the gospels of Mathew Marke and Iohn wherunto I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And because the aunswer may be the more present I shall rehearse some of my wordes here agayne Although sayd I Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ and the drinking of his very bloud and not onely of the figures of them and of the conuersion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet he meaneth not of a grosse carnall corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud for so not onely our stomackes would yerne our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh and to drink his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite and auayle vs but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread calling the bread not onely a figure but also the body of Christ geuing vs by those wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eate corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drincke his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable This I wrot in my former booke which is sufficient to aunswer vnto all that you haue here spoken And as concerning the bread that Christ did eate and feede vpon it was naturally eaten as other men eate naturally changed and caused a naturall nourishment and yet the very matter of the bread remayned although in an other forme but in them that duely receaue and â—at the Lordes holy supper all is spirituall aswell the eating as the change and nourishment which is none impediment to the nature of bread but that it may still remayne And where you come to the translation of this word species to signifie apparence this is a wonderfull kinde of translation to translat specie in apparence because apparet is truly translated appeareth with like reason aurum myght be translated meate because edâ—re signifieth to eate And your other translation is no lesse wonderfull where you turne the vertue of Christes body into the veritie And yet to cloke your folly therin and to cast a mist before the readers eyes that he should not see your vntruth therin you say that by vertue in that place must be vuderstanded verite First what soeuer be vnderstande by the worde vertue your fayth in translation is broken For the sense being ambiguous yoâ— ought in translation to haue kept the word as it is leauing the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader and not by altering the word to make such a sense as please you which is so foule a fault in a translatour that if Decolampadius had so done he should haue ben called a man faulty and gilthy a corruptour a deceauour an abuser of other men a peruerter a deprauer and a man without fayth As he might be called that would translate Verbum caro factum est The second person became man Which although it be true in meaning yet it is not true in translation nor declareth the fayth of the translatour But now as your translation is vntrue so is the meaning also vntrue and vnexcusable For what man is so far destitute of all his senses that he knoweth not a difference betwene the veritie of Christes body and the vertue therof Who can pretend ignoraunce in so manifest a thing Doth not all men know that of euery thing the vertue is one and the substance an other Except in God onely who is of that simplicitie without multiplication of any thing in him or diuersitie that his vertue his power his wisdome his iustice and all that is sayd to be in him be neyther qualites nor accidentes but all one thinge with his verie substauÌ„ce And neyther the right hand of God nor the vertue of God which you bring for an example and serueth to no purpose but to blind the ignorauÌ„t reader be any thing els but the very substaunce of God although indiuersitie of respectes and considerations they haue diuersitie of names except you will deuide the most single substaunce of God into corporall partes and members following the errour of the Aâ—cropomorphites But the like is not in the body of Christ which hath distinctioÌ„ of integrall partes and the vertue also and qualities distinct from the substance And yet if the example were like he should be an euill translator or rather a corrupter that for a dextris virtutis Dei would traÌ„slate a dextris Dei or coÌ„trary wise And therfore all traÌ„slators in those places folow the wordes as they be be not so arrogaÌ„t to alter one title in theÌ„ therby to make theÌ„ one in wordes although the thing in substaunce be one For wordes had not theyr signification of the substances or of thinges onely but of the qualities maners respectes and considerations And so may one word signifie diuers thinges one thing be signified by diuers wordes And therfore he that should for on word take an other because they be both referred to one substaunce as you haue done in this place should make a goodly yere of worke of it not much vnlike to him that should burne his house and say he made it because the making burning was both in one matter and substaunce It is much pitie that you haue not bestowed your tyme in translation of good authors that can skill so well of translation to make specieÌ„ to signifie apparence and that take vertue sometyme for veritie and somtime for nothing a dextris virtutis Dei to signifie no more but a dextris Dei and virtutem carnis to signifie no more but carnem and virtutem sanguinis sanguinem And why not seing that such wordes signifie ad placitum that is to say as please you to translate them And it seameth to be a strange thing that you haue so quicke an eye to espye other mens faultes and cannot see in Theophilact his playne aunswer but to take vpon you to teach him to aunswer For when he asketh the question why doth
water And when the rodde was tourned into a serpent and water into bloud the earth into a man and his ribbe into a woman Were not the woman man bloud and serpent made of the matter of the ribbe the earth the water and the rodde And is not euery thing made of that which is tourned into it As bread is made of Corne wine of grapes beare of water hoppes and mault and so of all thinges like And when you haue confessed your selues so many yeares passed that Christ is made of bread in the sacrament what moueth you now to say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread except that eyther you will say that the priest doth it and not Christ which were an intollerable blaspheme or that the truth is of such a nature that euen the very aduersaries therof sometime vnwares acknowledge it or els that force of argumentes constrayneth you to confesse the truth agaynst your will whē you see none other shift to escape But if you take vpon you to defend the receaued doctrine of the Papistes you must affirme that doctrine which they affirme and say that bread in the Sacrament is the matter wherof Christes body is made wherof must than nedes follow ex consequenti that he hath from tyme to tyme a new body made of new bread besides the body which was incarnated and neuer but once made nor of none other substaunce but of his mother So that it is but a vayne cauilation onely to elude simple people or to shift of the matter to say as you do that Christ is not made of the breade but is made to be present there For than should he haue sayd There is my body and not This is my body And to be present requireth no new making but to be present by conuersion requireth a new making As the wine that was bought at the mariage in the Cane of Galilee if there were any such was present without conuertion and so without new making but the wine that was made of water was present by conuertion which could not be without new making And so must Christes body be newly made if it be present by corporall conuertion of the substaunce of bread into the substaunce of it And now I referre to euery indifferent reader to iudge betwene vs both which of vs is most snarled Now let vs examine the other authors following in my booke And the same is to be aunswered vnto all that the aduersaries bring of S. Augustine Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus Gregorius and other concerning the eating of Christ in the Sacrament Which thing can not be vnderstanded playnly as the wordes sound but figuratiuely and spiritually as before is sufficiently proued and hereafter shal be more fully declared in the fourth parte of this booke Winchester Bicause this author who hitherto hath answered none substancially would neuerthelesse be seene to aunswer all he windeth vp sixe of them in one fardell S. Augustine Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus and Gregorius and dispatcheth them all with an ut supra and among them I think he would haue knitte vp all the rest of the learned men of all ages amonges whome I know none that write as this Author doth of the Sacrament or impugneth the Catholique fayth as this author doth by the enuious name of Papistes Sence Christes time there is no memory more than of sixe that haue affirmed that doctrine which this author would haue called now the Catholike doctrine and yet not writtē by them of one sorte neither receiued in beleefe in publique profession But secretly when it hapned begunne by conspiration and in the ende euer hitherto extincte and quenched First was Bertrame then Berengarius then Wicleffe and in our time Decolampadius Zwinglius and Ioachimus Uadianus I will not recken Peter Martir bicause such as know him sayth he is not learned nor this author bycause he doth but as it were translate Peter Martir sauing he roueth at solutions as liketh his phantasie as I haue before declared Whyche mater being thus it is a strange title of this Booke to call it the trewe Catholique doctrine Caunterbury ALl that you haue these many yeres gathered togither for your purpose or that can be gathered may be well trussed vp in a very small fardell and very easely borne and caried away For any weight that is therin For your doinges bee like to him that would fayne seme to haue some thing and hauing nothing els filleth a great male full of strawe that men should thynke he caried some thing where indeed a litle bouget had ben sufficient for so much in value And as for your owne doctrine it is so straunge that neither it agreeth with the scripture nor with the old catholike churche nor yet with the later church or congregation of the Papistes but you stand poste alone after the fall of the Papisticall doctrine as sometime an old poste standeth when the building is ouerthrowen And where you say that since Christes tyme there is no mo but syxe that haue affirmed the doctrine that I haue taught all that haue been learned and haue redde the olde authors of the catholike church may euidently see the contrary That sithens Christes tyme the doctrine of my booke was euer the catholike and publike receaued fayth of the church vntill Nicholas the secondes tyme who cōpelled Berengarius to make such a deuilish recantation that the papistes thē selues be now ashamed of it And since that tyme haue many thousandes been cruelly persecuted onely for the profession of the true fayth For no maune myght speake one worde agaynst the byshope of Romes determination herein but he was taken for an heretike and so condemned as Wiclieffe Husse and an infinite numbre mo And as for Bertram he was neuer before this tyme detected of any errour that euer I redde but onely now by you For all other that haue written of him haue spoken much to his commendation and prayse But I know what the matter is he hath written against your mynde which is a fault and errour great inough As for Doctour Peter Martyr he is of age to aunswer for him selfe but concerning him that told you that he was not learned I would wish you to leaue this olde rooted fault in you to be light of credite For I suppose that if his lernyng that tolde you that lye and yours also wer set both togither you should be farre behind Master Peter Martyr Marye in wordes I think that you alone would ouerlay two Peter Martyrs he is so sobre a man and delighteth not in wasting of wordes in vayne And none do say that he is not lerned but such as know hym not or be not lerned themselues or els be so malicious or enuious that they wittingly speake agaynst theyr owne consciēce And no doubt that man bringeth hym selfe out of the estimation of a learned man which hath heard him reason and reade and sayth that he is
following of the diuersitie of them that eate and not of that is eaten which is alway one According hereunto S. Augustine agaynst the donatists geueth for a rule the sacramentes to be one in all although they be not one that receaue vse them And therfore to knitte vp this matter for the purpose I intend and write it for we must consider the substance of the visible sacrament of Christes body and bloud to be alwayes as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce in the vnderstanding wherof this author maketh variaunce and would haue it by Christes ordinaunce but a figure which he hath not proued but and he had proued it then is it in substaunce but a figure and but a figure to good men For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad and so neyther to good nor bad this sacrament is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preaching Wherefore if it be more then a figure as it is in deed and if by Christes ordinance it hath present vnder the forme of those visible signes of bread and wine the very body and bloud of Christ as both bene truly taught hitherto then is the substance of the Sacrament one alwayes as the oyntment was whether doues eate of it or beteles And this Issue I ioyne with this author that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diuersitie in the substance of this sacrament what soeuer diuersite follow in the effect For the diuersitie of the effect is occasioned in them that receaue as before is proued And then to answere this author I say that onely good men eate and drinck the body and bloud of Christ spiritually as I haue declared but all good and euill receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce God hath ordeyned it which in it hath no variance but is all one to good and euill Caunterbury IN this booke because you agre with me almost in the whole I shall not need much to trauaile in the aunswer but leauing all your prety taūtes agaynst me and glorious bosting of your selfe which neyther beseemeth our persones nor hindreth the truth nor furthereth your part but by pompouse wordes to winne a vayne glory and fame of them that be vnlearned and haue more regarde to words then iudgement of the matter I shall onely touch here and there such thinges as we vary in or that be necessary for the defence of the truth First after the sūme of my fourth booke collected as pleaseth you at the first dash you beginne with an vntrue report ioyned to a subtell deceyte or falax saying that my chief purpose is to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament And hereupon you conclude that my fourth booke is superfluouse But of a false antecedent all that be learned do know that nothing can be rightly concluded Now mine intent and purpose in my fourth boooke is not to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the sacrament although that be true but my chief purpose is to proue that euell men eate not Christes flesh nor drincke not his bloud neither in the sacrament nor out of the sacrament as on the other side good men eat and drincke them both in the sacrament and out of the Sacrament And in the word Sacrament which is of your addition is a subtill falax called double vnderstanding For when the Sacrament is called onely a figure as you reherse wherin the body and bloud of Christ be onely figuratiuely there the word Sacrament is taken for the outwarde signes of bread and wine And after when you reherse that the Sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine in beleuing and remembring Christes benefites there the word Sacrament is taken for the whole ceremony and ministration of the Sacrament And so when you goe about by equiuocation of the word to deceaue other men you fall into your owne snare and be deceaued your selfe in that you think you conuey the matter so craftely that no man can espy you But to vtter the matter playnly without fallax or cauilation I teach that no man can eat Christes flesh and drincke his bloud but spiritually which forasmuch as euill men do not although they eat the sacramentall bread vntill theyr bellyes be full and drincke the wine vntill they be dronken yet eat they neither Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament because they cannot be eaten and dronken but by spirite and fayth wherof vngodly men be destitute being nothing but world and flesh This therfore is the summe of my teaching in this fourth booke that in the true ministration of the Sacrament Christ is present spiritually and so spiritually eaten of them that be godly and spirituall And as for the vngodly and carnall they may eate the bread and drincke the wine but with Christ him selfe they haue no communion or company and therfore they neyther eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which who soeuer eateth hath as Christ sayth him selfe life by him as Christ hath life by his father And to eate Christes body or drincke his bloud sayth S. Augustine is to haue life For whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally as you say or spiritually in them that rightly beleue in him and duely receaue the Sacrament as I say yet certayne it is that there he is not eaten corporally but spiritually For corporal eating with the mouth is to chaw teare in peces with the teeth after which maner Christes body is of no man eaten although Nicholas the second made such an article of the fayth and compelled Berengatius so to professe And therfore although Christ were corporally in the Sacrament yet seeing that he cannot be corporally eaten this booke commeth in good place and is very necessary to know that Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually by beleuing and remembring Christes benefites and reuoluing them in our mynd beleeuing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bodyes so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our soules And ought this to come out of a christian mannes mouth That these be good wordes but such as the wordes of christes supper do not learne vs Do not the wordes of Christes supper learne vs to eate the breade and drinke the wine in the remembraunce of his death Is not the breakyng and eating of the bread after such sort as Christ ordayned a communication of Christes body vnto vs Is not the cuppe likewise a communication of his bloud vnto vs Should not then christian people according hereunto in fayth feed vpon Christ spiritually beleuing that as the bread wine feed and nourish theyr bodyes so both Christ their soules with his owne flesh and bloud And shall any Christian man now say that these be good wordes but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not
men eate and drincke the body and bloud of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors playnly which I haue alleadged without your addition of spirituall manducation and not one of them all say as you do that in the visible Sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do But I make no such vayne proofes as you fayne in my name that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present bycause euil men receaue it But this argument were good although I make no such Euell men eate and drincke the sacrament and yet they eate and drincke not Christes flesh and bloud Ergo his flesh and bloud be not really and corporally in the sacrament And when you say that Christ may be receaued of the euel man to his condemnation is this the glory that you geue vnto Christ that his whole presence in a man both with flesh bloud soule and spirite shall make him neuer the better and that Christ shal be in him that is a member of the deuell And if an euill man haue Christ in him for a tyme why may he not then haue him still dwelling in him For if he may be in him a quarter of an houre he may be also an whole houre and so a whole day and an whole yeare and so shall God and the diuell dwell together in one house And this is the croppe that groweth of your sowing if Christ fall in euell men as good seed falleth in euell ground And where you say that all that euer I bring to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ may be shortly aunswered truth it is as you sayd in one place of me that all that I haue brought may be shortly aunswered if a man care not what he aunswer as it seemeth you pas not much what you aunswer so that you may lay on lode of wordes For where as I haue fully proued as well by authoritie of scripture as by the testimony of many olde writers that although euell men eate the sacramentall bread and drincke the wine which haue the names of his flesh and bloud yet they eate not Christes very flesh nor drincke his bloud Your short and whole aunswer is this that euell men may be sayd not to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud bycause they do it not frutefully as they ought to do And that may be called a not eating as they may be sayd not to heare godes word that heare it not profitably and a thing not well done may be in speach called not done in the respect of the good effect I graunt such speaches be sometyme vsed but very rarely and when the very truth commeth in discussion then such Paradoxes are not to be vsed As if it come in question whether a house be builded that is not well builded then the diffinition of the matter must not be that it is not builded although the carpenters and other workemen haue fayled in theyr couenaunt and bargayne and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to haue done So our sauiour Christ teacheth that all heard the word whether the seed fell in the high way or vpon the stones or among the thornes or in the good groūd Wherfore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers whether euell menne eate Christes body or no if the truth had bene that euill men eate it the olde writers would not so precisely haue defined the contrary that they eate not but would haue sayd they eate it but not effectually not frutefully not profitably But now the authors which I haue alleaged define playnly and absolutely that euell men eate not Christes body without any other addition But after this sort that you do vse it shall be an easy matter for euery man to say what liketh him and to defend it well inough if he may adde to the scriptures and doctours wordes at his pleasure and make the sense after his owne phantasye The scriptures and Doctoures which I alleadge do say in playne wordes as I do say that euell menne do not eate the body of Christ nor drincke his bloud but onely they that haue life therby Now come you in with your addition and glose made of your owne head putting therto this word effectually Yf I should say that Christ was neuer conceaued nor borne could not I auoyd all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary by adding this word apparantly and defend my saying stoutly And might not the Ualentinians Marcianistes and other that sayd that Christ dyed not for vs defend their errour with addition as they did of this word putatiue to all the scriptures that were brought agaynst them And wat herisie can be reproued if the heretikes may haue the liberty that you do vse to adde of their owne heades to the wordes of scripture contrary vnto Godes word directly who cōmaundeth vs to adde nothing to his word nor to take any thing away And yet more ouer the authorities which I haue brought to approue my doctrine do clerely cast away your addition adding the cause why euell men can not eate Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud And you haue taught almost in the beginning of your booke that Christes body is but a spirituall body and after a spirituall manner eaten by fayth And now you haue confessed that who so fedeth vpon Christ spiritually must nedes be a good man How can you than defend now that euell men eat the body of Christ except you will now deny that which you graunted in the beginning and now haue forgotten it that Christes body cannot be eaten but after a spirituall maner by fayth Wherin it is meruayle that you hauing so good a memory should forgette the common prouerbe Mendacem memorem esse oportet And it had ben more conuenient for you to haue answered fully to Cyprian Athanasius Basyll Hierom and Ambrose then when you cannot answer to wipe your handes of them with this slender answer saying that you haue answered And whether you haue or no I refer to the iudgement of the reader And as concerning S. Augustine De ciuitate Dei he sayth that euell men receaue the sacrament of Christes body although it auayleth them not But yet he sayth in playne wordes that we ought not to say that any man eateth the body of Christ that is not in the body And if the reader euer saw any meare cauilation in all his lyfe tyme let him read the chapter of S. Augustine and compare it to your answer and I dare say he neuer sawe the like And as for the other places of S. Augustine by me alleadged with Origen and Cirill for the more ease you passe them ouer with silence and dare eate no such meate it is so hard for you to digest And thus haue you with post hast runne ouer all my scriptures and doctours as it were playing at the post with still passing and geuing ouer euery game And yet shal you
our Lordes body to proue the presence of Christes body there who compareth such an offender to the Iewes that did shed Christes bloud maliciously as those do prophane it vnprofitably in which sense the Grke commentaries do also expound it And where this author bringeth in the wordes of S. Paule as it were to poynt out the matter Let a man examine him selfe and so eate of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth vnworthely c. these wordes of examining and so eatyng declare the thing to be ordered to be eaten and all the care to be vsed on our side to eate worthely or els S. Paule had not sayd and so eat And when S. Paule sayth Eate iudgement and this Author well remember him selfe he must call Iudgement the effect of that is eaten and not the thing eaten for iudgment is neyther spirituall meat nor corporall but the effect of the eating of Christ in euyll men who is saluation to good and iudgement to euell And therfore as good men eating Christ haue saluation so euill men eating Christ haue condemnation and so for the diuersite of the eaters of Christes body followeth as they be worthy and vnworthy the effect of condemnation or lyfe Christes sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that sacrament bring alwayes one And what so euer this author talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles Caunterbury AS touching myne aunswere here to the wordes of S. Paule you would fayne haue them hid with darkenesse of speach that no man should see what I meane For as Christ sayd Qui male agit odit lucem and therfore that which I haue spoken in playne speach you darken so with your obscure termes that my meaning can not be vnderstand For I speake in such playne termes as all men vnderstand that when S. Paule sayd he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh his owne damnation in that place he spake of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not of the corporall eating and drincking of Christes flesh and bloud These my playne wordes you do wrape vp in these darke termes that I would distinct the vnworthy eating in the substaunce of the Sacrament receaued Which your wordes vary so farre from myne that no man can vnderstand by them my meaning except you put a large comment therto For I distinct the vnworthy eating none otherwise then that I say that when S. Paule speaketh of vnworthy eating he maketh mencion of the vnworthy eating of the bread and not of the body of Christ. And where you aske me this question why it should be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when it is not there at all There is in my booke a full and playne answere vnto your question alredy made as there is also to your whole booke So that in making of my booke I did foresee all things that you could obiect agaynst it In so much that here is not one thing in all your book but I can shew you a sufficient answer therto in one place or other of my former booke And in this your question here moued I referre the reader to the wordes of my booke in the same place And where you say that if the bread be but a figure it is lyke Manna as concerning the materiall bread truely it is like Manna but as concerning Christ him selfe he sayd of him selfe Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer And as concerning Erasmus and the greke commentaries neyther of them sayth vppon the place of S. Paule as you alleage them to say And what soeuer it pleaseth you to gather of these wordes examining and so eating yet S. Paules wordes be very playne that he spake not of the eating of the very body of Christ but of the eating of the materiall bread in the sacrament which is all one whether the good or euyll eate of it And all the care is on our syde to take heede that we eate not that bread vnworthely For as the eating of the bread vnworthely not of Christ him selfe who can not be eaten vnworthely hath the effect of iudgemēt and damnacion so eating of the same bread worthely hath the effect of Christes death and saluation And as he that eateth the bread worthely may be well sayd to eate Christ and life So he that eateth it vnworthely may be sayd to eate the diuell and death as Iudas did into whom with the bread entred Satan For vnto such it may be called mensa daemoni orum non mensa Domini not Gods bourd but the diuels And so in the eaters of the bread worthely or vnworthely followeth the effect of euerlasting lyfe or euerlasting death But in the eating of Christ himselfe is no diuersite but whosoeuer eateth him hath euerlasting lyfe For asmuch as the eating of him can be to none dampnation but saluation because he is lyfe it selfe And what so euer you bable to the contrary is but meare fables deuised without goddes word or any sufficient ground Now foloweth myne aunswer vnto such authors as the Papistes wrast to theyr purpose But here may not be passed ouer the answer vnto certayne places of auncient authors which at the first shew seeme to make for the Papistes purpose that euill men do eate and drincke the very flesh and bloud of Christ. But if those places be truely and throughely wayed it shall appeare that not one of them maketh for theyr errour that euill men do eat Christes very body The first place is of S. Augustine Contra Cresconium Grammaticum where he sayth that although Christ him selfe say He that eateth not my flesh and drinketh not my bloud shall not haue life in him yet doth not his Apostels teach that the same is pernicious to them which vse it not well for he sayth Whosoeuer eateth the bread and drincketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. In which wordes S. Augustine semeth to conclude that aswel the euill as the good doe eate the body and bloud of Christ although the euill haue no benefite but hurt therby But consider the place of S. Augustine diligently and then it shall euidently appeare that he ment not of the eating of Christes body but of the Sacrament therof For the intēt of S. Augustine there is to proue that good thinges auayle not to such persons as do euill vse them and that many thinges which of them selues be good and be good to some yet to other some they be not good As that light is good for whole eyes and hurteth sore eyes that meate which is good for some is euill for other some One medecine healeth some and maketh other sicke One harnes doth arme one and combreth another one coate is meete for one and to straight for an other And after other examples
wherin it entreth with the visible element and yet as S. Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth bycause the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receaueth by such a maner of eating as wicked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effect to ensue of the diuersitie of the eating and not of any diuersitie of that which is eaten whether the good man or euill man receaue the sacrament If I would here encombre the reader I could bring forth many mo places of S. Augustine to the confusion and reprofe of this Authors purpose and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me that I way not S. Augustine I thinke good to alleadge and bring forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touching S. Augustine who vnderstandeth S. Augustine clere contrary to this author as may playnly appeare by that the sayd Bucer writeth in few wordes in his epistle dedicatory of the great worke he sent abroad of his enarrarations of the gospelles where his iudgement of S. Augustine in this poynt he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem domini sumsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse The sense in English is this How often writeth he speaking of S. Augustine Iudas also to haue receaued the selfe body and bloud of our Lord No man thefore by the authoritie of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue before alleadged him and gathereth therof a conclusion that no man can by the fathers sayinges proue Christ to be absent in the holy supper And therfore by Bucers iudgement the doctrine of this Author can be in no wise catholique as dissenting from that hath ben before taught and beleued whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world and by me here alleadged I cannot tell and whether he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hath taught in his latter iudgement with a great protestation that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth wherin because he semed to dissent from his frendes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes haue an imitation of an elder saying and be thus much to say Socrates is my frend truth is my best beloued and the church most regarded And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament after he knew al that Zuinglius Decolampadius could say in the matter And here I will leaue to speake of Bucer and bring forth Theodoretus a man most extolled by this author who sayth playnly in his commentaries vpon S. Paule how Christ deliuered to Iudas his precious body and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrament to be the truth So as this author can haue no foundatiō vpon eyther to maintayne his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke which his wordes playnly impugn S. Hierom in his commentaries vpon the prophet Malachie hath first this sentence Polluimus panem id est corpus Christi quando indigne accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we com vnworthy to the aulter and being filthy drincke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth men filthy drincke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same S. Hierom sayth Polluit Christi misteria indigne accipiens Corpus eius sanguinem He that vnworthely receaueth the body and bloud of Christ defileth the misteries Can any wordes be more manifest and euident to declare S. Hieroms mind how in the visible sacrament men receaue vnworthely which be euell men the body and bloud of Christ Caunterbury IN this poynt I will ioyne a playne issue with you that I neyther willingly goe about to deceaue the reader in the serching of S. Augustine as you vse to do in euery place nor I haue not trusted my man or frende herein as it semeth you haue done ouermuch but I haue diligently expended and wayed the matter my selfe For although in such waightie matters of scripture and aunciēt authors you must nedes trust your men without whom I know you can doe very litle being brought vp from your tender age in other kindes of study yet I hauing exercised my selfe in the study of scripture and diuinitye from my youth wherof I geue most harty laudes and thankes to God haue learned now to goe alone and do examine iudge and write all such waighty matters my selfe although I thanke God I am neyther so arrogant nor so wilfull that I will refuse the good aduise counsailie and admonition of any man be he man or master frende or foe But as concerning the place alleadged by you out of S. Augustine let the reader diligently expend myne whole aunswer to S. Augustine and he shall I trust be fully satisfied For S. Augustine in his booke De baptismo contra Donatistas as I haue declared in my booke speaketh of the morsell of bread and sacrament which Iudas also dyd eate as S. Augustine sayth And in this speach he considered as he writeth Contra Maximinū not what it is but what it signifieth and therfore he expresseth the matter by Iudas more playnly in an other place saying that he did eate the bread of the Lord not the bread being the Lord as the other Apostles dyd signifying therby that the euell eate the bread but not the Lord himselfe As S. Paule sayth that they eate and drincke Panem calicem Domini the bread and the cup of the Lord and not that they eate the Lord himselfe And S. Augustine sayth not as you faine of him that the substaunce of this sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ but the substaunce of this sacrament is bread and wine as water is in the sacramēt of Baptisme and the same be all one not altered by the vnworthines of the receauors And although S. Augustine in the wordes by you recited call the sacrament of Christes body and bloud his body and bloud yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament therof and yet is it called the body and bloud of Christ as sacraments haue the names of the thinges wherof they be sacraments as the same S. Augustine teacheth most playnly ad Bonifacium And I haue not so far ouershot my selfe or bene ouersene that I would haue atempted to publish this matter if I had not before hand excussed the whole truth therin from the botome But bicause I my selfe am certayne of the truth which hath bene hid these many yeares and persecuted by the Papistes with fyer and fagot and should be so yet still if you might haue your owne will and bicause also I am desirous that all my contrey men of England vnto whome I haue no smale cure and charge to
tell the truth should no longer be kept from the same truth therfore haue I published the truth which I know in the English tongue to the entent that I may edefy all by that tongue which all do perfectly know and vnderstand Which my doing it semeth you take in very euell part and be not a litle greued therat bycause you would rather haue the light of truth hid still vnder the bushell then openlye to be set abroad that all men may see it And I thinke that it so little greueth M. Peter Martyre that his booke is in english that he would wish it to be traÌ„slated likewise into all other languages Now where you gather of the wordes of S. Augustine De verbis Domini that both the euill and good eat one body of Christ the selfesame in substance excluding all difference that deuise of fygure might imagine to this I aunswere that although you expresse the bodye of Christ with what tearmes you can deuise calling it as you do in deed the flesh that was borne of the virgine Mary the same flesh the flesh it selfe yet I confesse that it is eaten in the sacrament And to expresse it yet more playnely then paraduenture you would haue me I say that the same visible palpable flesh that was for vs crucified and appeared after his resurrection and was seene felt and groped and ascended into heauen and there sitteth at his fathers right hand and at the last day shall come to iudge the quick the dead that selfe same body hauing all the partes of a mans body in good order and proportion and being visible and tangible I say is eaten of christen people at his holy supper what will you now require more of me concerning the truth of the body I suppose you be sory that I graunt you so much and yet what doth this helpe you For the diuersitie is not in the body but in the eating therof no man eating it carnally but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually and the euill onely sacramentally that is to say figuratiuely And therfore hath S. Augustine these wordes Certo quodam modo after a certayne manner bicause that the euill eate the sacrament which after a certayne manner is called the very body of Christ which maner S. Augustine himselfe declareth most truely and playnly in a pistle ad Bonifacium saying If sacramentes had not some similitude or likenes of those thinges wherof they be sacraments they could in no wise be sacramentes And for theyr similitude and likenes they haue commonly the name of the thinges wherof they be sacraments Therfore after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is Christes body the sacrament of Christes bloud is Christes bloud This epistle is set out in my booke the 64. leafe which I pray the reader to looke vpon for a more full answer vnto this place And after that maner Iudas and such like did eat the morsell of the lordes bread but not the bread that is the Lord but a sacrament therof which is called the Lord as S. Augustine sayth So that with the bread entred not Christ with his spirit into Iudas as you say he doth into the wicked but Sathan entred into him as the gospell testifieth And if Christ entred than into Iudas with the bread as you write then the deuill and Christ entred into Iudas both at once As concerning M. Bucer what meane you to vse his authoritie whose authoritie you neuer estemed heretofore And yet Bucer varieth much from your errour for he denieth vtterly that Christ is really and substancially present in the bread either by conuersion or inclusion but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present and so do I also but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the deuill whome Christ neyther fedeth nor hath any communioÌ„ with them And to conclude in few wordes the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by you alleadged he diâ—â—enteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zuinglius Wherfore it semeth to me somwhat strange that you should alleadge him for the confirmation of your vntrue doctrine being so clerely repugnant vnto his doctrine The wordes of Theodoretus if they were his be so far from your report that you be ashamed to reherse his wordes as they be writteÌ„ which when you shall do you shall be answered But in his dialogs he declareth in playne termes not onely the figuratiue speach of Christ in this matter but also wherfore Christ vsed those figuratiue speaches as the reader may find in my booke the 67 68. 69. and 70. leaues By which maner of speach it may be sayd that Christ deliuered to Iudas his body and bloud when he deliuered it him in a figure therof And as concerning S. Hierome he calleth the misteries or misticall bread and wine Christes flesh and bloud as Christ called them him selfe and the eating of them he calleth the eating of Christes flesh and bloud bicause they be sacraments and figures which represent vnto vs his very flesh and bloud And all that do eate the sayd sacraments be sayd to eate the body of Christ bicause they eate the thing which is a representacion therof But S. Hierom ment not that euell men do indede eate the very body of Christ for then he would not haue written vpon Esaie Hieremie and Osee the contrary saying that heretikes and euill men neither eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which whosoeuer eateth and drincketh hath euerlasting lyfe Non comedunt carnem Iesu sayth he vpon Esai neque bibunt sanguinem eius de quo ipse loquitur Qui comedit carnem meam bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aternam And yet he that cometh defiled vnto the visible sacraments defileth not onely the sacraments but the contumely therof pertayneth also vnto Christ him selfe who is the author of the sacraments And as the same S. Hierom sayth Dum sacramenta violantur ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur When the sacramentes sayth he be violated then is he violated also to whom the sacraments apertayne Now heare what followeth in the order of my booke And as before is at length declared a figure hath the name of the thing that is signified therby As a mans image is called a man a Lyons image a Lion a byrdes image a byrd and an image of a tree and herbe is called a tree or herbe So were we wont to say Our lady of Walsingham Our Lady of Ipswich Our Lady of Grace Our Lady of pity S. Peter of Millan S. Ihon of Amyas and such like not meaning the things them selues but calling their images by the name of the things by them represented And likewise we were wont to say Great S. Christopher of Yorke or Lyncoln Our Lady smileth or rocketh her child Let vs goe in pylgrimage to S. Peter at Rome and S. Iames in Compostella And a thousand
like speaches which were not vnderstande of the very things but only of the images of them So doth S. Ihon Chrisostom say that we see Christ with our eyes touch hym feele him and grope him with our handes fixe our teeth in his flesh taste it breake it eate it and digest it make redde our tongues and dye them with his bloud and swallow it and drincke it And in a Catechisme by me translated and set forth I vsed like maner of speach saying that with our bodily mouthes we receaue the body and bloud of Christ. Which my saying diuers ignorant persons not vsed to reade olde auncient authors nor acquanted with theyr phraâ—â— and manner of speach dyd carpe and reprehend for lacke of good vnderstanding For this speach and other before rehersed of Chrisostom and all other like be not vnderstaÌ„d of the very flesh and bloud of our sauiour Christ which in very deede we neither feele nor see but that which we doe to the bread and wine by a figuratiue speach is spoken to be done to the flesh and bloud bicause they be the very signes figures and tokens instituted of Christ to represent vnto vs his very flesh and bloud And yet as with our corporall eyes corporall handes and mouthes we do corporally see feele tast and eate the bread and drincke the wine being the signe and sacrameÌ„ts of Christes body euen so with our spirituall eyes handes and mouthes we do spiritually see feele taste and eate his very flesh and drincke his very bloud As Eusebus Emissenus sayth Whan thou comest to the reuerend aulter to be filled with spiritual meates with thy fayth looke vpoÌ„ the body bloud of him that is thy God honor him touch him with thy mynd take him with the hand of thy hart and drincke him with the draught of thine inward man And these spirituall thinges require no corporall presence of Christ himselfe who sitteth continually in heauen at the right hand of his Father And as this is most true so is it full and sufficient to answere all thinges that the Papistes can bring in this matter that hath any apparaÌ„ce for their partie Winchester And yet these playne places of authority dissembled of purpose or by ignoraunce passed ouer this author as though all thinges were by him clerely discussed to his entent would by many conceptes furnish and further his matters and therfore playeth with our Ladyes smiling rocking her Child and many good mowes so vnsemely for his person as it maketh me almost forget him and my selfe also But with such matter he filleth his leaues and forgetting him selfe maketh mention of the Catechisme by him translate the originall wherof confuteth these two partes of this booke in few wordes being Printed in Germany wherin besides the matter written is set forth in picture the manner of the minestring of this sacrament where is the aulter with candle light set forth the priest apparaled after the old sort and the man to receaue kneling bare-head and holding vp his handes whiles the priest ministreth the host to his mouth a matter as cleare contrary to the matter of this Booke as is light and darkenesse which now this Author would colour with speaches of authors in a boke written to instruct rude children which is as sclender an excuse as euer was heard and none at all when the originall is loked one Emissene to stire vp mens deuotion comming to receaue this sacrament requireth the roote and foundation therof in the mynd of man as it ought to be and therfore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with the hand of the hart and drincke with the draught of the inward man which men needes do that will worthely repayre to this feast And as Emissen speaketh these deuout wordes of the inward office of the receiuer so doth he in declaration of the mistery shew how the inuisible priest with his secret power by his word doth conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud wherof I haue before intreated The author vpon these wordes deuoutly spoken by Emissen sayth there is required no corporall precense of Christes precious body in the sacrament continuing in his ignorance what the woord Corporall meaneth But to speake of Emissene if by his fayth the very body and bloud of Christ were not present vpon the aultar why doth he call it a reuerend aultar Why to be fed there with spirituall meat and why should fayth be required to looke vpon the body bloud of Christ that is not there on the aultar but as this Author teacheth onely in heauen And why should he that cometh to be fedde honor these misteries there And why should Emissene allude to the hand of the hart and draught of the inward man if the hand of the body and draught of the outward man had none office there All this were vaine eloquence and a mere abuse and illusion if the sacramental tokens were only a figure And if there were no presence but in figure why should not Emissen rather haue followed the playne speach of the angell to the women that sought Christ Iesum queritis non est hic Ye seeke Iesus he is not here and say as this author doeth this is onely a figure do no worship here goe vp to heauen and downe with the aulter for feare of illusion which Emissen did not but called it a reuerend alter and inuiteth him that should receiue to honour that foode with such good wordes as before so far discrepant from this authors teaching as may be yet froÌ„ him he taketh occasioÌ„ to speake agaynst adoratioÌ„ Caunterbury HErefor lacke of good matter to answere you fall agayne to your accustomed maner tryfling away the matter with mocking and mowing But if you thought your doctrine good and myne erronious and had a zeale to the truth and to quiet mens conciences you should haue made a substanciall and learned answere vnto my wordes For daliyng and playing scoulding and mowing make no quietnes in mens consciences And all men that know your conditions know right well that if you had good matter to answere you would not haue hid it and passed ouer the matter with such trifles as you vse in this place And S. Ihon Chrisostom you scip ouer eyther as you saw him not or as you cared not how sclenderly you left the matter And as coÌ„cerning the Catechisme I haue sufficiently answered in my former booke But in this place may apeare to them that haue any iudgement what pithy arguments you make and what dexteritie you haue in gathering of authors myndes that would gather my mynd and make an argument here of a picture neyther put in my booke nor by me deuised but inuented by some fond paynter or caruer which paynt and graue whatsoeuer theyr idle heades can fansy You should rather haue gathered your argument vpon the other side that I mislike the matter bycause I left out of my booke the
picture that was in the originall before And I meruayle you be not ashamed to alleadge so vayne a matter agaynst me which in dede is not in my booke and if it were yet were it nothing to the purpose And in that Catechisme I teach not as you do that the body and bloud of Christ is conteined in the sacrament being reserued but that in the ministration therof we receaue the body and bloud of Christ whervnto if it may please you to adde or vnderstand this word spiritually thē is the doctrine of my Catechisme sound and good in all mens eares which know the true doctrine of the sacraments As for Emissen you agree here with me that he speaketh not of any receauing of Christes body and bloud with our mouthes but only with our hartes And where you say that you haue entreated before how the inuisible priest with his secret power doth conuert the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud I haue in that same place made answere to those wordes of Emissene but most playnly of all in my former booke the xxv leafe And Emissene sayth not that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament and therof you be not ignoraunt although you doe pretend the contrary which is somewhat worse then ignoraunce And what this word corporall meaneth I am not ignorant Mary what you meane by corporall I know not and the opening therof shall discusse the whole matter Tell therfore playnly without dissimulation or colored wordes what manner of body it is that Christ hath in the Sacrament Whether it be a very and perfect mans body with all the members therof distinct one from an other or no For that vnderstand I to be a mans corporall body that hath all such partes without which may be a body but no perfect mans body So that the lacke of a finger maketh a lacke in the perfection of a mans body Mary if you will make Christ such a body as bread and cheese is wherin euery part is bread and cheese without forme and distinction of one part from an other I confesse myne ignoraunce that I know no such body to be a mans body Now haue I shewed myne ignoraunce declare now your wit and learning For sure I am that Christ hath all those partes in heauen and if he lacke them in the Sacramēt then lacketh he not a litle of his perfectiō And then it can not be one body that hath partes and hath no partes And as concerning the wordes of Emissen calling the aulter I reuerend aulter those wordes proue no more the reall presence of Christ in the aulter then the calling of the font of Baptisme A reuerend font or the calling of mariage Reuerend Matrimony should conclude that Christ were corporally present in the water of Baptisme or in the celebratiō of matrimony And yet is not Christ clearly absent in the godly administration of his holy supper nor present onely in a figure as euer you vntruely report me to say but by his omnipotent power he is effectually present by spirituall nourishment and feeding as in Baptisme he is likewise present by spirituall renuing and regenerating Therfore where you would proue the corporall presence of Christ by the reuerence that is to be vsed at the aulter as Emissene teacheth with no lesse reuerence ought he that is baptised to come to the font then he that receaueth the Cōmunion commeth to the aulter And yet is that no profe that Christ is corporally in the font And what so euer you haue here sayd of the comming to the aulter the like may be sayd of comming to the font For although Christ be not corporally there yet as S. Hierome sayth if the Sacraments be violated then is he violated whose Sacramētes they be Now followeth after in my booke the maner of adoration in the Sacranent Now it is requisite to speake some thing of the maner and forme of worshipping of Christ by them that receaue this sacramēt least that in the stede of Christ himselfe be worshipped the sacrament For as his humanity ioyned to his diuinity and exalted to the right hand of his father is to be worshipped of all creatures in heauen earth and vnder the earth euen so if in the stead therof we worship the signes and sacraments we commit as great idolatry as euer was or shall to the worldes ende And yet haue the very Antichristes the subtilest enemyes that Christ hath by theyr fine inuentions and crafty scolasticall diuinity deluded many simple soules and brought them to this horrible idolatry to worship thinges visible and made with theyr owne handes perswading them that creatures were their Creatour theyr God and theyr maker For els what made the people to runne from theyr seates to the aulter and from aulter to aulter and from sakering as they called it to sakering peeping tooting and gasing at that thing which the priest held vp in his handes if they thought not to honor that thing which they saw What moued the priestes to lift vp the sacrament so hye ouer theyr heades or the people to cry to the priest Hold vp hold vp and one man to say to an other Stoupe downe before or to say This day haue I seene my maker And I cannot be quiet except I see my maker once a day What was the cause of all these and that as well the priest as the people so deuoutly did knocke and kneele at euery sight of the sacrament but that they worshiped that visible thing which they saw with theyr eyes and tooke it for very God For if they worshiped in spirit onely Christ sitting in heauen with his father what neded they to remoue out of theyr seates to toote and gase as the Apostles did after Christ when he was gone vp into heauē If they worshiped nothing that they sawe why did they rise vp to see Doubtlesse many of the simple people worshiped that thing which they saw with theyr eyes And although the subtill Papistes do colour and cloke the matter neuer so finely saying that they worship not the sacraments which they see with theyr eyes but that thing which they beleue with their fayth to be really and corporally in the sacraments yet why do they then runne from place to place to gase at the things which they see if they worship them not giuing therby occasion to them that be ignorant to worship that which they see Why doe they not rather quietly sit still in their seates and moue the people to do the like worshiping God in hart and in spirite than to gadde about from place to place to see that thing which they confesse them selues is not to be worshipped And yet to eschew one inconuenience that is to say the worshipping of the sacrament they fall into an other as euell and worship nothing there at all For they worship that thing as they say which is really and corporally and yet inuisibly
such perplexity as alteration hath engendred and so do as good seruice in the truth as was ment therby to hinder and empayre it And this shall suffice for an answere to this fourth booke Caunterbury HEre apeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter For you leaue out those wordes of S. Ambrose which maketh his meaning playne that the prophet spake of the mistery of Christes incarnation Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda misteria sunt c. If they deny sayth he that the misteries of the incarnatiō in Christ be to be honored c. And a little after Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominicae sacramentum spectare videatur quod ait Propheta Adorate scabellum pedum eius consideremus Let vs consider by what meanes this saying of the prophet worship his foote stoole may be seene to pertayne to the sacrament of Christes incarnation And after the wordes by you rehearsed foloweth by and by Cum igitur incarnationis adorandum sit Sacramentum c. Seing then that the Sacrament of the incarnation is to be honored In these wordes sheweth S. Ambrose playnly that the worshipping of Christes flesh is vnderstand of the mistery of his incarnation So that S. Ambrose ment not onely that men should worship Christ when they receaue the Sacrament but that all creatures at all tymes should worship him And therfore he expresseth there by name how the Angels did worship him and also Mary Magdalene and the Apostles after his resurrection when they receaued not the Sacrament And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him yet being in his infancy and the prophet after the mynd of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose commaunded to honor him before his incarnation we likewise honor him sitting now in heauen after his ascentiō For so farre is fayth able to reach without eyther tentering or stretching Thus haue I aunswered to all that you haue brought agaynst my fourth booke not obscurely as you like a cuttell haue done hiding your selfe in your darke colours but playnly to the capacity of all men asmuch as I can And this haue I done with some payne of writing but little or no study for the matter being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answere by gods word and auncient authors to an ignorant lawyer being well exercised in neyther of both but making such diuinity a she can dreame in his sleape or deuise of his owne brayne or hath sucked out of the Papistical lawes and decrees and for lacke of arguments furnishing vp his booke with prety toyes with glorious bosting and scornfull taunting And with picking out of my booke such sentences as he perswadeth him selfe that he can make some colour of apparaunt answere to deceaue the reader And such places as he seeth his rhetorike will not serue he passeth them away slightly bicause he is afrayd to file his hands therwith Wherfore I may now right well and iustly conclude here myne answere to his confutation with the wordes of my fourth booke which be these But our sauiour Christ himselfe hath geuen vs warning before hand that such false Christians and false teachers should come and hath bydde vs to beware of them saying If any man tell you that Christ is here or Christ is there beleue him not For there shall rise false Christes and false prophets and shall shew many signes and wonders so that if it were possible the very elect should be brought into erroure Take heede I haue told you before hand Thus our Sauiour Christ like a most louing pastor and sauiour of our soules hath giuen vs warning before hand of the perilles and dangers that were to come and to be wise and ware that we should not geue credite vnto such teachers as would perswade vs to worship a peece of bread to kneele to it to knocke to it to creepe to it to follow it in procession to lift vp our hādes to it to offer to it to light candels to it to shut it vp in a chest or boxe to do all other honor vnto it more then we do vnto God hauing alway this pretence or scuse for our idolatry Behold here is Christ. But our Sauiour Christ calleth them false Prophets and sayth Take heed I tell you before Beleue them not If they say to you behold Christ is a broad or in the wildernes goe not out And if they say that he is kept in close places beleue them not And if you will aske me the question who be these false prophets and seducers of the people the aunswere is soone made The Romish Antichristes and their adherents the authors of all erroure ignorance blindnes superstition hipocrisie and idolatry For Innocentius the thyrd one of the most wicked men that euer was in the sea of Rome dyd ordayne and decree that the host should be diligently kept vnder locke and key And Honorius the third not onely confirmed the same but commaunded also that the priestes would diligently teach the people from tyme to tyme that when they lifted vp the bread called the host the people should then reuerently bowe downe and that likewise they should do when the priest carieth the host vnto sicke folkes These be the statutes and ordinaunces of Rome vnder pretence of holines to leade the people vnto all errour and idolatry not bringing them by bread vnto Christ but from Christ vnto bread But all that loue and beleue Christ himselfe let them not thinke that Christ is corporally in the bread but let them lift vp theyr hartes vnto heauen and worshipping him sitting there at the right hand of his father Let them worship him in them selues whose temples they be in whome he dwelleth and liueth spiritually but in no wise let them worship him as being corporally in the bread For he is not in it neither spiritually as he is in man nor corporally as he is in heauen but onely Sacramentally as a thing may be sayd to be in the figure wherby it is signified Thus is sufficiently reproued the third principall errour of the Papistes concerning the Lordes supper which is That wicked members of the deuil doe eate Christes very body and drincke his bloud ¶ Thus endeth the fourth booke ¶ The Confutation of the second booke HAuing declared how much agaynst all truth this author would beare in hand that the reall presence the corporall presence and substanciall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the sacrament is not the true catholique doctrine but a deuise of the Papistes which is a terme wherwith this author both vncharitably charge the kinges true subiectes among whome he knoweth a great many to be of that fayth he calleth now Papish But setting wordes a part and to come to the matter as I haue shewed this author to erre partly by wilfulnes partly by ignorance in the vnderstanding of the olde authors concerning the true reall
presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament so I trust to shew this author ouerseene in the article of transubstantiation For enter wherunto first I say this that albeit the word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall counsaile where the Bishop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstanding of Christes wordes and was in that counsayle confessed not for the authority of the Bishop of Rome but for the authority of truth being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome but the true doctrine of Christes mistery and therfore in this realme the authority of Rome cessing was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realme in an open counsayle specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath bene repelled yet that doctriue was neuer hitherto by any publique counsayle or any thing set forth by authority empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this author should not improue it by the name of the Bishop of Rome seing we read how truth was vttered by Balsaam and Caiphas also and S. Paule teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or enuy so Christ be preached the person should not empayre the opening of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alow for truth impugning the article of Transubstantiation not meaning therby as this author doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament of the aniter as is afore sayd in the discussion of which truth of Transubstantiation I for my part should be speciall defended by two meanes wherwith to auoyd the enuious name of Papist One is that Zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knowen nor good christen man as some sayd neither sayth playnly writing to Luther in the matter of the Sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament there is of necessity Transubstantiation also Wherfore seing by Luthers trauayle who fauored not the Byshops of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth most certayne and manifest it appeareth that according to the true catholqiue sayth Christ is really present in the sacrament it is now by Zuinglius iudgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is TransubstantiatioÌ„ also which shal be one meane of purgation that I defend not Transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necessity of the truth howsoeuer it liketh Duns or Gabriell to write in it whose sayinges this author vseth for his pleasure An other defence is that this author himselfe sayth that it is ouer great an absurdity to say that bread insensible with many other termes that he addeth should be the body of Christ and therfore I thinke that the is that is to say the inward nature and essence of that Christ deliuered in his supper to be eaten and dronken was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine and therfore can well agree with this author that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christ nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter which considerations will enforce him that beleueth the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body as the true catholique â—ayth teacheth to assent to Transubstantiation not as determined by the church of Rome but as a consequent of truth beleued in the mistery of the Sacrament which Transubstantiation how this author would impugne I will without quarell of enuious wordes consider and with true opening of his handeling the matter doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth agaynst the truth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I heard this Author if he be the same that is named once reherse more seriously in a solemne and open audience to the conuiction and condemnation as followed of one that erroniously mayntayned agaynst the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholique fayth Caunterbury IN this booke which answereth to my second booke rather with taunting wordes then with matter I will answere the chief poyntes of your intent and not contend with you in scolding but will geue you place therin First I charge none with the name of papistes but that be well worthy therof For I charge not the hearers but the teachers not the learners but the inuenters of the vntrue doctrine of Transubstantiation not the kinges faythfull subiects but the Popes darlinges whose fayth and belefe hangeth of his onely mouth And I call it their doctrine not onely bycause they teach it but bycause they made it and were the first fynders of it And as in the third booke concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament you haue not shewed myne ignorance or wilfulnes but your owne so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation Which word say you albeit the same was fyrst spoken of in the generall counsell where the Byshop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older Here at the first brunt you confesse that the name of Transubstantiation was giuen at the counsell So that either the matter was not before as it was not in deed or at the least it was before a namelesse child as you do graunt vntill the holy father Innocent the thyrd which begat it assembled a company of his frendes as godfathers to name the child And by what authority the counsayle defined the matter of Transubstantiation it may easely appeare For authority of scripture haue they none nor none they do alleadge And what the authority of the Pope was there all men may see being present in the same no lesse then .800 Abbottes and Priours who were all the Popes owne chyldren of him created and begotten And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realme in an open counsell the authority of Rome ceasing you speake here a manifest vntruth wittingly agaynst your conscience For you know very well and if you will denie it there be enough yet aliue can testify that diuers of the clergy being of most godly liuing learning and iudgement neuer consented to the articles which you speake of And what meruayle was it that those articles notwithstanding diuers learned men repugning passed by the most voyces of the Parliament seing that although the authority of Rome was then newely ceased yet the darkenes and blindnes of errours and ignoraunte that came from Rome still remayned and ouershadowed so this Realme that a great number of the Parliament had not yet theyr eyes opened to see the truth And yet how that matter was enforced
by some persons they know right well that were then present But after when it pleased almighty God more clearly to shine vnto vs by the light of this word our eyes by his goodnes were opened darkenes discussed and that which was done in ignoraunce and darkenes was by knowledge and light in publique Counsell rehersed and taken away as well concerning the doctrine as the hardnes of the law For if the doctrine had bene true and godly there is no christen harted man but he would haue desired the establishment and continuaunce therof But the doctrine being false and such as came onely from Rome they be not worthy to be likened to those truthes which came from God and were vttered by Balaam and Cayphas but to be numbred among those lyes which came from his vicar who when he speaketh lyes ex proprijs loquitur he speaketh properly of himselfe And the Byshop of Rome was not cleane gone out of England as sone as the lawes were made agaynst his authority but remayned still by his corrupt doctrine as I feare me he doeth yet in some mennes hertes who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresayd law But yet is all togither to be imputed to the Byshop of Rome forasmuch as from thens came all the foresayd errours ignorance and corruption into these parties Now where you take vpon you here to purge your selfe of Papistry by me and Zuinglius if you haue no better compurgators then vs two you be like to fayle in your purgation For neyther of vs I dare say durst swere for you in this matter though Zuinglius were aliue Or if your purgatioÌ„ stand to this poynt that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body although in a formall and proper speach bread is not in deede his body you may be as rancke a Papist as euer was for any purgation you can make by this way For Christ called bread made of wheate his body as the wordes of the Euangelistes playnly declare and all old writers teach and in your booke of the deuils sophistrie you haue confessed saying that Christ made demonstration of bread when he sayd This is my body And therfore bring some better purgation then this or els had you bene better not to haue offered any purgation in a matter that no man charged you withall than by offering a purgation aud fayling therin to bring your selfe into more suspition And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation you make your argument thus That forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament there is of necessity TransubstantiatioÌ„ also This your argument hath two great faultes in it The first is that your antecedent is false and then you can not conclude therof a true consequent The second fault is that although the autecedent were graunted vnto you that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament yet the consequent can not be inferred therof that there is of necessity Transubstantiation For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament as well with the substance of the bread as without it and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents forasmuch as neyther Christes body there occupieth any place as you say yourselfe nor no more doth the substance of bread by it selfe but by meanes of the accidentes as you say also Now forasmuch as you say that you will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes which you heard me once more seriously reherse in solemne open audience I knowledge that not many yeares passed I was yet in darkenes concerning this matter being brought vp in scholasticall and Romish doctrine wherunto I gaue to much credite And therfore I graunt that you haue heard me stand and defend the vntruth which I then tooke for the truth and so did I heare you at the same tyme. But prayse be to the euerliuing God who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from myne eyes and I pray vnto his diuine maiesty with all my hart that he will likewise do once the same to you Thy will be fulfillid O Lord. But forasmuch as you passe ouer my handling of Christes wordes as you vse commonly to passe in post when you haue no direct answer to make I shall here repete my wordes agayne to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I haue handled them and then iudge whether you ought so slenderly to pas them ouer as you do My wordes be these ¶ The second booke THus haue you heard declared fower thinges wherin chiefly the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the trew word of God and from the olde catholique Christian fayth in this matter of the Lordes supper Now least any man should thinke that I fayne any thing of myne owne head without any other grounde or authority you shall heare by Gods grace as well the errors of the Papistes confâ—ted as the catholique truth defended both by gods most certayne word and also by the most old approued authors and Martirs of Christes Church And first that bread and wine remayne after the wordes of consecration and be eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper is most manifest by the playn wordes of Christ himselfe when he ministred the same supper vnto his desciples For as the Euangilistes write Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body Here the Papistes triumph of these wordes when Christ sayd This is my body which they call the wordes of Consecration For say they assone as these wordes be fully ended there is no bread left nor none other substance but onely Christes body When Christ sayd this the bread say they remayned And when he sayd is yet the bread remayned Also whan he added my the bread remayned still And when he sayd bo yet the bread was there still But when he had finished the whole sentence This is my body then say they the bread was gone and there remayned no substance but Christes body as though the bread could not remayne when it is made a Sacrament But this negatiue that there is no bread they make of theyr owne braynes by their vnwritten verities which they most highly esteme Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread but Christ spake not that negatiue This is no bread but sayd affirmingly This is my body not denying the bread but affirming that his body was eaten meaning spiritually as the bread was eaten corporally And that this was the meaning of Christ appeareth playnly by S. Paule in the tenth chap. to the Corinth the first epistle where he speaking of the same matter sayth Is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ Who vnderstood the mynd of Christ better then S. Paule to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsailes And S. Paule is not afrayd for our better
contempt were meeter in an Ethnikes mouth to iest out all then to passe the lippes of such an author to play with the sillables after this sort For although he may read in some blind glose that in the instant of the last sillable gods worke is to be accompted wrought being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttered not to put the vertue in the last sillable nor to scorne the catholique fayth after which manner taking example of this author if an Ethnicke should iest of Fiat Lux at fi was nothing and then at at was yet nothing at lu was nothing but a litle little pearing put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then the light What christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entry of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this author noteth with an exclamation Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread Here I would question with this author whether Christ sayd so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall bread Christ sayd This is my body Ergo he sayd this is no bread And the first part of this reason this author affirmeth in the 59. leafe And the second part is Christes wordes and therfore to auoyd this conclusion the onely way is to say that Christes speach was but a figure which the catholique doctrine sayth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christ saying this is my body sayth in effect this is no bread wherat this author sayth They would bragge if Christ had sayd so In speach is to be considered that euery yea containeth a nay in it naturally so as who so euer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine Who soeuer sayth this is wine sayth it is no beere If a Lapidary sayth This is a Diamōd he sayth it is no glas he sayth it is no christall he sayth it is no white Saphir So Christ saying this is my body sayth it is no bread Which plainesse of speach caused Zuinglius to say playnly if there be presēt the substaūce of the body of Christ there is trāsubstātiatiō that is to say not the substaūce of bread therfore who wil playnly deny transubstantion must deny the true presence of the substaunce of Christes body as this author doth wherein I haue first conuinced him and therfore vse that victory for his ouerthrow in transubstantiation I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body and yet I will touch here such testimonie as this author bringeth out of one Hylary for the purpose of trāsubstātiation in the xxv leafe of this booke in these wordes There is a figure sayth Hylary for bread and wine be outwardly sene and there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued These be Hylaries words as this author alledgeth them who was he sayth within 350. yeares of Christ. Now I call to thy iudgement good reader could any man deuise more pithy wordes for the proofe of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud and the condemnation of this author that would haue an onely figure Here in Hilarius wordes is a figure compared to truth and sight outwardly to beleue inwardly Now our belief is grounded vpon gods word which is this This is my body in which wordes Hylary testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a truth and the figure is in that is sene outwardly I take Hylary here as this author alledgeth him whereby I aske the Reader is not this author ouerthrowē that Christs speach is not figuratiue but true and proper beyng inwardly true that we beleue Ye will say vnto me What is this to transubstantiation to the reprofe wherof it was brought in bicause he sayth bread and wine is seene First I say that it ouerthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christes body and euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this author in Transubstantiation not by authority of the church of Rome but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius sayth who shall serue me to auoyd papistry If one aske me what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seene I say they be in déede séene for they appeare so and therfore be called so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voyce and yet by his sence of féelyng denyed him Esau which was not Esau but was Iacob as the voyce frō within did declare him If ye will aske me how can there accordyng to Hylaries wordes be in the outward visible creatures any figure vnlesse the same be in déede as they appeare bread and wine I will aunswere Euen as well as this outward obiect of the sensible hearynes of Iacob resemblyng Esau was a figure of Christes humanitie and of the very humanitie in déede Thus may Hylary be aunswered to auoyde his authoritie from contrarying transubstantiation But this author shall neuer auoyde that him selfe hath brought out of Hylary which ouerthroweth him in his figuratiue speach consequently in his deniall of transubstantiation also as shall appeare in the further handlyng of this matter Where this author in the 18. leaf compareth these S. Paules wordes The bread that we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ to the expoundyng of Christes wordes This is my body I deny that for Christes wordes declared the substaunce of the Sacrament when he sayd This is my body and S. Paul declareth the worthy vse of it accordyng to Christes institution and by the wordes The bread that we breake doth signifie the whole vse of the Supper wherein is breakyng blessing thankesgeuyng dispensing receiuyng and eatyng So as onely breakyng is not the communion and yet by that part in a figure of speach S. Paul meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the Scripture a terme in speach to goe breake bread although it be not alwayes so taken whereby to signifie to go celebrate our Lordes Supper and therfore bread in that place may signifie the commō bread as it is adhibite to be consecrat which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ and so distributed and receaued is the communiō of the body of Christ as the cup is likewise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction which benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for callyng of Christes bread his body is to make it his body who as S. Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so maketh it to be The argumentes this author vseth in the 19. and 20. leafe of the order of Christes speaches as the Euangelistes rehearse them be captious deuises of this author in case he knoweth what S. Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hath not read S. Augustine De
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
Emperours very men although they be euer called by the names of there royall and imperiall dignites Or are they therfore gods bicause the Prophet calleth them so And who euer called you a man sithens you were a bishop and yet that dignity tooke not from you the nature of a man And the Pope is a man although he be called Iulius or Pater sanctissimus or Hipocrita impiissimus So is bread still bread although it represent the body of Christ and be called in that respect as a figure the very body of Christ. And where you say that the naming of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other must be understood before the sanctification and not after Saynt Paules owne wordes reproue this your saying most manifestly For he calleth it bread when it is the communion of Christes body and when it is eaten saying The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christes body And as often as you eate this bread drincke this cup and who soeuer eateth the bread and drincketh the cup of the lord vnworthely and let a man try himselfe and so eate of that bread and drincke of the cup and he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely c. Now these sayinges cannot be vnderstanded before the sanctificatiō except you will graunt that the bread was Christes body and that it was eaten before it was sanctified Wherfore let euery reader that knoweth any thing iudge whether you seeke any truth in this matter or whether you study to serch out vayne cauilations and yet the same being cleane contrary to the manifest wordes of holy scripture and to all approued writers Wherfore gentle reader way S. Paules wordes whether he call it bread after the sanctification or onely before and as thou findest Saynt Paule make with this mans saying that trifeleth away the truth so thou mayst beleeue him in all other thinges Hitherto is discussed how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is agaynst gods word now followeth in my booke how the same is agaynst nature Wherof I write thus Let vs now consider also how the same is agaynst naturall reason and natural operation which although they preuayle not agaynst Gods word yet when they be ioyned with Gods word they be of great moment to confirme any truth Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum that is to say that there should be any empty place wherin no substance should be But if there remayne no bread nor wine the place where they were before and where their accidents be is filled with no substance but remayneth vacuum cleane contrary to the order of nature We see also that the wine though it be consecrated yet will it tourne to vineger and the bread will mowle which then be nothing els but sower wine and mowled bread which could not wax sower nor mowly if there were no bread nor wine there at all And if the sacramentes were now brent as in the olde church they burned all that remayned vneaten let the Papistes tell what is brent They must nedes say that it is eyther bread or the body of Christ. But bread say they is none there then must they nedes burne the body of Christ and be called Christ burners as heretofore they haue burned many of his members except they will say that accidents burne alone without any substaunce contrary to all the course of nature The sacramentall bread and wine also will nourish which nourishment naturally cometh to the substaunce of the meates and drinkes and not of the accidentes The wine also will poyson as diuers bishops of Rome haue had experiences both in poysoning of other and being poysoned them selues which poysoning they can not ascribe to the most holsome bloud of our Sauiour Christ but onely to the poysoned wine And most of all it is agaynst the nature of accidents to be in nothing For that definition of accidents is to be in some substance so that if they be they must nedes be in some thing And if they be in nothing than they be not And a thousād thinges moe of like foolishnes do the Papistes affirme by their transubstantiation contrary to all nature and reason As that two bodies be in one place and one body in many places at one tyme and that substances be gendred of accidents onely and accidents conuerted into substances and a body to be in a place and occupy no roume and generation to be without corruption and corruption without generation and that substances be made of nothing and turned into nothing with many such like thinges agaynst all order and principles of nature and reason Winchester In the third chapiter written in the xxi leafe it troubleth this author that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is in his iudgement agaynst naturall reason and naturall operation in the entry of which matter he graunteth wisely that they should not preuayle agaynst gods worde and yet he sayth when they be ioyned with gods word they be of great moment to confirme any truth wherin if he meaneth to confirme Gods worde by reason or gods misteries by naturall operation myne vnderstanding cannot reach that doctrine and is more strange to me then this author maketh Transubstantiation to be to him As for the reason of vacuum declareth a vacuum that nature abhorreth not And if we speake after the rules of nature quantity filleth the place rather than substaunce And shortly to answere this Author it is not sayd in the doctrine of Transubstantiation that there remayneth nothing for in the visible forme of bread remayneth the proper obiect of euery sence truely that is seene with the bodely eye is truely seene that is felt is truely felt that is sauored is truely sauored and those thinges corrupt putrifie norish and consume after the truth of the former nature God so ordering it that creat all vsing singularly that creature of bread not to vnite it vnto him as he did mans nature to be in bread impanate breaded as he was in flesh incarnate And as for reason in place of seruice as being inferiour to sayth will agree with the fayth of Transubstantiation well inough For if our fayth of the true presence of Christes very body be true as it is most true grounded vpon these wordes of Christ This is my body then reason yelding to that truth will not striue with Transubstantiation but playnly affirme that by his iudgement if it be the body of Christ it is not bread For in the rule of common reason the graunt of one substance is the deniall of an other and therfore reason hath these conclusions throughly whatsoeuer is bread is no wine whatsoeuer is wine is no milke and so forth And therfore being once beleued this to be the body of Christ reason sayth by and by it is not bread by the rule aforesayd wherby appeareth how reason doth not striue with Transubstantiation being once conquered with sayth of the true presence of Christes body which is most euident and
as touching the belefe of S. Thomas although he beleued certaynly that Christ was a man yet he beleued not that Christ was risen and appeared to the Apostles but thought rather that the Apostles were deceaued by some vision or spirit which appeared to them in likenes of Christ which he thought was not he indede And so thought the Apostles themselues vntill Christ sayd Videte manus meas pedes quia ego ipse sum Palpate videte quia spiritus carnem ossa non habent sicut me videtis habere See my handes and my feete for I am euen he Grope and see for a spirite hath no flesh and bones as you see that I haue And so thought also S. Thomas vntill such tyme as he put his handes into Christes side and felt his woundes and by his sense of feeling perceaued that it was Christes very body and no spirite nor phantasy as before he beleued And so in S. Thomas the truth of feeling depended not vpon the true belefe of Christes resurrection but the feeling of his senses brought him from misbelefe vnto the right and true fayth of that matter And as for S. Gregory he speaketh no such thinges as you report that the glorified body of Christ was of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable but he sayth cleane contrary that Christ shewed his glorified body to S. Thomas palpable to declare that it was of the same nature that it was of before his resurrection whereby it is playne after S. Gregories minde that if it were not palpable it were not of the same nature And S. Gregory sayth further in the same homely Egit miro modo superna clementia vt discipulus ille dubitans dum in magistro suo vulnera palparet carnis in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis Plus enim nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem quam fides credentium discipulcrum profuit quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita in fide solidatur The supernall clemency wrought meruaylously that the disciple which doubted by groping the woundes of flesh in his master should heale in vs the woundes of infidelity For the lacke of fayth in Thomas profited more to our fayth then did the fayth of the disciples that beleued For when he is brought to fayth by groping our minde is stablished in fayth without all doubting And why should S. Gregory write thus if our sences auayled nothing vnto our fayth nor could nothing iudge of substances And do not all the olde catholike authors proue the true humanity of Christ by his visible conuersation with vs here in earth that he was heard preach seene eating and drincking labouring and sweatting Do they not also proue his resurrection by seing hearing and groping of him which if it were no proofe those arguments were made in vayne agaynst such Heretikes that denied his true incarnation And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments to the maintenance of those olde condemned heresies by your subtill sophistications The touching and feeling of Christes handes feete and wounds was a proofe of his resurrection not as you say to them that beleued but as S Gregory sayth to them that doubted And if all thinges that Christ did and spake to our outward senses proue not that he was a naturall man as you say with Martion Menander Ualentinus Apolinaris withother like sort thē I would know how you should confute the sayd heresies Marty will you say peraduenture by the scripture which sayth playnly Verbum caro factumest But if they would say agayne that he was called a man and flesh bicause he tooke vpon him the forme of a man and flesh and would say that S. Paule so declareth it saying Forinam serui accipiens and would then say further that forme is the accidence of a thing and yet hath the name of substance but is not the substance indeede what would you then say vnto them if you deny that the formes and accidences be called substances then go you from your owne saying And if you graunt it then will they auoyde all the scriptures that you can bring to proue Christ a man by this cauilation that the apparances formes and accidences of a man may be called a man aswell as you say that the formes and accidences of bread be called bread And so prepare you certayne propositions and groundes for heretikes to build their errours vpon which after when you would you shall neuer be able to ouerthrowe And where you say that Thomas touched truely Christes body glorified how could that be whē touching as you say is not of y◠substance but of the accidents only and also Christes body glorified as you say is neyther visible nor palpable And where as indeede you make Christs actes illusiōs and yet in wordes you pretend the contrary call you not this illusiō of our sēses whē a thing apeareth to our sēces which is not the same thing indeede When Iupiter Mercury as the comedy telleth apeared to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitrio Sosia was not Alcumena deceaued therby And Poticaries that sell Ieniper buries for pepper being no pepper indeede deceaue they not the biers by illusion of their sences Why then is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeede Finally where as I required earnestly all the Papistes to lay their heades togither and to shew one article of our fayth so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thing to be and yet our fayth shall teach vs the contrary therunto where I say I required this so earnestly of you and with such circumstances and you haue yet shewed none I may boldly conclude that you can shew none For sure I am if you could being so earnestly prouoked therunto you would not haue fayled to shew it in this place As for the article of our resurrection and of the feeding of angels serue nothing for this purpose For my saying is of the dayly experience of our senses and when they affirme a thing to be but the resurrection of our flesh and the feeding of angels be neither in dayly experience of our senses nor our senses affirme them not so to be Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my booke the authorities of ancient writers in this wise Now for as much as it is declared how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is agaynst the word of God agaynst nature agaynst reason and agaynst all our senses we shall shew furthermore that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the olde authors of Christes church beginning at those authors which were nearest vnto Christes time and therfore might best know the truth herein First Iustinus a great learned man and an holy martyr the oldest author
that this day is knowne to write any treaty vpon the sacraments and wrote not much after one hundred yeares after Christes Ascention He writeth in his second Apology that the bread water and wine in this Sacrament are not to be taken as other common meates and drinckes be but they be meates ordeined purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia and be called also the body and bloud of Christ. And that it is lawfull for none to eate or drincke of them but that professe Christ and liue according to the same And yet the same meate and drincke sayth he is changed into our flesh and bloud and nourisheth our bodies By which saying it is euident that Iustinus thought that the bread and wine remayned still for els it could not haue bene turned into our flesh and bloud to nourish our bodies Winchester I will spend no mo wordes herein but hauing auoyded this authors reasoning against Transubstantiation Now let vs examine his authorities First he beginneth with Iustine the Martyr Whose wordes be not truly by this author here reported which be these truely translate out of the Greke When the priest hath ended his thankes geuing and prayers and all the people hath sayd Amen they whom we call Deacons geue to euery one then present a parte of the bread and of the wine and water consecrated and cary part to those that be absent and this is that foode which is among vs called Eucharistia wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker except he be perswaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs and be baptized in the water of regeneration in remission of sinnes and ordreth his life after the manner which Christ hath taught For we do not take these for common bread or drincke but like as Iesus Christ our sauiour incarnate by the word of God had flesh and bloud for our saluation euen so we be taught the foode wherwith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration when it is consecrate by the prayer of his word to be the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus incarnate For the Apostles in those their workes which be called gospels teach that Iesus did so commaund them and after he had taken the bread and ended his thankes geuing sayd Do this in my remembrance This is my body And likewise taking the cup after he had geuen thankes sayd This is my bloud and did giue them to his Apostles onely And here I make an issue with this author that he wittingly corrupteth Iustine in the allegation of him who writeth not in such forme of wordes as this author alleageth out of his second Apology nor hath any such speach The bread water and wine in this sacrament are meates ordeined purposely to giue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia nor hath not these wordes They be called the body and bloud of Christ but hath in playne wordes that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods word to be the flesh and bloud of Christ as Christ in his incarnation tooke flesh and bloud nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstanding how the same meate and drincke is changed into our flesh and bloud For the wordes in Iustine speaking of alteration of the foode haue an vnderstanding of the foode as it is before the consecration shewing how Christ vsed those creatures in this mistery which by alteration nourish our flesh and bloud For the body of Christ which is the very celestiall substance of the host consecrate is not changed but without all alteration spiritually nourisheth the bodies and soules of them that worthely receaue the same to immortality wherby appeareth this authors conclusion that bread and wine remayne still which is tourned into our flesh and bloud is not deduced vpon Iustines wordes truely vnderstanded but is a glose inuented by this author and a peruerting of Iustines wordes and their true meaning Wherupon I may say and conclude euen as this author erreth in his reasoning of mother wit agaynst Transubstantiation euen so erreth he in the first allegation of his authorities by playne misreporting let it be further named or thought one as the thing deserueth Caunterbury IN this holy Martire Iustinus I do not goe about to be a translator of him nor I bynde not my selfe precisely to follow the forme of his wordes which no translatour is bound vnto but I set forth onely his sence and meaning For where Iustine hath a good long processe in this matter I take no more but that is directly to the purpose of Transubstantiation which is the matter being here in question And the long wordes of Iustine I knit vp togither in as fewe wordes as I can rendring the sense truly and not varying farre from the wordes And this haue I done not willingly to corrupt Iustine as you maliciously depraue and therupon wil I ioyne with you in your issue but I do it to recite to the reader Iustines mind shortly and playnly where as you professing to obserue scrupulously the wordes obserue in dede neither the wordes nor the sentence of Iustine But this is your fashion when you lacke good matter to answere then to finde something to fill vp your booke you turne the matter into trifling and cauilation in wordes You say that Iustine hath not this speach the bread water and wine in this Sacrameut are meates ordeined purposely to giue thankes to God and yet by your owne translation he hath the same thing in effect and yet in deede the wordes be neither as you nor as I say and as they be in greeke they cannot be expressed in English but by a paraphrasis The wordes be these in greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in our tongue as nere as may be englished signify thus The bread and wine and water of thankes giuing or as Ireneus sayth In which thankes be giuen And neither hath Iustine this word Sacrameut as I say nor this word Consecrated as you say May not all men therfore euidently see that your chief study is to make cauilations daylying in wordes◠And all the rest of my sayinges which you deny to be in Iustine be there very playnly in sense as I will be iudged by the indifferent reader And what neede I willingly to corrupt Iustine when his wordes after your allegation serue more for my purpose agaynst your fayned transubstantiation then as I alleadge them my selfe For if the Deacons giue to euery one present a part of the bread wine and water consecrated and send parte to them that be absent as you reporte Iustines wordes do not then bread wine and water remayne after consecration seing that they be distributed to diuers men in partes For I thincke you will not say that the body of Christ is deuided into partes so that one man receaueth an hand and an other a legge And Iustine sayth further that the same foode of bread wine and water called
signatum in signo And where you be fayne to say that accidents be meate without substance all the world may iudge how shamefull a shift this is and how contrary to this principle of philosophy Ex eisdem sunt nutriuntur omnia Oh what absurdities you be driuen vnto for the defence of your Papisticall inuentions Now cometh S. Iohn Chrisostome of whome in my booke is thus written About the same tyme of shortly after about the yeare of our Lord 400. S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth thus agaynst them that vsed onely water in the Sacrament Christ sayth he minding to plucke vp that heresy by the rootes vsed wine as well before his resurrection when he gaue the misteries as after at his table without misteries For the sayth of the fruite of the vine which surely bringeth forth no water but wine These wordes of Chrisostome declare playnly that Christ in his holy table both drancke wine and gaue wine to drincke which had not bene true if no wine had remayned after the consecration as the Papistes fayne And yet more playnly S. Chrisostome declareth this matter in an other place saying The bread before it be sanctified is called bread but when it is sanctified by the meanes of the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body although the nature of bread dooth still remayne The nature of bread sayth he doth still remayne to the vtter and manifest confutation of the Papists which say that the accidents of bread do remayne but not the nature and substance Winchester Christostome speaketh in this place of wine as Ciprian did before agaynst those that offer no wine but water Chrisostome sayth thus Christ vsed wine and I graunt he did so For he did consecrate that creature and as Emissene sayth turned it in the celebration and dispensation of these misteries But this saying toucheth nothing the doctrine of Transubstantiation The second saying of Chrisostom which I neuer redde but in Peter Martirs booke who sayth it is not printed toucheth this authors doctrine much if the bread by consecration be deliuered from the name of bread and exalted to the name of our Lordes body Now consider reader if this manner of speach by Chrisostome here meaneth an effectuall naming to make the substance of the body of Christ present as Chrisostome in his publike approued workes is vnderstanded of all to teach then is the deliuerance from the name of bread of like effect to take away the reason of the name of bread which is the change in substance therof Or if the author will say that by the name of bread Chrisostome vnderstandeth the bare name how can that stand without reprofe of S. Paule who after this authors mynde calleth it bread after consecration and so do many other by this author alleadged Here percase may be sayd what should I reason what he ment when he sayth playnly the nature of bread still remayneth To this I say that as Chrisostome in this place of an epistle not published by credite sayth that the nature of bread remayneth So Ciprian that was older then he sayth the nature of bread is changed which Chrisostome in his other workes by publique credite set abrode semeth not to deny Now the word nature signifieth both the substance and also propriety of the nature The substance therfore after Ciprian by the word of God is changed but yet the proper effect is not changed but in the accidences remayne without illusion by which diuers signification and acception of the word nature both the sayings of S. Ciprian and S. Chrisostome if this be his saying may be accorded and notwithstanding the contrariete in letter agree neuertheles in sence betwene themselfe and agree with the true doctrine of Transubstantiation Adde to this how the wordes of Chrisostome next following this sentence alleadged by this author and as it semeth of purpose left her out do both confound this authors enterprise and confirme the true doctrine Which wordes be these And is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne of God Of Chrisostome I shall speake agayne hereafter Caunterbury THe first place of Chrysostome by me alleadged you say toucheth not the doctrine of Transubstantiation But you rehearse but a piece of Chrisostomes wordes For he sayth not onely that Christ vsed wine but also drancke wine in the misteries and the very wine of the grape And how could then the wine be transubstantiate except it were transubstantiate after it was drunken Now as touching the second part of Chrisostome where he sayth that the bread when it is consecrated is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body and yet the nature of bread doth still remayne he meaneth that the bread is deliuered from the bare name of bread to represent vnto vs the body of Christ according to his institution which was crucified for vs not that he is present or crucified in the bread but was crucified vpon the Crosse. And the bread is not do clearely deliuered from the name of bread that it is no bread at all for he sayth the nature of bread doth still remayne nor that it may not be called by the name of bread but it is so deliuered that commonly it is called by the higher name of the Lordes body which to vs it representeth As you and I were deliuered from our surnames when we were cōsecrated bishops sithens which tyme we haue so commonly bene vsed of all men to be called bishoppes you of Winchester and I of Caunterbury that the most part of the people know not that your name is Gardyner and myne Cranmer And I pray God that we being called to the name of Lordes haue not forgotten our owne baser estates that once we were simple squiers And yet should he haue done neyther of vs wrong that should haue called vs by our right names no more then S. Paule doth any iniury to the bread in the sacrament calling it bread although it haue also an higher name of dignity to be called the body of Christ. And as the bread being a figure of Christs body hath the name therof and yet is not so in deede so I pray God that we haue not rather bene figures of bishops bearing the name and title of Pastors and Bishoppes before men then that we haue in deede diligently fed the little flocke of Christ with the swete and holsome pasture of his true and liuely word And where you alleadge Ciprian to auoyd therby the saying of Chrisostome in the epistle by me cited you take Ciprian clearely amisse as I haue playnly opened hereafter in the xi chapiter of this booke wherunto for to auoyde the tediousnes of repeting I referre the indifferent reader vnto which myne answer there healpeth much that which you graunt here that the word nature signifieth both the substance and also the propriety For in Ciprian
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
so the Sacrament consisteth of to natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament These be this authors owne wordes who trauayling to confound Transubstantiation confoundeth euidently himselfe by his owne wordes touching the reall present For he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ must remayne in the sacrament and as truely as the natures of the manhod and Godhead were in Christ for therupon he argueth And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures the manhode or the godhead were but figuratiuely in Christ which and he do then may be the better say for the agrement of his doctrine The nature of the body and bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the Sacrament And if he say as he must nedes say that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament and therby call backe all that he hath written agaynst the real presence of Christes body in the sacrament and abandon his deuise of a presence by significatiō which is in truth a playne absēce as himselfe also speaketh openly which open speach can not stand and is improued by this open speach of his owne Likewise where he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the Sacrament the word remayne being of such signification as it betokeneth not onely to be there but to tary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church which mistery of sacrifice is perfited before the perception and so it must be euident how the body of Christ is there that is to say on the alter before we receaue it to which aulter S. Augustine sayth we come to receaue it There was neuer man ouerturned his own assertions more euidently then this author doth herein this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haue written agaynst this Sacrament who haue by he way sayd somewhat for it or they haue brought their treatise to an end It will be sayd here how soeuer this author doth ouerthrow him selfe in the reall presence of Christes very body yet he hath pulled downe Transubstantiation and done as crafty wrastlers do falling themselues on theire backe to throw there fellowe ouer them But it is not like for as long as the true fayth of the reall presence standeth so longe Transubstantiation standeth not by authority of determination but by a necessary consequence of the truth as I sayd before and as Zuinglius defendeth playnly and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered vnto for they speake of the visible nature and element which remayne truely in the propriety of their nature for so much as remayneth so as there is true reall and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine not in fantasy or imagination wherby there should be illution in the sences but so in deede as the experience doth shew and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance should not impayre the truth of that remayneth but that remayneth doth in deede remayne with the same naturall effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one maruaile in this mistery as there were diuerse more in Manna the figure of it And then a miracle in gods working doth not empayre the truth of the worke And therfore I noted before how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truely and yet it was by miracle as S. Gregory writeth And further we may say touching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made of the Sacrament to Christes person or contrariwise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality in consideration of each part by it selfe but onely haue respect to the ende wherfore the resemblance is made In the person of Christ be ioyned two whole perfite natures inseperably vnite which fayth the Nestorians impugned and yet vnite without confusion of them which confussion the Eutichians in consequence of their error affirmed and so arguments be brought of the sacrament wherewith to conuince both as I shall shew answering to Gelasius But in this place S. Augustine vseth the truth most certayne of the two natures in Christes person wherby to declare his beleefe in the Sacrament which beleefe as Hilary before is by this author alleadged to say is of that is inwardly For that is outwardly of the visible creature we see he sayth with our bodely eye and therfore therin is no poynt of fayth that should neede such a declaration as S. Augustine maketh And yet making the comparison he reherseth both the truthes on both sides saying As the person of Christ cōsisteth of God man so the sacrifice of the church cōsisteth of two thinges the visible kind of the element the inuisible flesh bloud finishing the conclusiō of the similitude that therfore There is in the Sacrifice of the church both the Sacramēt and the thing of the Sacramēt Christes body that which is inuisible therfore required declaratiō that is by S. Augustine opened in the cōparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely and therwith that needed no declaration that is to say the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true but not as a thing which was intended to be proued for it neded not any proofe as the other part did And therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblance so as bicause in the nature of Christs humanity there was no substance conuerted in Christ which had bene contrary to the order of that mistery which was to ioyne the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ that therfore in this mistery of the Sacrament in which by the rules of our fayth Christes body is not Impanate the conuersion of the substance of the visible elements should not therfore be If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mistery that is sufficient For els the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasy in the mistery of the Sacrament as there be in Christes person and the flesh of man in Christ by vnion of the diuinity is a diuine spirituall flesh and is called and is a liuely flesh and yet the author of this booke is not afrayd to teach the bread in the Sacrament to haue no participation of holines wherein I agree not with him but reason agaynst him with his owne doctrine and much I could say more but this shall suffice The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be such as no man can wrest or wreth to an other sence and with their force haue made this author to ouerthrow
what is this to make foundation of an argument vpon a secret copy of an epistle vttered at one tyme in diuers senses I shall touch one speciall poynt Peter Martyr sayth in Latin whome the translator in English therin followeth that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body This author Englishing the same place termeth it exalted to the name of the Lordes body which wordes of exalting come nearer to the purpose of this author to haue the bread but a figure and therwith neuer the holier of it selfe But a figure can neuer be accompted worthy the name of our Lordes body the very thing of the Sacrament onles there were the thing in deede as there is by conuersion as the church truely teacheth Is not heare reader a meruaylous diuersity in report and the same so set forth as thou that canst but reade English mayst euidently see it God ordring it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appeare where the truth is impugned Agayne this author maketh Chrisostome to speake strangely in the end of this authority that the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ as though the nature of man were the stay to the diuine nature where as in that vnion the rest is an ineffable mistery the two natures in Christ to haue one substance called and termed an hipostasie and therfore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus The diuine constitution the nature of the body adioyned these two both togither make one sonne and one person Thou reader mayst compare the bookes that be abroad of Peter Martyr in Latine of Peter Martyr in English and this authors booke with that I write and so deeme whither I say true or no. But to the purpose of S. Chrisostomes wordes if they be his wordes he directeth his argument to shew by the mistery of the Sacrament that as in it there is no confusion of natures but each remayneth in his property so likewise in Christ the nature of his godhead doth not confound the nature of his manhode If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christes body there truely present inuisible also as that body is impalpable also as that body is incorruptible also as that is then were the visible nature altred and as it were confounded which Chrisostome sayth is not so for the nature of the bread remayneth by which word of nature is conueniently signified the property of nature For proofe wherof to shew remayning of the property without alteration Chrisostome maketh onely the resemblance and before I haue shewed how nature signifieth the propriety of nature and may signifie the outward part of nature that is to say the accidents being substance in his proper signification the inward nature of the thyng of the conuersion wherof is specially vnderstand transubstantiation Caunterbury WHere you like not my translatiō of Chrisostomes wordes I trow you would haue me to learne of you to trāslate you vse such sincerity and playnnes in your translation Let the learned reader be iudge I did translate the wordes my selfe out of the copye of Florence more truely than it seemeth you would haue done But whan you see the wordes of Chrisostome so manifest and cleare agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation for he sayth that the nature of bread remayneth still you craftely for a shift fall to the carping of the translation bicause you cannot answere to the matter And yet the wordes of Chrisostome cyted by master Peter Martyr in latine out of Florence copy and my translation and the translation of master Peters booke in English do agree fully here in sense although the wordes be not all one which neyther is required nor lightly found in any two translators so that all your wrangling in the diuersity of the translations is but a fleight and common practise of you whan you cannot answer the matter to seeke faultes in the translation where none is And for the speciall poynt wherin you do note a meruaylous diuersity in report and would gather therof no truth to be where such diuersity is let the reader be iudge what a wonderfull diuersity it is The Latine is this Panis dignus habitus est dominici corporis appellatione The translator of M. Peter Martyrs booke sayth The bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body My translation hath The bread is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord. When a man is made a Lord or Knight if one say of him that he is reputed worthy the name of a Lord or Knight and an other say that he is exalted to the name of a Lord or Knight what difference is betwene these two sayinges Is not this a wonderfull diuersity I pray thee iudge indifferently good reader But say you a figure can neuer be counted worthy the name of the thing onles the thing were there in deede Wrangle then with S. Ihon Chrisostome himselfe and not with me who sayth that the bread is exalted to the name of the Lords body or is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body after the sanctificatiō and yet the nature of the bread remayneth still which can not be as you say if the body of Christ were there present And who heard euer such a doctrine as you here make that the thing must be really and corporally present where the figure is For so must euery man be corporally buried in deede when he is Baptised which is a figure of our buriall And when we receaue the Sacrament of Christes body then is accomplished the resurrectiō of our bodies for that Sacrament you affirme to be the figure therof But your doctrine herein is cleane contrary to the iudgement of Lactantius and other olde writers who teach that figures be in vayne and serue to no purpose when the thinges by them signified be present And where you thinke it strange to say that the diuine nature is or resteth in the body of Christ it is nothing els but to declare your ignorance in Gods word and auncient authors in reading of whome forasmuch as you haue not bene much exercised it is no meruayle though their speach seeme strange vnto you The greeke word of Chrisostome is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I pray you english and then we shall see what a strange speach you will make Did you neuer heare tell at the least that the word was incarnated or Verbum caro factum est And what signifieth this word Incarnate but God to be made man and his diuine nature to be in flesh Doth not S. Iohn bid vs beware that we beleue not euery spirite for there be many false prophets and euery spirite sayth he that confesseth not Iesus Christ to haue come in flesh is not of God but is the spirite of Antichrist Is this then a strange speach to you that the diuine nature resteth in the flesh that is to say in the body of Christ which
one of the body and soule which the Church doth professe in Symbolo Athanasij of all receaued For Christ is one person of two perfite natures whereof the one was before the other in perfection and creation of the other the one impassible and the other passible Man is of the soule and body one two different natures but such as for their perfection required that vnitie wherof none was before other perfect of Christ we say he is consubstantiall to his Father by the substaunce of his Godhead and consubstantiall to man by the substaunce of his manhoode but we may not say man is consubstantiall by his soule to Aungels and consubstantiall in his body to beastes because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantiall beastes And thus I write to shew that we may not presse the exāple in euery part of it as the author of this booke noteth vpon Gelasius who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure Caunterbury I Pitie you to see how ye swinke and sweate to confounde this author Gelasius And yet his woordes be so playne agaynst your Papisticall Transubstantiation that you haue clearely lost all your paynes labours and costes For these be his wordes spoken of the Sacrament Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substaunce or nature of bread and wine ceasseth not to be But to auoyde and dalye away these wordes that be so cleare and playne must needes bee layd on loade of wordes the wit must be stretched out to the vtmost all fetches must brought in that cā be deuised all colours of Rethorike must be sought out all the ayre must be cast ouer with cloudes all the water darkned with the cuttyls ynke and if it could be at the least asmuch as may be all mens eyes also must be put out that they should not see But I would wish that you stode not so much in your owne conceite trusted not so much in your inuentions and deuise of wit in eloquence and in craftines of speach multitude of wordes looking that no mā should dare encounter you but that all men should thinke you speake well bicause you speake much that you shuld be had in great reputation among the multitude of them that be ignoraunt can not discerne perfectly those that folow the right way of truth from other that would lead them out of the way into errour blindnesse This standyng in your conceite is nothyng els but to stand in your owne light But where you say that these heresies of Nestorius Eutiches were not so grosse as I report that the one should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other should say cleane cōtrary that he was very God but not mā of the grossenes of these two heresies I will not much contēd For it might be that they were of some misreported as they were in deede if credite be to be giuen to diuers auncient hystories but this I dare say that there be diuers authors that report of them as I do write and consequently you graunt the same in effect For you report of the Eutichiās that they did pernitiously say that there was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature in Christ. And of the Nestorians you say that they denyed Christ to be conceiued God or borne God but onely man and than could not he be naturally God but onely man And therfore neither by ignoraunce nor of purpose do I report them otherwise than you confesse your selfe and then I haue learned of other that were before my tyme. For S. Augustine in the place which you do cite of him hath these wordes of Nestorius Dogmatizare ausus est Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum hominem tantum he presumed to teach sayth S. Augustine that our Lord Iesus Christ was but man onely And of Eutiches he sayth Humanitatis in Christo denegauit veritatem he denied the truth of Christes manhode And Gelasius writeth also thus Eutichiani dicunt vnam esse naturam id est diuinam ac Nestorius nihilominus memerat singularem The Eutichians say that there is but one nature in Christ that is to say the Godhead and also Nestorius sayth there is but one nature meanyng the manhode By which wordes of S. Augustine and Gelasius appeareth as playnly as can be spokē the playne contradiction betwene the Nestorians and the Eutichians that the one denyed the humanitie of Christ and the other his diuinitie as I haue writtē in my booke so that neither of ignoraunce nor of purpose haue I fayned any thyng but you either of malice or of your accustomed maner to calumniate and find faulte with euery thyng that misliketh you be it neuer so well seeke occasion likewise hereto carpe and reprehend where no fault is being like vnto Momus which when he could finde no fault with Uenus person yet he picked a quarell to her slipper And not in this place onely but throughout your whole booke you vse this fashiō that when you cā not aunswere to the principall matter thē you finde fault with some bye matter wherby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the Readers mynde that he should not see how craftely you cōuey your selfe frō direct aūsweryng of the chief poynt of the Argumēt which when you come vnto you passe it ouer slenderly aūsweryng either nothyng or very litle nothyng to the purpose But yet this bye matter which you bryng in of the grossenes of these two errours helpeth litle your intēt but rather helpeth to fortifie my saying agaynst your doctrine of transubstātiation that your doctrine herein maketh a playne way for the Nestorians the Eutichians to defend their errours For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures and after the cōsecration in that mysterie is but one nature and that is the body of Christ into which the nature of bread in your fantasie is transformed and confounded and if also this mysterie be an example of the mysterie of Christes incarnation as the old authours report why may not then the Eutichians say that before the adunation in the virgins wombe the Godhead manhode were two natures yet after the adunation in that mysterie of Christes incarnation there was but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fantasie transfused and confounded And thus haue you made by your transubstantiation a goodly paterne and example for the Eutichians to folow in maintenaunce of their errour And yet although the Eutichians sayd that the nature of God and of mā before their vniting were two yet I read not that they sayd that they were two in the virgines wombe as you report of thē which is no great matter but to declare how ignoraūt you be in the thing wherof you make so great boast or how litle you regard the truth that wittingly wil
wheras gods worke is in an instant and for that respect neuer shedding But this author had a fansie to vse the sound of the word powring to serue in freede of an argumēt to improue Transubstantiation meaning the hearer or reader in the conceauing of the sence of Ciprian thus termed should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament to be like a soppe wherupon liquor were powred which is a kind of deprauation as thou reader by consideration of Ciprians wordes and meaning mayst perceaue which Ciprian hauing shewed how the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of gods word and made by change Then bicause this mistery of the Sacrament in consideration of the two natures celestiall and earthly resembleth the principall mistery of Christes person S. Ciprian sayth in sence that as in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden so likewise in this Sacrament visible is also the diuine nature hidden This is the sence where for declaration of the worke of God presenting his diuine nature there is vsed the verbe Infundit in Latine by which word the motion of the diuine nature is spoken of in scriptures not bicause it is a liquidde substance to bee poured as the author of this booke englisheth it signifying a successiue operation but rather as a word if we should scan it as this author would signifying the continuance of the terme from whence to the terme wherunto without leauing the one by motion to the other for there is in the godly nature no locall motion and therfore we say Christ not leauing his father descended from heauen and being in earth was also in heauen which infution in some parte resembleth but mans wordes can not expresse Gods diuine operations To the purpose the first wordes of Ciprian shew the maner of the constitution of this Sacrament to be by mutation of the earthly creatures into the body and bloud of Christ. And than by the wordes following sheweth the truth of the substance of the Sacrament to the intent we might vse our repayre to it and frame our deuotion according to the dignitie of it esteeming as S. Paule sayth our Lordes body For the more euident declaration wherof S. Ciprian by example of the mistery in Christes person sheweth Christes humanity and diuinity present in the visible Sacrament of which diuinity there is speciall mention agaynst such which fansied the flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten as diuided from the diuine nature which was the heresy of the Nestorians and such other denying therby the persite vnity of the two natures in Christ which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially condemne as other fathers in their writings old specially preuēt with distinct writing agaynst that errour And therfore S. Ciprian not content to shew the presence of Christes flesh by mutation of the bread doth after make speciall mention of Christes diuinity not concerning that he had sayd before but further opening it And so vtterly condemneth the teaching of the author of this booke touching the presence of Christ to be onely figuratiuely Ciprian sayth that in the Sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true flesh of Christ and the Godhead truely which deuotion should knowledge And as for Transubstantiation according to the first wordes of S. Ciprian the bread is changed not in forme but in nature which is not in the properties of nature nor in the operation of nature neither in quantity or quality of nature and therfore in the inward nature which is properly substance This is the playne direct vnderstanding not by way of addition as this author of his imagination deuiseth who vseth the word Spirituall as a stop and opposition to the catholique teaching which is not so and clearly without learning compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptisme of which we reade not written that it is changed as we reade of the bread and therfore the resemblance of water in Baptisme is vsed onely to blynde the rude reader and serueth for a shift of talke to winde out of that matter that can not be answered and as euill debters shake of their creditours with a bye communication so this author conueyeth himselfe away at a backe dore by water not doing first as he promised to answer so as he would auoyd Ciprian directly by land Caunterbury WHere in my former booke I found a fault in the allegation of Ciprian it was in deede no little fault to alleadge those wordes that speake of the change of bread and to leaue out the example most necessary to be rehersed which should declare how it was changed which change is not by Transubstantiation as the example sheweth but as it is in the person of Christ whose humanity was not transubstantiate although it was inseparabely annexed vnto the deity And the wordes following do not once touch the reall and corporall presence of Christes flesh in the bread so farre it is from the ouerthrowing of the true catholike fayth by me taught But Ciprian in that place quite and cleane ouerthroweth as well your reall presence as your imagined transubstantiation as hereafter by Gods grace shall be declared But first it semeth to me a strange thing that such a learned man as you take your selfe to be in the tongues can not English this verbe Infundo where as euery Gramarian can tell the signification of Fundo Effundo and Infundo But it semeth you haue so deinty a stomacke that you can brooke no meat but of your owne dressing though it be neuer so well dressed of other yea you had rather eate it rawe then to take it of an other mans dressing And so much misliketh you all thinges that other men doe that you be ready to vomite at it No English can please you to this word Infundo but Latine English as you call it and that is such English as no English man can vnderstand nor Latine man neither but onely in that sense that I haue englished it And I pray thee gentill reader consider the great weighty cause why no English can please in this place and thou shalt finde it nothing els but ignorance eyther of the speach or of God Powring sayth he maketh a successiue working So doth infusion say I and therfore in that respect as vnfitte a terme as Powring But Gods worke sayth he is in an instant So is his powring say I and all that he doth euen aswell as his infusion All mans workes be done in succession of tyme for a carpenter can not build a house in a day but God in one moment could make both heauen and earth So that God worketh without delay of tyme such thinges as in vs require leasure and tyme. And yet God hath tempered his speach so to vs in holy scripture that he speaketh of himselfe in such wordes as be vsuall to vs or els could we speake here and learne nothing of God And therfore whether we say infusion or pouring
all is one thing and one reason For in vs they be done by little and little but God worketh the same sodenly in one moment And yet if you had well considered the matter you should not haue found the sacraments of God likesoppes wherin licour is poured but you should haue found pouring an apt word to expresse the abundance of gods working by his grace in the ministration of his holy sacraments For when there cometh a small rayne then we say it droppeth or there is a few droppes but when there cometh a great multitude of rayne togither for the great abundance of it we vse in common speach to say it poureth downe So that this word pouring is a very apt word to expresse the multitude of Gods mercies and the plentifulnes of his grace poured into them whome he loued declared and exhibited by his wordes and sacraments And howsoeuer you be disposed by iesting and scoffing to mocke out all thinges as your disposition hath bene euer giuen to reprehend thinges that were well yet the indifferent reader may iudge by this one place among many other that you seeke rather an occasion to brable without cause and with idle wordes to draw your booke out at length then to seeke or teach any truth And if I should play and scoffe in such a matter as you doe I might dally with the word of Infusion as you do with the word powring For as you reiect my word of powring bicause some fond reader might fantasy that bread in the sacrament to be like a soppe wherin licour were powred by like reason may I reiect your English Latin of infuding bicause such a reader might fantasy therby the bread to be like water wherin the diuinity is stieped or infuded As infused rubarbe is called when it is stieped certayne houres in stilled water or wine without seething and so be roses and violets likewise infused when they be stieped in warme water to make inlep therof But as poticaries phisitions surgions and Alcumists vse wordes of Greeke Arabike and other strange langwages purposely therby to hide their sciences from the knowledge of others so farre as they can so do you in many partes of your booke deuise many strange termes and strange phrases of speach to obscure and darken therby the matter of the sacrament and to make the same meete for the capacities of very few which Christ ordayned to be vnderstanded and exercised of all men At the last as you say you come to your purpose not to open the truth but to hide it as much as you may and to gather of Ciprians wordes your owne faining and not his meaning who ment nothing lesse then eyther of any Transubstantiation or of the corporall presence of Christ in the bread and wine And to set out Ciprians mynde in few wordes he speaketh of the eating and not of the keeping of the bread which when it is vsed in the Lordes holy supper it is not onely a corporall meate to norish the body but an heauenly meate to nourish the soules of the worthy receauors the diuine maiesty inuisibly being present and by a spirituall transition and change vniting vs vnto Christ feeding vs spiritually with his flesh and bloud vnto eternall life as the bread being conuerted into the nature of our bodies fedeth the same in this mortall life And that this is the mynd of S. Ciprian is euident aswell by the wordes that go before as by the wordes following the sentence by you alleadged For a little before Ciprian writeth thus There is geuen to vs the foode of immortall life differing from common meates which reteineth the forme of corporall substance and yet proueth Gods power to be present by inuisible effect And agayne after he sayth This common bread after it is changed into flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodyes And therfore the weakenes of our fayth being holped by the customable effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the invisible sacraments is the effect of euerlasting life and that we be made one by a Transition or change not so much corporall as spirituall For he is made both bread flesh and bloud meate substance and life to his church which he calleth his body making it to be partaker of him Note well these wordes good reader and thou shalt well perceaue that Ciprian speaketh not of the bread kept and reserued but as it is a spirituall nourishment receaued in the Lordes supper and as it is frutefully broken and eaten in the remembrance of Christes death and to them that so eate it Ciprian calleth it the foode of immortall life And therfore when he sayth that in the inuisible sacrament is the effect of euerlasting life he vnderstandeth of them that worthely receaue the sacrament for to the bread and wine pertayneth not eternall life Neuertheles the visible sacrament teacheth vs that by a spirituall change we be vnited to Christes flesh and bloud who is the meate and sustenance of his church and that we be made partakers of the life euerlasting by the power of God who by his effectuall working is present with vs and worketh with his Sacraments And here is agayn to be noted that Ciprian in this place speaketh of no reall presence of Christes humanitie but of an effectuall presence of his diuine maiestie and yet the breade sayth he is a foode and nourishment of the body And thus Ciprian proueth nothing agaynst my sayinges neither of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud nor of Transubstantiation of bread and wine And where you be offended with this word spirituall it is not my deuise but vsed of S. Ciprian him selfe not past .vi. or vii lines before the wordes by you cited where he declareth the spirituall mutation or transition in the Sacraments And of the change in the sacrament of baptisme as well as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ speaketh not onely this author but also Nazianzen Emissene Chrisostome Ambrose with all the famous auncient ecclesiasticall authors And this water doth well to delay your hotte wine wherof you haue drunken so much out of the cuppe of the great whore of Babilon that the true wine representing to vs our whole redemption by the true bloud of Christ you haue clearly transubstantiate and taken away Now followeth my answere vnto Chrisostome An other authority they haue of S. Ihon Chrisostome which they boast also to be inuincible Chrisostome say they writeth thus in a certayne homily De Eucharistia Doest thou see bread Doest thou see wine Do they auoyde beneth as other meates do God forbid thinke not so For as waxe if it be put into the fire it is made like the fire no substāce remayneth nothing is lefte here so also thinke thou that the misteries be consumed by the substance of the body At these wordes of Chrisostome the Papists do triumph as though they had won the field Loe
Chrisostome would by his wordes put vs in remembrance not denying therby the visible ministry no more then he doth in his other wordes deny the visible forme of bread and yet would not that we should looke only vpon that but whether fayth directeth vs that is to say vpon the very body of Christ there inuisibly present which fayth knoweth and knoweth it to be there the very body and there therfore to be no bread which bread this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth But touching the priest S. Chrisostomes wordes do by no meane teach vs that there is no visible priest but to thinke that the body of Christ is deliuered of Christes handes which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible as fayth doth the substance inuisible of bread in the Sacrament The one saying in Chrisostome is a godly exhortation according to the truth the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth we be not taught that the priest is Christ but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christes body And then the question in the wordes of Chrisostome Seest thou bread is as much to say as remembrest the fayth as being one of the faythfull that know which terme S. Augustine vsed And then Chrisostome to confirme our fayth in so high a mistery declareth how we should thinke Christ to deliuer his body him selfe as a thing farre exceding mans power to do it And with other heauenly wordes setteth forth the greatnes of that mistery which be wordes of godly and good meditation conuenient for so high a matter to adorne it accordingly which bicause they be holsome and meete allegories wherwith to draw and lift vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes we may not therby esteeme the substance of that mistery to be but in allegory Here in steed of a solution the author filleth three whole leaues with profe of that is not necessary how a deniall by cōparison is not vtterly a deniall which is in deed true And as one was answered at Cambridge when he pressed the responsall What say ye to myne argument which was not in deede of his making The responsall left his Latin and told the opponent before all his country friendes in playne English It is a good argument syr quoth he but nothing to the purpose And so is the intreating of this matter of deniall by comparison good but nothing to the purpose here and it is an obseruation that requireth good iudgement or els may therby be induced many absurdities Chrisostom as I sayd before speaking to the Christen man seemeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no. For if he seeth bread he seeth not with fayth which seeth the body of Christ there present and so no bread If the christen man thinke of passage through him of the celestiall foode he hath therin no spirituall thought such as fayth engendreth and therfore sayth Chrisostome absit here in these wordes of Chrisostom is no deniall with comparison and therfore this author myght haue spared his treatise in these thrée leaues For in those wordes when Chrisostome sayth Thinke not thou receauest the body of Christ by a man There this author neglecteth his owne rule as in his third booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those S. Chrisostoms wordes we receaue not the body of Christ at all seing Chrisostome sayth we may not thinke we receaue it by man So little substantially is this matter handled as a man might say here were many accidentall wordes without a substance or miracle how strange soeuer the same seeme to this author otherwise Caunterbury I Complayned not of your crafty handling of Chrisostome without a iust cause for when you had alleadged the wordes that seemed to make for your purpose you left out the wordes that make clearly agaynst you or which wordes at the least would open all the whole matter And yet the wordes which you leaue out follow immediately the wordes by you alleadged And where to discusse this whole matter you say in the beginning that Chrisostome doth not deny the visible minister no more then he doth the visible forme of bread here at the first chop you vse an other pollicie not much commendable altering pretely the wordes of Chrisostom making of bread the forme of bread For Chrisostome speaketh of bread and wine and not of the formes and accidents of them And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister and so is the priest nothing els but the puppy of a priest And then the communicants receaue no bread of the priest but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest For Chrisostome speaketh in like forme of wordes of the bread as he doth of the priest with these wordes thinke not Thinke not that thou seest bread thinke not that thou receauest of a priest And therfore if this forme of speach exclude the substance of bread it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest And if the priest remayne still not withstanding that speach then may the bread remayne also with the same speach And if your argument be good there is Christes body ergo there is no bread then may I conclude in the same forme of reasoning there is bread ergo there is not Christes body And so this author maketh nothing for you but ouerthroweth your foundation cleane both of transubstantiation and of the reall presence But to make the mind of Chrysostome somewhat more playne he teacheth them that come to that holy mistery with what things their minds should be chiefly occupyed not about earthly and visible thinges but about thinges celestiall and inuisible and not to consider so much what we see with our eies as what we beleue in our hartes not so much what wee receiue bodily as what we receiue spiritually And he teacheth not onelye what we should thinke we receiue but also of whome we should thinke to receiue it saying When you come to the misteries do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God but that you receiue fyre by the Aungell Seraphin The thing that we receiue sayth he is not the body of God and the person of whome we receiue is not a man like as before immediately he sayd that the thing which we see is not bread Now if it be not bread in deed that is seen then it is not the body of Christ indeed that is receiued nor he is not a priest indeed of whom we receiue it And on the other syde if it be the very body of Christ that is receiued and a very man of whom it is receiued then it is very bread in deed that is seene And where becommeth then your Transubstantiation But to declare brieflye and playnelye the very trueth according to the minde of Chrisostome as we see with our eyes and eat with our mouthes very bread and see also and
drinke very wine so we lift vp our hartes vnto heauen and with our fayth wee see Christ crucified with our spirituall eyes and eat his flesh thrust thorow with a speare and drinke his bloud springing out of his side with our spirituall mouthes of our fayth And as Emissene sayd when we go to the reuerend aultar to feede vpon spirituall meat with our fayth we looke vpon him that is both God and man wee honour him we touch him with our minds we take him with the hands of our hartes and drinke him with the draught of our inward man So that although we see and eat sensibly very bread and drinke very wine spiritually eat and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud yet may wee not rest there but lift vp our mindes to his deity without the which his flesh auaileth nothing as he sayth himself Further auÌ„swere needeth not to any thing that you haue here spoken For euery learned reader may see at the first shew that all that you haue spoken is nothing els but very triflyng in wordes Now followeth S. Ambrose Yet there is an other place of S. Ambrose which the Papists thinke maketh much for their purpose but after due examination it shall playnely appeare how much they be deceiued They alleadge these wordes of S. Ambrose in a booke intituled De ijs qui initiantur misterijs Let vs proue that there is not that thing which nature formed but which benediction did consecrate and that benedictioÌ„ is of more strength then nature For by the blessing nature it selfe is also chaunged Moyses held a rodde he cast it from him and it was made a serpent Agayn he took the serpent by the tayle and it was turned agayne into the nature of a rodde Wherefore thou seest that by the grace of the prophet the nature of the serpent and rod was twise thaunged The flouds of Egypt ran pure water and sodenly bloud began to brust out of the vaines of the springes so that men could not drinke of the floud but at the prayer of the Prophet the bloud of the floud went away and the nature of water came agayne The people of the Hebrues were compassed about on the one syde with the Egyptians and on the other side with the sea Moyses lifted vp his rod the water deuided it selfe and stood vp like a wall and betwene the waters was left a way for them to passe on foot And Iordan agaynst nature turned backe to the head of his spring Doth it not appeare now that the nature of the Sea flouds or of the course of fresh water was chaunged The people was dry Moyses touched a stone and water came out of the stone Did not grace her worke aboue nature to make the stone to bring forth the water which it had not of nature Marath was a most bitter floud so that the people being dry could not drinke thereof Moyses put wood into the water and the nature of the water lost his bitternes which grace infused did sodenly moderate In the tyme of Heliseus the prophet an axe head fell from one of the Prophets seruauntes into the water he that lost the yron desired the prophet Heliseus helpe who put the helue into the water and the iron swam aboue Which thing we know was done aboue nature for yron is heuier then the liquor of water Thus we perceiue that grace is of more force then nature and yet hetherto we haue rehersed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets Now if the blessing of a man bee of such valew that it may chaunge nature what do we say of the consecration of God wherein is the operation of the wordes of our sauiour Christ For this Sacrament which thou receiuest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Helias was of such power that it could bring fyre down from heauen shall not the word of Christ be of that power to chaunge the kindes of the elementes Of the making of the whole world thou hast red that God spake and the thinges were done he commaunded and they were created The word then of Christ that could of no things make things that were not can it not chauÌ„ge those thinges that be into that thing which before they were not For it is no les matter to geue to thinges new nature then to alter natures Thus far haue I rehearsed the woâ—â—es of S. Ambrose if the sayd book be his which they that be of greatest learning and iudgemeÌ„t do not thinke by which wordes the Papists would proue that in the supper of the Lord after the words of Consecration as they be commonly called there remayneth neither bread nor wine because that S. Ambrose sayth in this place that the nature of the bread and wine is chaunged But to satisfy their mindes let vs graunt for their pleasure that the foresayd booke was S. Ambrose owne worke yet the same booke maketh nothing for their purpose but quite agaynst them For he sayth not that the substaunce of bread and wine is gone but he sayth that their nature is chaunged that is to say that in the holy communion we ought not to receiue the bread and wine as other common meates and drinkes but as thinges cleane chaunged into a higher estate nature and condition to be taken as holy meates and drinkes whereby we receiue spirituall feeding and supernaturall nourishment from heauen of the very true body and bloud of our sauior Christ through the omnipotent power of God and the wonderful working of the holy ghost Which so well agreeth with the substaunce of bread and wine still remayning that if they were gone away and not there this our spiritual feeding could be taught vnto vs by them And therefore in the most part of the examples which S. Ambrose alleadgeth for the wonderfull alteration of natures the substances did still remayne after the nature and properties were chaunged As when the water of Iordane contrary to his nature stood still like a wale or flowed agaynst the streame towardes the head and spring yet the substaunce of the water remained the same that it was before Likewise the stone that aboue his nature and kinde flowed water was the self same stone that it was before And the floud of Marath that chaunged his nature of bitternesse chaunged for all that no part of his substaunce No more did that yron which contrary to his nature swam vpon the water lose thereby any part of the substaunce thereof Therefore as in these alterations of natures the substances neuertheles remayned the same that they were before the alterations euen so dooth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lords supper and be naturally receiued and disgested into the body notwithstanding the sacramentall mutation of the same into the bodye and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the supernaturall spirituall and explicable eating and drinking feeding and disgesting of the
mutation brought in by S. Ambrose the substances neuertheles remayned the same that skilleth not for the wonder of those meruayles serue for an induction to releeue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacrament and to represse the arrogancy of reason presuming to search such knowledge in Gods secret workes whereof if there might be a reason geuen it néeded no fayth And where there is a like there is no singularity as this miracle in the sacrament is notably singuler and therefore none other found like vnto it The Sacramentall mutation which this author newly so termeth is a mere shift to auoyd among such as be not learned the truth of Gods miracle in this chaunge which is in déed such as S. Ambrose speaketh of that of bread is made the body of Christ which S. Ambrose in an other place termeth it the grace of the body of Christ and all is one for it is a great grace to haue the body of Christ for our food present there And out of Christes mouth calling the bodye of Christ is making the body of Christ which wordes calling signifying naming vsed in S. Ambrose writinges do not limitte Christes wordes and restraynt them to an onely calling an onely signifiyng or an onely naming but geue an vnderstanding agréeable to other of S. Ambrose wordes that shew the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ the calling to be vnderstanded a real calling of the thing that so is made and likewise a reall signifying of the thing in déed present and a reall naming as the thing is in déed As Christ was named Iesus because he is the sauiour of his people in déede And thus perusing this authors answeres I trust I haue noted to the reader with how smal substaunce of matter this author impugneth transubstantiation and how slenderly hée goeth about to aunswere such authors as by their seuerall writinges confyrme the same besydes the consent of Christendome vniuersally receiuing the same And how in the meane way this author hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doctrine of the fyguratiue speach that himselfe so lately hath deuised or rather because this matter in his booke goeth before he hath in his second booke marred his frame or euer be commeth to the third booke to set it vp Caunterbury OH what a capitall cryme is here committed that I haue englished this word conficere to do whose proper signification is to accomplish or make an end of a thing which being once brought to passe we vse in common spech to say I haue done as I haue done my house I haue done my booke I haue done my worke I haue done my dayes iourney that is to say I haue perfectly done and finished And is not this fully as much in spech as to say I haue made my dayes iourney or I haue made my house or my booke But some fault you must finde where none is partly to keep in vse your old custome of calumniatiō and partly to satisfy a new toy that you haue in your head that making is in the substaunce of the sacrament and doing is in the effect But whether it be translate making or dooing S. Ambrose spake of the wonderfull effectuall working of God in the vse and ministration of the sacramentes and that as well in baptisme as in the Lordes supper and not of his working in the substaunces of the elementes reserued As for the authority of the booke I stand not in it so that all your wordes therein be more then nedeth but to length your book and yet was the book neuer allowed amongst men learned and of iudgement to be S. Ambroses And Melancthon whome you alleage for the allowaunce of it geueth it two nips which you haue left out of purpose to serue your affection For he saith not as you report that it seemeth not to him vnlike but that it seemeth not to him farre vnlike and yet he confesseth that it is confusedly written which is a slender approbation that it should be S. Ambroses And where you confesse that S. Ambrose sayth not in wordes that the substances of bread and wine be gone and yet sayth so in effect because he speaketh of chaunge either you know that your argument is naught and yet bring it in purposely to deceiue some simple reader or your ignoraunce is more then I would haue thought that of this word chaunge woulde argue chaunge in substaunce as though there could be no chaunge but it must be in substaunce But if you had well considered the examples of S. Ambrose by me alleadged which he bringeth forth for the proofes and similitudes of the chaunge of bread and wine in the sacrament you should haue found that in all the sayd examples remayne the substaunces notwithstanding the chaunge As in the water of Iordane staying to runue after the naturall course in the dry stone that contrary to his nature flowed out water in the bitter water of Marath that was turned into sweetnesse in the yron that contrary to nature swame aboue the water in the spirituall generation of man aboue all naturall operation in the sacramētall mutation of the water of baptisme and in the incarnation of our sauiour Christ which all being brought by S. Ambrose for example of the chaunge in bread and wine as in them the substaunces remayned notwithstanding the chaunges so is it in the bread and wine whereof other were brought for examples But in your handling here of S. Ambrose you seem to be vtterly ignoraunt and not to know difference betweene sacramentall signes in the vse whereof almighty God inwardly worketh and other vayne signes which be nothing els but outward shewes to the eye For if you vnderstood the matter would you resemble a knaue playing in a princes coate in whom nothing is inwardly wrought or altered vnto a man beyng baptised in water who hath put vpō him outwardly water but inwardly is aparelled with Christ and is by the omnipotent working of God spiritually regenerated and chaunged into a new man Or would you compare him that banketeth at a feast to represent an anniuersary or tryumph vnto that man that in remembraunce of Christes death eateth and drinketh at his holy supper geuing thankes for his redemption and comforting himselfe with the benefyte thereof If you haue this opinion and veneration of the sacramentes it is well knowen what spirite you haue how ignoraunt you be and what is to be iudged of you And if you haue no such opinion becommeth it you then to dally with such profane examples tending to the profanation of the Sacraments and deceiuing of the readers And as for the holines of bread I say now as I said before that neither bread wine nor water haue any capacity of holinesse but holines is onely in the receauers and by the bread water and wine is sacramentally signified And therefore the marueilous alteration to an hyer estate nature and condition is chiefly
and principally in the persons and in the sacramentall signes it is none otherwise but sacramentally and in significatiō And whether this be matter of trueth or a thing deuised onely for a shift let the reader iudge And where you say in your further aunswere here to S. Ambrose that the visible matter of the bread outwardly remayneth it seemeth you haue not well marked the wordes of S. Ambrose who sayth that the words of Christ chaungeth species elementorum And then if species as you haue sayd before in many places signify the visible matter then the visible matter remayneth not as you say but is changed as S. Ambrose sayth And so S. Ambrose wordes that species elementorum mutantur be cleane contrary to your wordes that the visible matter remayneth I will passe ouer here how you call accidents of bread the matter of bread agaynst all order of speach bicause I haue touched that matter sufficiently before And yet this is not to be passed ouer but to be noted by the way how playnly S. Ambrose speaketh agaynst the Papistes which say that the body and bloud of Christ remayne sub speciebus panis vini vnder the formes of bread and wine And S. Ambrose sayth that species elementorum mut antur the formes of bread and wine be changed Aud where you say that in the examples of mutation brought in by S. Ambrose although the substance remayne still the same yet that skilleth not your answer here seemeth very strange to say that that thing skilleth not which skilleth all togither and maketh the whole matter For if in the examples the substances remayne notwithstanding the mutation of the natures by benediction then do not these examples proue that the substance of bread and wine remayne not And if this were singuler from the examples as you say it is then were not the other examples of this For if the substances remayne in them how can they be brought for examples to proue that the substances of bread and wine remayne not when they be brought for examples and thinges that be like and not that the one should be singular and vnlike from the other And where you alleadge this place of S. Ambrose for you nothing can be spoken more directly agaynst you For the natures sayth S. Ambrose of bread and wine be changed And the nature say you is the outward visible formes and that that is changed remayneth not say you also and so followeth then that the substances of bread and wine remayne and not the outward visible formes which is directly agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation and agaynst all that you sayd hitherto cōcerning that matter And wher a sacramentall mutatiō is to you a new tearme it declareth nothing els but your ignorance in the matter And although you seeme to be ignorant in other authors yet if you had expended diligently but one chapter of S. Ambrose you should haue found three examples of this sacramentall mutation wherin the substances remayne entier and whole one is in the sacrament of Christes incarnation an other is in a person that is baptised and the third in the water of baptisme which three examples I alleadged in my booke but you thought it better slightly to passe them ouer then to trouble your brayne with answering to them And where you say that calling bread the body of Christ is making it in deed the body of Christ as Christ was called Iesus bicause he is the sauiour of all men in deed here it appeareth that you consider not the nature of a sacrament For when sacraments be named or called by the names of the thinges which they signifie yet they be not the same thinges indeed but be so called as S. Augustine sayth bicause they haue some similitude or likenes to the thinges which they be called But Christ was called Iesus our Sauiour as the very true Sauiour in deed not as a sacrament or figure of saluation as the bread is the sacrament of Christes flesh and wine the sacrament of his bloud by which names they be called and yet be not the very thinges in deed Thus haue I answered to the chiefe authors which you alleadge for Transubstantiation making your owne authors not onely to ouerthrow your building but to digge vp your foundation cleane from the botome and nothing is left yon but arrogancy of mynd and bosting of words as men say that you still phansye with your selfe and bragge that you be bishop of Winchester euen as a captayne that glorieth in his folly when he hath lost his castle with ordinaunce and all that he had And at length you be driuen to your church which you call the consent of christendome vniuersall when it is no more but the Papisticall church that defendeth your transubstantiation Now declareth my booke the absurdities that follow the errour of Transubstantiation And now I will reherse diuers difficulties absurdities and inconueniences which must needes follow vpon this errour of Transubstantiation wherof not one doth follow of the true right fayth which is according to Gods word First if the Papists be demaunded what thing it is that is broken what is eaten what is dronken and what is chawed with the teeth lippes and mouth in this sacrament they haue nothing to answere but the accidentes For as they say bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament but onely their accidents And so they be forced to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawen and swallowed without any substance at all which is not onely agaynst all reason but also agaynst the doctrine of all auncient authors Winchester In the second volume of the 43. leafe the author goeth about to note 6. absurdities in the doctrine of Transubstantiation which I entend also to peruse The first is this First if the Papistes be demaunded c. This is accompted by this author the first absurditie and inconuenience which is by him rhetorically set forth with lippes and mouth and chawing not substanciall termes to the matter but accidentall For opening of which matter I will repeate some part agayne of that I haue written before when I made the scholler answer the rude man in declaration of substance which is that albeit that sensible thing which in speach vttered after the capacity of common vnderstanding is called substance be comprehended of our sences yet the inward nature of euery thing which is in learning properly called substance is not so distinctly knowen of vs as we be able to shew it to the sences or by wordes of difference to distinct in diuers kindes of thinges one substance from an other And herin as Basill sayth if we should goe about by separation of all the accidents to discerne the substance by it selfe alone we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothing indeede There is a naturall consideration of the abstract that can not be practised in experience And to me if it were
hath defyned and determined in this matter many thinges contrary to Christes words contrary to the old catholick church and the holy martirs and doctors of the same and contrary to all naturall reason learning and philosophy And the final end of al this Antichristes doctrine is none other but by subtilty and craft to bring christen people from the true honoring of Christ vnto the greatest idolatry that euer was in this world deuise as by Gods grace shal be plainly set forth hereafter Winchester It hath vene heard without fables of certaine men that haue liued and bene norished with sauors onely And in gold and certayne precious stones that they geue a kinde of nurriture to an other substance without diminution of their substance experience hath shewed it so and therefore the principle or maxime that this author gathereth hath no such absurdity in it as he noteth to say that substaunce is nourished without substance But when vermin by chaunce happen to deuour any host as I am sure they cannot violate Christes most precious body so what effect foloweth of the rest what néedeth it to be discussed If it nourisheth then doth that effect remaine although the substaunce be not there If euery nurriture must néedes bee of substaunce then would those that discusse those chances say the substaunce to returne but hell gates shall not make me speake agaynst my fayth And if I be asked the question whether the visible matter of the sacrament nourish I will answere yea Ergo sayth he there is substaunce I deny it He shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physicke I shall disproue the conclusion by the authority of faith who is it most méet should yeld to other And if in nature many things be in experience contrary to the generall rules why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the sacrament that the onely substaunce being chaunged all other partes properties and effectes may remayne Is it an absurdity for a mayde to haue a child because it is against the rules of nature Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing because the philosopher sayth Of nothing commeth nothing The principle of nature is that whatsoeuer hath a beginning hath an end and yet it is no absurditye to beléeue our soules to haue a beginning without end and to be immortall Wherefore to conclude this matter it is a great absurdity in this author to note that for an absurdity in our fayth which repugneth onely to the principles of phylosophy or reasō when that is onely to be accounted for an absurdity that should repugne to the scripture and gods will which is the standerd to try the rule of our fayth Howsoeuer reason or Phylosophy be offended it forceth not so gods teaching be embraced and persuaded in fayth which néedeth no such plaisters and salues as this author hath deuised to make a sore where none is and to corrupt that is whole Caunterbury MEn may here see what fayned fables be sought out to defend your errors and ignorance which is how so manifest that it appeareth you neuer read or els haue forgotten the very principles and diffinitions of Philosophy Of which this is one that nutrition is a conuertion of substance into substance that is to say of the meate into the substance of the thing that is fedde An other is thus Ex eisdem sunt nutriuntur omnia All thinges be nourished of thinges like themselues And so I graunt you that a man made of sauoures and a man made of the vertue of gold and precious stones may be nourished by the same bicause he is made of the same And yet it may be that some certayne sauor or the vertue of some precious stone may increase or continue some humor wherof a man may be nourished as we read of some men or certayne people that haue liued no small time by the sauonr of apples But still in your booke you crye fayth fayth and catholike fayth when you teach but your owne inuentions cleane contrary to the true catholike fayth and expresse worde of God And in all your arguments here you commit the greatest vice that can be in reasoning called Petitio principij taking that thing which is chiefly in controuersy to be a principle to induce your conclusion Fayth fayth say you where is no fayth but your bare faining I haue disproued your fayth by gods word by the vniuersall consent of all Christendome a M. yeares togither and you crye out still fayth fayth which is not the fayth of Christ but of Antichrist Let christen men now iudge who should yeld to other If you had proued your doctrine by fayth founded vpon Gods word I would condescend vnto you that it is no absurdity that accidents remayne when the substance is gone But gods word is clearly agaynst you not onely in your doctrine of transubstantiation but also in the doctrine of the reall presence of the eating and drinking and of the sacrifices of Christes flesh and bloud Winchester The best plaster and medicine that could now be deuised were to leaue a part questions and idle talke and meekly to submit our capacities to the true fayth and not to ouerwhelme our vnderstandinges with search and inquiry wherof we shall neuer finde an ende entring the bottomles secresy of Gods misteries Let vs not seeke that is aboue our reach but that God hath commaunded vs let vs do Each man impugneth an others learning with wordes none controleth in others liuing with better dedes Let all endeuour themselues to do that God commaundeth and the good occupation therof shall exclude al such idlenes as is cause and occasion of this vayne and noysome curiosity And now to returne to this author whiles he seeth a mate in an other mans iye he feeleth not a beame in his owne Who recommendeth vnto vs specially Theodoret whome he calleth an holy Bishop and with him doth bring forth a pece of an Epistle of S. Chrisostome The doctrine of which two ioyned with the doctrine of this author in such sence as this author would haue all vnderstanded to be called catholike touching the fayth of the sacrament hath such an absurdity in it as was neuer hard of in religion For this author teacheth for his part that the body of Christ is onely really in heauen and not indeed in the sacrament according wherunto this author teacheth also the bread to be very bread still which doctrine if it be true as this author will needes haue it then ioyne vnto it the doctrine of the secret Epistle of Chrisostome and Theodoret whose doctrine is that after the consecration that is consecrate shal be called no more bread but the body of Christ. By these two doctrines ioyned togither it shall apeare that we must call that is consecrate by a name that we be learned by this author it is not and may not by the doctrine of Theodoret call it by the name of the
which this author teacheth vs in deede it is And thus It is in deede bread quoth this author but call it not so quoth this Theodoret It is not in deede the body of Christ quoth this author but yet in any wise call it so quoth Theodoret. Here is playne simulation and dissimulation both togither For by forbidding of the name of bread according to Theodorets teaching we dissemble and hide that it is by this authors teaching and by vsing the name of our Lordes body according to Theodorets teaching we fayne it to be that it is not by this authors teaching which sayth there is onely a figure and by this meanes in so high a mistery we should vse vntruthes on both sides in simulation and dissimulation which is a meruaylous teaching I deny not but thinges signifying may haue the name of that they signify by a figure of speach but we read not in any doctrine giuen that the thing signifying should haue the name by figure and be deliuered from the name of that it is in deede And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his new Catholike fayth ioyned with the teaching of Theodoret and the secret Epistle of S. Chrisostom as this author would haue them vnderstanded But those men Theodoret and Chrisostome in the sence they ment as I vnderstand them taught a true doctrine For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a reall naming of the body of Christ there present in deede and therfore a true perfect name which as S. Chrisostomes secret Epistle sayth the thing is worthy to haue declaring by that worthines the thing named to be there in deed And likewise I vnderstand the other name of bread worthely done away bicause the substance wherupon in reason the name was grounded is changed according to the true doctrine of Transubstantiation therfore that name of bread in their doctrine is truely layd away although Theodoret writeth the visible matter of bread and wine to be seene and felt as they were before and therfore sayth their substance which there signifieth the outward nature is séene and felt to remayne which termes with conuenient vnderstanding may thus agrée with the catholicke teaching of transubstantiation and so in the sacrament on euery part but in the heauenly and earthlye part to be a full whole and perfect truth as the high mystery being the sacrament of our perfect vnity in body and soule with Christ doth require Wherby in my iudgement as this author hath agaynst his owne determination in this enterprise vttered that confirmeth the truth of the reall presence of Christes most precious bodye in the sacrament which he doth in speciall entreating the wordes of S Augustine in the xxvii leafe of hys book besides that in diuers other places he doth the like so bringing vs forth this Theodoret and his secret epistle of S. Chrisostome he hath brought forth that may serue to conuince him in transubstantiation Howbeit as for transubstantiation Zuinglius taketh it truely for a necessary consequence of the trueth if there bee in the sacrament the reall presence of Christes body as there is in déed For as a carnall man not instruct by fayth aswell after consecration as before as he is of the earth speaketh and calleth it bread and asking him what it is will neuer aunswere otherwise and if one asked him whether it were the body of Christ would thinke the questioner mocked him so the faythfull spirituall man answering to that question what it is would after consecration according to fayth aunswere the body of Christ and thinke himself mocked if he were asked is it not bread vnles he had bene taught Christ to haue sayd it had bene both his body and bread As for calling it by the name of bread which it was he would not greatly stick and one thing may haue many names but one thing is but one substance whereby to aunswere to the question what it is sauing onely in the person of Christ wherein we know vnited the two substances of god and man And this matter I repeate and summarily touch agayne to leaue in the readers brest the principall poynt of our beliefe of this mistery to be of the reall presence that is to say vnfayned substantiall presence and therefore the true presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament which hath bene in al ages taught and bene as it is the Catholick fayth of Christendome as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages Caunterbury FOr the conclusion of al these questions when you see that you can make no aunswere but that you be driuen to so many absurdities and that I haue answered so playnely vnto euery one that there is left neither absurdity nor difficulty at al then you deuise the best way and most easy for your selfe to lay apart all questions and idle talke when all these questions and idle talke needed not if the papistes of their idle braines had not deuised their transubstantiation and thereupon moued this idle talke themselues which hath bene occasion not onely of much dissention in all Christian realmes but of the effusion also of much innocent bloud But when the Papistes like vnto Lucifer haue ascended into heauen and searched by vayne and arrogant questions the bowels and secrets of gods maiesty and his wisedome Yea euen whether God haue made the world so well as he might haue done theu they commaund other to keepe silence and not to enter into the bottomles secrecy of Gods misteries nor to seeke that is aboue their reach but to eudeuour themselues to doe that God commanndeth which counsaile as it is most godly and holesome so if the Papistes themselues had obserued in the beginning no man should haue needed to haue troubled his braynes with such fryuolous questions and idle talke But the Papists do like boyes in the schole that make rods to beat other aud when they should be beaten with the roddes which they made themselues then they wish that al rods were in the fier So the Papistes when they see themselues ouerthrowne in their owne questions which they first deuised themselues to be beaten with their owne rods then they cry peace hold hands and question no more But to aunswere the absurdityes layed vnto the Papistes charge you recompence me agayne with â—â— great huge absurdities One is that Christ is really but in heauen onely the other is that bread is stil bread Here thou mayst iudge gentle reader what errours I defend that am by force driuen to such two absurdities that I am fayne to say as I haue written in my booke and as the Apostles and Euangelistes sayd But beware I would aduise thee that thou say not as Gods word teacheth for if thou doost thou mayst be sure to be taken of the Papistes for an hereticke Fynally you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread the body and not the
accepted and pleasaunt in the sight of God And this maner of shewyng Christes death and kèepyng the memorie of it is grounded vpon the Scriptures written by the Euangelistes and S. Paule and accordyng thereunto Preached beleued vsed and frequented in the Church of Christ vniuersally and from the beginnyng This authour vtteryng many wordes at large besides Scripture and agaynst Scripture to depraue the Catholike doctrine doth in a few wordes which be in déede good wordes and true confounde and ouerthrow all his enterprise and that issue will I ioyne with him which shall suffise for the confutation of this booke The fewe good wordes of the authour which wordes I say confounde the rest consist in these two pointes One in that the authour alloweth the Iudgement of Petrus Lombardus touchyng the oblation and sacrifice of the Church An other in that the authour confesseth the Councell of Nice to be holy Councell as it hath bene in déede confessed of all good Christen men Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fift booke to be ouerthrowen Caunterbury MY fift booke hath so fully so playnly set out this matter of the sacrifice that for aūswere to all that you haue here brought to the cōfutation therof the reader neede to do no more but to looke ouer my booke agayne and he shall see you fully aunswered before hand Yet wyll I here and there adde some notes that your ignoraūce and craft may the better appeare This farre you agree to the truth that the sacrifice of Christ was a ful and a perfect sacrifice which needed not to be done no more but once and yet it is remembred and shewed forth dayly And this is the true doctrine accordyng to Gods word But as concernyng the reall presence in the accidents of bread and wine is an vntrue doctrine fayned onely by the Papistes as I haue most playnly declared and this is one of your errours here vttered An other is that you cast the most precious body and bloud of Christ the sacrifice Propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world which of it selfe was not the sacrifice but the thyng whereof the sacrifice was made and the death of him vpon the Crosse was the true sacrifice propiciatorie that purchased the remission of sinne which sacrifice continued not long nor was made neuer but once where as his flesh and bloud continued euer in substaunce from his incarnation as well before the sayd sacrifice as euer sithens And that sacrifice propitiatorie made by him onely vpon the Crosse is of that effect to reconcile vs to Gods fauour that by it be accepted all our sacrifices of landes and thankes geuyng Now before I ioyne with you in your issue I shall rehearse the wordes of my booke which when the indifferent Reader seeth he shal be the more able to iudge truely betwene vs. My booke conteineth thus The fift Booke THe greatest blasphemy and iniurie that can be agaynst Christ and yet vniuersally vsed through the Popishe kyngdome is thys that the Priestes make their Masse a sacrifice propitiatorie to remit the sinnes as well of them selues as of other both quicke and dead to whom they list to apply the same Thus vnder pretence of holynes the Papistical priests haue taken vpon them to be Christes successours and to make such an oblation and sacrifice as neuer creature made but Christ alone neither he made the same any more tymes then once and that was by his death vpon the Crosse. For as S. Paule in his Epistle to the Hebrues witnesseth Although the high priestes of the old law offered many tymes at the least euery yeare once yet Christ offered not him selfe many tymes for then he should many tymes haue dyed But now he offered him selfe but once to take away sinne by that offering of him selfe And as men must dye once so was Christ offered once to take away the sinnes of many And furthermore S. Paul sayth That the sacrifices of the old law although they were continually offered from yeare to yeare yet could they not take away sinne nor make men perfect For if they could once haue quieted mens consciēces by taking away sinne they should haue ceassed and no more haue bene offered But Christ with once offering hath made perfect for euer them that be sanctified puttyng their sinnes cleane out of Gods remembraūce And where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne And yet further he sayth concernyng the old Testament that it was disanulled and taken away bicause of the feeblenesse and vnprofitablenesse therof for it brought nothyng to perfection And the priestes of that law were many bycause they liued not long and so the priesthode went from one to an other but Christ liueth euer and hath an euerlastyng priesthode that passeth not from him to any man els Wherfore he is able perfectly to saue them that come to God by him for asmuch as he liueth euer to make intercession for vs. For it was meete for vs to haue such an high priest that is holy innocent with out spot separated from sinners and exalted vp aboue heauen who needeth not dayly to offer vp sacrifice as Aarons priestes did first for his owne sinnes and then for the people For that he did once when he offered vp him selfe Here in his Epistle to the Hebrues S. Paule hath playnly and fully described vnto vs the difference betwene the priesthode and sacrifices of the old Testament and the most high and worthy priesthode of Christ his most perfect and necessary sacrifice and the benefite that commeth to vs thereby For Christ offered not the bloud of calues sheepe and goates as the priests of the old law haue vsed to do but he offered his own bloud vpon the Crosse. And he went not into an holy place made by mans hand as Aaron did but he ascended vp into heauen where his eternall Father dwelleth and before him he maketh continuall supplication for the sinnes of the whole world presentyng his owne body which was torne for vs and his precious bloud which of his most gracious and liberall charitie he shed for vs vpon the Crosse. And that sacrifice was of such force that it was no neede to renew it euery yeare as the Byshops did of the old Testament whose sacrifices were many tymes offered and yet were of no great effect or profite bycause they were sinners them selues that offered them and offered not their owne bloud but the bloud of brute beastes but Christes sacrifice ones offered was sufficient for euermore And that all men may the better vnderstand this sacrifice of Christ which he made for the great benefite of all men it is necessary to know the distinctiō and diuersitie of sacrifices One kynde of sacrifice there is which is called a Propitiatory or mercyfull sacrifice that is to say such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods wrath and indignatiō and obteineth mercy and forgiuenes
viii chap. prouing by authority of the oldest authors in Christs church that he called bread his body and wine his bloud And agayne in the ix x. xi and xii chapters I haue so fully intreated of such figuratiue speaches that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speake of any more but I referre the reader to those places And if M. doctor require a further answere herein let him looke vpon the late bishop of Winchesters booke called the detection of the diuels sophistry where he writeth plainly that when Christ spake these wordes This is my body he made demonstration of the bread THan further in this prologue this Papist is not ashamed to say that I set the cart before the horses putting reason first and fayth after which lye is so manifest that it needeth no further proofe but onely to looke vpon my booke wherein it shall euidently appeare that in all my fiue bookes I ground my foūdation vpon gods word And least the Papistes should say that I make the expositions of the scripture my selfe as they commonly vse to do I haue fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs that were in the beginning of the church and many yeares after vntill the Antichrist of Rome rose vp and corrupted altogither And as for naturall reason I make no mention therof in all my v. bookes but in one place onely which is in my second booke speaking of Transubstantiation And in that place I set not reason before fayth but as an handmayden haue appoynted her to do seruice vnto fayth and to wayte vpon her And in that place she hath done such seruice that D. Smith durst not once looke her in the face nor find any fault with her seruice but hath flylye and craftely stolen away by her as though he saw her not But in his owne booke he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christes owne wordes putting the wordes behind that goe before the wordes before that goe behind that except a shameles Papist no man durst be so bolde to attempt any such thing of his owne head For where the Euangelist and S. Paule rehearse Christes wordes thus Take eate this is my body he in the confutation of my second booke turneth the order vpside downe and sayth This is my body take eate After this in his Preface hee rehearseth a great number of the wonderfull workes of God as that God made all the world of nought that he made Adam of the earth and Eue of his side the bush to flame with fire and burne not and many other like which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture And vpon these he concludeth most vainly and vntruly that thing which in the scripture is neyther expressed nor vnderstanded that Christ is corporally in heauen and in earth and in euery place where the sacrament is And yet D. Smith sayth that Gods word doth teach this as playnly as the other vsing herein such a kind of sophisticall argumēt as all Logitiās do reprehend which is called petitio principij whē a mā taketh that thing for a supposition and an approued truth which is in controuersy And so doth he in this place when he sayth Doth not Gods word teach it thee as playnly as the other Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be graunted him as a truth which he ought to proue and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in questiō that is to say whether it be as playnly set out in the scripture that Christes body is corporally in euery place where the sacrament is as that God created all thinges of nothing Adam of the earth and Eue of Adams side c. This is it that I deny and that he should proue But he taketh it for a supposition saying by interrogation doth not the word of God teach this as playnly as the other Which I affirme to be vtterly false as I haue shewed in my third boobe the xi and twelfe chap. where I haue most manifestly proued as well by Gods word as by aūcient authors that these wordes of Christ This is my body and This is my bloud be no playne speaches but figuratiue THen forth goeth this papist vnto the vi chap. of S. Thou saying Christ promised his disciples to geue them such bread as should be his owne very naturall flesh which he would geue to death for the life of the world Can this his promise sayth M. Smith be verified of common bread Was that giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world Wherto I answer by his owne reason Can this his promise be verified of sacramentall bread was that geuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world I meruayle here not a little of M. Smithes eyther dulnes or maliciousnes that cannot or will not see that Christ in this chap. of S. Ihon spake not of Sacramentall bread but of heauenly bread nor of his flesh onely but also of his bloud and of his godhead calling them heauenly bread that giueth euerlasting life So that he spake of him selfe wholy saying I am the bread of life He that cōmeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleueth in me shall not thirst for euer And neyther spake he of common bread nor yet of sacramentall bread For neyther of them was giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world And there can be nothing more manifest then that in this vi chap. of Ihon Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh but of his very flesh And that aswell for that the sacrament was not then instituted as also that Christ sayd not in the future tense the bread which I will giue shal be my flesh but in the present tense the bread which I will geue is my flesh which sacramentall bread was neyther then his flesh nor was then instituted for a Sacrament nor was after giuen to death for the life of the world But as Christ when he sayd vnto the woman of Samaria The water which I will geue shall spring into euerlasting life he ment neyther of materiall water nor of the accidents of water but of the holy ghost which is the heauenly fountayne that springeth vnto eternall life so likewise when he sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world he ment neyther of the materiall bread neither of the accidents of bread but of his owne flesh Which although of it selfe it auayleth nothing yet being in vnity of persō ioyned vnto his diuinity it is the same heauenly bread that he gaue to death vpon the crosse for the life of the world But here M. Smith asketh a question of the tyme saying thus When gaue Christ that bread which was his very flesh that he gaue for vs to death if he did it not at his last supper when he sayd This is my
may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar I am not so ignorant but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paule and sayd to him Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes that euer he speake vpon earth And yet we finde that Christ speaketh sayth he but in heauen and from heauen and not vpon earth For he spake to Paule from aboue saying Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me The head was in heauen and yet he sayd why doest thou persecute me bycause he persecuted his members vpon earth And if this please not Maister Smith let him blame S. Augustin and not me for I fayne not this my selfe but onely alledge S. Augustin And as the father spake from heauen whan he sayd This is my beloued sonne in whom I am pleased and also S. Stephen saw Christ sittyng in heauen at his fathers right hand euen so ment S. Augustin that S. Paule and all other that haue sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention haue sene and heard him from heauen NOw when this Papist goyng forward with his woorkes seeth his building so feeble weake that it is not able to stand he returneth to his chief foūdation the Church and Councels generall willyng all men to stay thereupon to leaue disputyng reasonyng And chiefly he shoareth vp his house with the Councell Lateranence whereat sayth he were xiij hundred Fathers xv But he telleth not that viij hundred of them were Monkes Friers and Chanons the Byshop of Romes owne deare deare-lynges chief champions called together in his name not in Christes From which broode of vypers Serpentes what thyng can be thought to come but that dyd proceede frō the spirite of their most holy father that first begat them that is to say from the spirite of Antichrist And yet I know this to bee true that Christ is present with his holy Churche whiche is his holy elected people and shall be with them to the worldes end leadyng gouernyng them with his holy spirite teachyng them all truth necessary for their saluation And when so euer any such be gathered together in his name there is he among them he shall not suffer the gates of hell to preuaile agaynst them For although he may suffer them by their owne frailenes for a tyme to erre fall and to dye yet finally neither sathan hell sinne nor eternall death shall preuaile agaynst them But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome whiche accompteth it selfe to be the holy Catholicke Churche and the Byshop therof to be most holy of all other For many yeares ago Sathan hath so preuailed agaynst that stinkyng whore of Babylon that her abhominations be knowen to the whole world the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her dronkennes and poyson haue all nations tasted AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius Almericus Carolostadius Oecolampadius Zuinglius affirmyng that the Church euer sithens Christes tymes a thousand fiue hūdreth yeares and moe hath beleued that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament and neuer taught otherwise vntill Berengarius came about a thousand yeares after Christ whom the other folowed But in my booke I haue proued by Gods word the old auncient Authors that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally but is bodily corporally ascended into heauen there shall remaine vnto the worldes end And so the true Church of Christ euer beleued from the beginnyng with out repugnaunce vntill Sathan was let louse and Antichrist came with his Papistes which fayned a new and false doctrine contrary to Gods word and the true Catholicke doctrine And this true fayth God preserueth in his holy church still and will doe vnto the worldes end maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell And almighty God from time to time hath strēgthened many holy Martirs for this fayth to suffer death by Antichrist and the great harlot Babilon who hath embrewed her handes and is made drunken with the bloud of Martyrs Whose bloud God will reuēge at length although in the meane time he suffer the patiēce and fayth of his holy Saynts to be tried ALl the rest of his Preface contayneth nothing els but the authority of the Church which Smith sayth cannot wholy erre and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same that he preferreth it aboue Gods word affirming not onely that it is the piller of truth and no lesse to bee beleued then holy scripture but also that we should not beleue holy scripture but for it So that he maketh the word of men equall or aboue the word of God And truth it is in deed that the church doth neuer wholy erre for euer in most darcknes God shineth vnto his elect and in the midst of all iniquity he gouerneth them so with his holy word and spirite that the gates of hell preuayle not agaynst them And these be knowne to him although the world many times know them not but hath them in derision and hatred as it had Christ and his Apostles Neuerthelesse at the last day they shal be knowen to all the whole world when the wicked shal wonder at their felicity and say These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked We fooles thought their liues very madnes and their end to be without honour But now loe how they be accounted among the children of God and theyr portion is among the sayntes Therfore we haue erred frō the way of truth the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vnto vs we haue wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world that no mā can discerne it but God alone who onely searcheth the hartes of all men knoweth his true children from other that be but bastardes This church is the piller of trueth because it resteth vpon Gods word which is the true and sure foundation wil not suffer it to erre fall But as for the opē knowne church the outward face therof it is not the piller of truth otherwise thē that it is as it were a register or treasory to keepe the bookes of Gods holy will testament to rest onely thereupon as S. Augustine and Tertullian meane in the place by M. Smith alleadged And as the register keepeth all mens wils and yet hath none authority to adde change or take away any thing nor yet to expound the wils further then the very words of the will extend vnto so that he hath no power ouer the will but by the will euen so hath the church no further power ouer the holy scripture which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god but onely to keepe it and to see it obserued and kept For if the Church proceede further to make any new Articles of the fayth besides the Scripture
3.3 The aunswere to Tertullianus De resurrectione caâ—nis Tertullianus The answere to Origen Numer homil 7. In Leuit. homil 7. Origines Origen hath facte ad faciem but I take this author as he alleadgeth Origen Errors When I say by his manhood I mean corporally as Cyrill speaketh Sensibly Really Substancially Corporally Naturally As it were Three issues for my part An issue The third issue Aduerbes in lye 2. Re. 1â— Luâ— 4. The aunswere to Cyprian li. 2. epist. 3. Genâ— â— Genâ— 14. Cyprianus Melancthon Hippinus Ciprian li. 3 ad quirinum Augustinus Melancthon Epinus Cyprian ad quirinum cap. 94. The answere to Hylarius S. de trinitare An issue Hylarius An issue Unity in fayth Unity in baptisme Unity in flesh Hylarius Carnally Naturally An issue Smyth Non naturaliter Truely Perfecta Mine issue Iohn 14. Iohn 5. Iohn 6. Naturally Iohn 1. 2. Pet. 1. Mine Issue The aunswere to Cyrillus lib. 10. cap. 13. 1. Cor. 6. Iohn 6. Iohn 15. Colo. 2. In Ihon lib. 4. cap. 17. Anathematismo 11. In Iho. li. 4. c. 17. Cirill Lege Cuillum in Io. li. 9. c. 47. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Corporally Cirill in Ioh. li. 9 c. vlt. ita ego naturaliter pâ—eÌ„sum quia ex ipso natus vos autem ex me ego in vobis etiam naturaliter ea ratione qua homo factus sum 1. Tim. 3. Ephe. 3. Nestorius Ihon. 6. Basilius Nissenus and Nazianzenus Basilius Grego Nissenus Grego Nazianzenus Messaliani heretici Antropomorphitae Nestoriani Onely Of corporal in â—ducation lege Rosseum et O Ecolampadius lib. 3. cap 13. Augu. In Ioâ—n tract xxvi Bertrame Messaliani De is habetur in histo trip lib. 7. â— 11. et in Theodoreto li. 4. cap. 11. Smyth Corporali The aunswere to Emissenus Emissen Onely Spirituall Spirituall maner Spiritually A sleight Truth Onely Errours Spirituall The aunswere to Ambrosius de sacramentie lib. 4. cap. 4. Consecration In iâ—â— Roffeam 2. cap. 25. De ecc Hierar cap. 3. Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. De his qui misterijâ— in iciantur cap. Vlt. De sacramentis lib. 5. cap. 4 De sacramentis lib. 6. cap. 1. Ambrostus Consecration Melancthon Sacramentall chaunge 1. Tim. 4. De peccatâ—ne â—e li. 2. cap. 26. Fol. 86. pa. 2. Luc. â— Whether breade be Christes body A sacramentall change Holy bread Psal. 39. August de peccatorum meritis remiss 26. li. 2 cap. 26. Cyprianus Holy bread Bread is bread is a playne speache Bread is Christes body is a figuratiue speache Num. 20. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Reg 4. Ihon. 1. Apoc. per totum Gen. 49. Apoc. 5. Iho. 10. 14. Ihon. 12. Corporall The aunswer to Chrisostomâ— In sermone de Eucharastia in Eâ—c unije De proditione Indâ— Genes 1. Mat. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. Genes 1. Math. 6.1 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. Ad populam Antiochenum ho. â— 1. in IhoaÌ„nem ho. 45. Chrisostom Chrisost. de Sacer lib. 3. An issue In Ioan tractae 26. Christ is verely and truly present and receyued Uerile The order of the booke Chrisostomus August ad dard August ad dard Wherin is the miracle The answer to Theophilus in Mar. 14. Iho. 6. Theophilact In issue Theophilact translated by Oecomlampadius Theophilactes wordes Carnally Naturally corporally Manner onely Spiritually Thomas in cathena aurea Fisher RosseuÌ„ The Catechisme Species for apparence Meritie for vertue A dextris dei A dextris vertutis dei The aunswere to Hieronimus â—uper epistol ad Titum Hiero nim Tertulianus aduersus MartioneÌ„ lib. 4. Whether the body of Christ be made of the mattier of bread Ihon 2. Exo. 7. Gen. 2. Augustinus Sedulius Leo. Fulgentius Cassiodorus Gregorius Augustinus Sedulius Leo. Fulgentius Cassiodorus Gregorius Peter Martyr Nicholas the second Berengarius Bertram Peter Martyr The aunswer to Damascenus de fide orth lib. 4. cap 14. 1. Iohn 4. In libro de duabus in Christo voluntatibus Damascene Concomitance August in sermone domini in moute lib. 3. August de peccat meri et remist lib. 1. Cap. 24. Iacob 1. The substance of Gods worke Ephe. 4. Math. 13. Iohn 6. Augustinus In Ioh. tract 27. Rom. 3. 2. Corin. 2. Oecumenius An Issue The worde sacrament 1. Cor. 6. Ihon. 6. August in Iohn tract 26. de verbis Apost sermon 2. Nicolaus secundus Luke 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10. Augusti in sermo domini in monte lib. 2. Three manner of eatings August in Ioh. tract 26. 1. Cor. 11. August de peccatorum meritis remiss li. 1. cap. 24. The workes of God vniforme Spirit and lyfe to fall vpon euill men 2 Cor. 6. Iohn 6. Aug. in Iohn tract 27. Iohn 6. Iohn 6. The promises of God vnder condition One substance to good and bad The issue 2. Cor. 2. Math. 5. Decumenius Chap. 1. Whether euell men do eate and drinke Christ. Iohn 6. The godly only eat Christ. Iohn 6. Chap. 2. What is the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud Chap. 3. Christ is not eaten with teeth but with fayth Cyprian de coena domini August de verbis domini ser. 33. In Ioan. tractat 25. Chap. 4. The good only eate Christ. Origines in Math. cap. 15. Ciprianus in sermo de coena domini Athanasius de peccato in spirium sanctum Basilius epistol 141. Hieronimus in Eâ—aiam cap. 66. In Hieremian In Oseam cap. 8. Ambrosius de benedictione patriarcharuÌ„ cap. 9. De his qui miste rus initiantur De sacramentis li. cap. 5. Lib. 5. cap. 3. Augustinus in senteÌ„tiis exprospero decerptis cap. 339. De ciuitate Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. In Ihon. tractat 26. In Iohn tractat 27. De doctrina christiana lib. 3. Cap. 14. De verbis Apostoli sermo 2. In Ioh Tract 59 Cirillus in Ioh. li. 4. cap. 10. Cap. 12. Cap. 14. Cap. 17. That may be sayd not done that is not well don Liâ— 8. Deu. 12. August de ciuit Dei lib. 22. cap. Chap. 5. Rom. 8. Whether a sinner haue Christ within him 1. Cor. 12. 2. Cor. 6. 1. Cor. 11. Chap. 6. The aunswere to the Papists 2. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To eate Iohn 3. 1. Cor. 2. Vnworthy eating Manna Ihon. 6. Iohn 6. Iohn 14. Cha. 7. The aunswere to the Papists authors Augustinus contra Cresconium li. 1. cap. 25. Contra Maximinum li. 3. cap. 22. De bap contra Donatis lib. 5. Cap. 8. Augustinus 〈◊〉 August de Bap. lib. 5. Cap. 8. The body of Christ to them that receaue vnworthely August de ver domi Sermo 11. Bucerus Bucerus Theodoretus in epi. 1. Cor. 11. Hieronimus An issue Augustin de Bapti con Dona li. 5. cap. 8. August In Iohn tract 19. August de verbis Domini ser. 11. The selfe same flesh that was crucified is sensible is eaten of ChristeÌ„ people August ad Bonifacium episto 23. Ioh. 13. Maister Bucer
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
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
notable wordes Although you neuer red that the oblation of the priest is satisfactory by deuotion of the priest yet neuerthelesse the papistes doe so teach and you may finde it in their S. Thomas both in his Summe and vpon the 4. of the sentences whose wordes haue been red in the Uninersities almost these 300. yeares and neuer vntill this day reproued by any of the papists in this point He saith Quod Sacrificium Sacerdotis habet vim satisfactiuam sed in satisfactione magis attenditur affectus offerentis quam quantitas oblationis I de satisfactoria est illis pro quibus offertur vel etiam offerentibus secundum quantitatem suae deuotionis non pro tota paena But here the Reader may see in you that the aduersaries of the truth sometime be inforced to say the truth although sometime they doe it vnwares as Caiphas prophesied the truth and as you doe here confes that Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully And yet the Reader may note your inconstancy For afterward in the last booke you geue Christ such a nippe that of that whole satisfactioÌ„ you pinch halfe away from him and ascribe it to the sacrifice of the Priest as I shall more fully declare in my answere to the last book For you say there that the sacrifice of Christ geueth vs life and that the sacrifice of the priest continueth our life And here good Reader thou art to be warned that this wryter in this place goeth about craftely to draw thee from the very worke of our full redemptioÌ„ wrought by our Sauiour Christ vpon the crosse vnto a Sacrifice as they say made by him the night before at his last supper And forasmuch as euery priest as the papists say maketh the same sacrifice in his masse therfore consequently it followeth by this writer that we must seeke our redemptioÌ„ at the priests sacrifice And so Christes blessed passion which he most obediently and willingly suffered for our saluation vpon the crosse was not the onely and sufficient sacrifice for remission of our sinnes The onely will I graunt both in good thinges and euill is accepted or reiected before God and sometime hath the name of the facte as the will of Abraham to offer his sonne is called the oblation of his sonne and Christ called him an adulterer in his hart that desireth another mannes wife although there be no fact committed in deede And yet Abrahams will alone was not called the oblation of his snoÌ„e but his will declared by many factes and circumstaÌ„ces For he carryed his sonne three dayes iorney to the place where God had appointed him to slea and offer his sonne Isaac whom he most intirely loued He cutte wood to make the fire for that purpose he layd the wood vpon his sonnes backe and made him to cary the same wood wherwith he should be brent And Abraham himselfe commanding hys seruauntes to tary at the foot of the hill caryed the fire and sword wherwith he entended as God had commaunded to kill his own sonne whom he so deerely loued And by the way as they went his sonne sayd vnto his father Father see here is fire and wood but where is the sacrifice that must be killed How these wordes of the sonne pearced the fathers hart euery louinge father may iudge by the affection which he beareth to his own children For what man would not haue been abashed and stayed at these wordes thinking thus within him selfe Alas sweete sonne thou doest aske me where the sacrifice is thy self art the same sacrifice that must be slayn thou poore innocent caryest thine own death vpon thy backe and the wood wherewith thy self must be brent Thou art he whom I must slea which art most innocent and neuer offended Such thoughtes you may bee sure pearced thorow Abrahams hart no les then the very death of his sonne should haue done As Dauid lamentably bewayled his sonne lying in the panges of death but after he was dead he tooke his death quietly coÌ„fortably enough But nothing could altar Abrahams hart or moue him to disobey God but forth on he goeth with his sonne to the place which God had appointed and there he made an altar and layd the wood vpon it and bound his sonne layd him vpon the heape of the woode in the altar and tooke the sword in his hand and lifted vp his arme to strike and kill his sonne and would haue done so in deede if the angell of God had not letted him commaunding him in the stede of his sonne to take a ram that was fast by the hornes in the bryars This obedience of Abraham vnto Gods commaundement in offering of his sonne declared by so many actes and circumstances is called in the Scripture the offering of his sonne and not the will onely Nor the scripture calleth not the declaration of Christes will in his last supper to suffer death by the name of a sacrifice satisfactory for sinne nor saith not that he was there offered in deede For the will of a thing is not in deede the thing And if the declaration of his wil to dy had been an oblation and sacrifice propitiatory for sinne Then had Christ been offered not only in his supper but as often as he declared his wil to dye As wheÌ„ he said long before his Supper many times that he should be betrayed scourged spitte vpon and crucified and that the third day he should rise againe And when he had them destroy the temple of his body he would builde it vp agayn within three dayes And when he said that he would geue his flesh for the life of the world and his life for his sheepe And if these were sacrifices propitiatory or satisfactory for remission of sinne what needed he then after to dye if he had made the propitiatory sacrifice for sinne already For either the other was not vailable thereto or els his death was in vaine as S. Paule reasoneth of the priestes of the old law and of Christ. And it is not red in any scripture that Christs will declared at his supper was effectuous and sufficient for our redemtion but that his most willing death and passion was the oblation sufficient to endure for euer and euer world without end But what sleights shifts this writer doth vse to winde the Reader into his error it is woÌ„der to see by deuising to make two sacrifices of one will the one by declaratioÌ„ the other by execution a deuise such as was neuer imagined before of no man meete to come out of a phaâ—tast â—â—all head But I say precisely that Christ offered himself neuer but once because the scripture so precisely so many times saith so hauing the same for my warraÌ„t it maketh me the bolder to staÌ„d against you that deny the thing which is so often times repeated in scripture And where you say that there is no scripture
iteration of the once perfited sacrifice on the crosse but a representation thereof shewing it before the faith full eies and refreshing our memory therewith so that we may see with the eie of faith the very body and bloud of Christ by gods mighty power exhibite vnto vs the same body and bloud that suffered and was shed for vs This is a godly and catholicke doctrine but of the cokcle which you cast in by the way of distinction without diuision I cannot tell what you meane except you speak out your dreames more playnely And that it is the same body in substaunce that is dayly as it were offered by remembraunce which was once offered in the Crosse for sinne we learne not so playnly by these wordes This is my body Hoc est corpus meum as we do by these Hic Iesus assumptus est in coelum and Qui descendit ipse est qui ascendit suprae omnes coelos This Iesus was taken vp into heauen and he that descended was the same Iesus that ascended aboue all the heauens And where you say that by vertue of Christes sacrifice such as fal be releued in the Sacrament of penaunce the truth is that such as do fall be releued by Christ when so euer they returne to him vnfaynedly with hart and mynde And as for your wordes concernyng the Sacrament of penaunce may haue a Popishe vnderstandyng in it But at length you returne to your former errour and goe about to reuoke or at the least euill fauoredly to expounde that which you haue before well spoken Your wordes be these Winchester The dayly offeryng is propitiatory also but not in that degrée of propitiation As for redemption regeneration or remission of deadly sinne which was once purchased by force therof is in the Sacramentes ministred but for the increase of Gods fauour the mitigation of Gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities the subduyng of temptations and the perfection of vertue in vs. All good workes good thoughtes and good meditations may be called sacrifices and the same be called sacrifices propitiatorie also for so much as in their degrée God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christes death which is the reconciliation betwene God and maÌ„ ministred dispensed particularly as God hath appointed in such measure as he knoweth But S. Paule to the Hebrues exhortyng men to charitable déedes sayth with such sacrifices God is made fauorable or God is propitiate if we shall make new Englishe Whereupon it foloweth bycause the Priest in the dayly sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for she wyng forth and remembraunce of Christes death that act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must néedes be propitiatory and prouoke Gods fauour and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect with God to the members of Christes body particularly beyng the same done for the whole body in such wise as God knoweth the dispeÌ„sation to be méete conuenient accordyng to which measure God worketh most iustly and most mercyfully otherwise then man can by his iudgement discusse determine To call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstandyng that signifieth not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christes most precious body and bloud the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered beyng propitiatorie and satisfactorie for all the world or els the worde satisfactorie must haue a signification and meanyng as it hath sometyme that declareth the acceptation of the thyng done and not the propre contreuaile of the action after which sort man may satisfie God that is so mercyfull as he will take in good worth for Christes sake maÌ„s imperfect endeuour and so the dayly offering may be called a sacrifice satisfactory bicause God is pleased with it beyng a maner of worshyppyng of Christes passion accordyng to his institution But otherwise the dayly sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest called satisfactorie and it is a word in déede that soundeth not well so placed although it might be saued by a signification and therfore thinke that word rather to be well expounded then by captious vnderstandyng brought in slaunder when it is vsed and this speach to be frequented that the onely immolatâ—on of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God And I haue read the dayly sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a Sacrifice satisfactorie but this speach hath in déede bene vsed that the Priest should sing satisfactorie which they vnderstode in the satisfaction of the Priestes duety to attend he prayer the was required to make and for a distinction therof they had prayer sometyme required without speciall limitation and that was called to pray not satisfactorie Finally in man by any his action to presume to satisfie God by way of counteruaile is a very mad and furious blasphemy Caunterbury TO defend the Papisticall errour that the dayly offering of the Priest in the Masse is propitiatory you extend the word Propitiation other wise then the Apostles do speakyng of that matter I speake playnly accordyng to S. Paule and S. Iohn that onely Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes by his death You speake accordyng to the Papistes that the Priestes in their Masses make a sacrifice propitiatory I call a sacrifice propitiatory accordyng to the Scripture such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods indignation agaynst vs obteineth mercy and forgiuenes of all our sinnes and is our raunsome and redemption from euerlastyng damnation And on the other side I call a sacrifice gratificatory of the sacrifice of the Church such a sacrifice as doth not reconcile vs to God but is made of them that be reconciled to testifie their dueties and to shewe them selues thankefull vnto him And these sacrifices in Scripture be not called propitiatory but sacrifices of Iustice of laude prayse and thankes geuyng But you confounde the wordes and call one by an others name callyng that propitiatory whiche the Scripture calleth but of Iustice laude and thankyng And all is nothyng els but to defend your propitiatory sacrifice of the Priestes in their Masses whereby they may remit sinne and redeeme soules out of Purgatory And yet all your wyles and shiftes will not serue you for by extendyng the name of a propitiatory sacrifice vnto so large a signification as you do you make all maner of Sacrifices propitiatory leauyng no place for any other sacrifice For say you all good deedes and good thoughtes be Sacrifices propitiatorie and then be the good workes of the lay people Sacrifices propitiatorie as well as those of the Priest And to what purpose then made you in the begynnyng of this booke a distinction betwene sacrifices propitiatorie and other Thus for desire you haue to defend the Papisticall errours you haue not fallen
onely into imaginations contrary to the truth of Gods word but also contrary to your selfe But let passe away these Papisticall inuentions and let vs humbly professe ourselues with all our Sacrifices not worthy to approche vnto God nor to haue any accesse vnto him but by that onely propitiatorie sacrifice which Christ onely made vpon the Crosse. And yet let vs with all deuotion with whole hart and mynde and with all obedience to Gods will come vnto the heauenly Supper of Christ thankyng him onely for propitiation of our sinnes In which holy Communion the act of the Minister and other be all of one sort none propitiatorie but all of laudes and thankes geuyng And such sacrifices be pleasaunt and acceptable to God as S. Paule sayth done of them that be good but they winne not his fauour and put away his indignation from them that be euill For such reconciliation can no creature make but Christ alone And where you say that to call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactorie must haue an vnderstādyng that signifieth not the action of the priest here you may see what a businesse and hard worke it is to patch the Papistes ragges together and what absurdities you fall into thereby Euen now you sayd that the acte of the Priestes must needes bee a Sacrifice propitiatorie and now to haue an vnderstandyng for the same you bee driuen to so shamefull a shift that you say either cleane contrary that it is not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christ or els that the action of the Priest is none otherwise satisfactorie then all other Christen mens workes be For otherwise say you the dayly Sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest can not be called satisfactorie Wherefore at length knowledgyng your Popish doctrine to sound euill fauoredly you confesse agayne the true Catholicke teachyng that this speach is to be frequented and vsed that the onely immolation of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God And where you say that you haue not read the dayly sacrifice of Christs most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory if you haue not read of satisfactory Masses it appeareth that you haue read but very little of the Schoole Authours And yet not many yeares agoe you might haue heard them preached in euery pardon But because you haue not read therof read Doctour Smithes booke of the sacrifice of the Masse and both your eares and eyes shal be full of it Whose furious blasphemies you haue with one sentēce here most truely reiected wherfore yet remaineth in you some good sparkes of the spirit that you so much detest such abhominatiō And yet such blasphemies you go about to salue and playster as much as you may by subtle and crafty interpretations For by such exposition as you make of the satisfactory singyng of the Priest in doyng his duetie in that he was required to do by this exposition he singeth aswell satisfactory in saying of Mattens as in saying of Masse for in both he doth his duetie that he required vnto and so might it be defended that the Player vpon the Orgaines playeth satisfactory when he doth his duety in playing as he is required And all the singyng men in the Church that haue wages thereto sing satisfactory aswell as the Priestes when they sing accordyng to that they be hyered vnto And then as one singyng man or player on the Orgaines receauyng a stipende of many men to play or sing at a certaine tyme if he do his duety satisfieth them all at once so might a priest sing satisfactory for many persons at one tyme which the teachers of satisfactory Masses vtterly condemne But if you had read Duns you would haue written more Clerkely in these matters then you now do Now let vs heare what you say further Winchester Where the Authour cityng S. Paul Englisheth him thus that Christes Priesthode can not passe from him to an other These wordes thus framed be not the simple and sincere expression of the truth of the text Whiche sayth that Christ hath a perpetuall Priesthode and the Gréeke hath a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gréek Schooles expresse and expounde by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyng the Priesthode of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of Leui wher was amōg mortal men succession in the office of Priesthode but Christ liueth euer and therfore is a perpetuall euerlastyng Priest by whose authoritie Priesthode is now in this visible Church as S. Paule ordered to Timothe and Tite and other places also confirme which Priestes visible Ministers to our inuisible Priest offer the dayly Sacrifice in Christes Churche that is to say with the very presence by Gods omnipotencie wrought of the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ shewyng forth Christes death and celebratyng the memory of his Supper and death accordyng to Christes institution so with dayly oblation and sacrifice of the selfe same Sacrifice to kindle in vs a thankeful remēbraunce of all Christes benefites vnto vs. Caunterbury VVHere you find your selfe greued with my citing of S. Paul that Christes priesthood cannot passe from him to another which is not say you the truth of the text which meaneth that the Priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession your manner of speach herein is so darke that it geueth no light at all For it semeth to signify that Christes priesthood endeth but not to goe to other by succession but by some other meanes which thing if you meane then you make the endles priesthood of Christ to haue an end And if you mean it not but that Christs priesthood is endles and goeth to no other by succession nor other wise then I pray you what haue I offended in saying that Christs priesthood cannot passe from him to an other And as for the greeke wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any manner of succession whether it be by inheritance adoption election purchase or any other meanes And he that is instituted and inducted into a benefice after an other is called his successor And Erasmus calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod in alium transire non potest And so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify quod successione caret That is to say a thing that hath no succession nor passeth to none other And because Christ is a perpetuall and euerlasting priest that by one oblation made a full sacrifice of sinne for euer therfore his priesthood neither nedeth nor can passe to any other wherefore the ministers of Christes church be not now appoynted priests to make a new sacrifice for sinne as tho Christ had not done that at once sufficiently for euer but to preach abroad Christes sacrifice and to be ministers of his wordes