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
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
I know that euery thing that men see hath a certayne bignes For that nature that hath no bignes can not be seene Moreouer to sit in the throne of glory and to sette the Lambes vpon his right hand and the goates vpon his left hand signifieth a thing that hath quantitie and bygnes Hitherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes and shortly after Eranistes sayth Eran. We must tourne euery stone as the prouerb sayth to seeke out the truth but specially when godly matters be propounded Orth. Tell me than the sacramentall signes which be offered to God by his priestes wherof be they signes sayst thou Eran. Of the Lordes body and bloud Orth. Of a very body or not of a very body Eran. Of a very body Orth. Very well for an image must be made after a true paterne for Paynters follow nature and paynt the images of such thinges as we see with our eyes Eran. Truth it is Orth. If therfore the godly sacramentes represent a true body than is the Lordes body yet still a body not conuerted into the nature of his Godhead but replenished with Goddes glory Eran. It cometh in good tyme that thou makest mention of Gods sacramentes for by the same I shall proue that Christes body is tourned into an other nature Answer therfore vnto my questions Orth. I shall answer Eran. What callest thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the priest Orth. We must not speake playnly for it is like that some be present which haue not professed Christ. Eran. Answer couertly Orth. It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like Eran. Than how call we the other signe Orth. It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drinke Eran. But how doest thou call them after the sanctification Orth. The body of Christ and the bloud of Christ. Eran. And doest thou beleue that thou art made partaker of Christes body and bloud Orth. I beleue so Eran. Therfore as the tokens of Gods body and bloud be other thinges before the priestes inuocation but after the inuocation they be chaunged and be other things so also the body of Christ after his assumption is chaunged into his deuine substaunce Ortho. Thou art taken with thine owne nette For the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and may be seene and touched as well as before yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Therfore cōpare their images to the paterne and thou shalt see them like For figure must be like to the thing it selfe For Christes body hath his former fashion figure and bignesse and to speake at one word the same substance of his body but after his resurrection it was made immortall and of such power that no corruption nor death could come vnto it and it was exalted vnto that dignity that it was sette at the right hand of the father and honoured of all creatures as the body of him that is the Lord of nature Eran. But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name for it is no more called as it was before but is called Christes body Therfore must his body after his ascention be called God and not a body Orth. Thou semest to me ignorant for it is not called his body onely but also the bread of lyfe as the Lord called it So the body of Christ we call a godly body a body that giueth life Gods body the Lordes body our masters body name ning that it is not a common body as other mennes bodies be but that it is the body of our Lord Iesu Christ both God and man This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus whom some of the Papists perceiuing to make so playnly agaynst them haue defamed saying that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition which is euen in a manifest matter rather to lie without shame than to giue place vnto the truth and confesse their owne errour And although his aduersaries falsely bruted such a fame agaynst him whan he was yet a liue neuerthelesse he was purged therof by the whole Councell of Calcedon about a leuen hundred yeares agoe And furthermore in his booke which he wrote agaynst heresies he specially condemneth Nestorius by name And also all his iij. bookes of his dialogues before rehersed he wrot chiefly agaynst Nestorius and was neuer here in noted of error this thousand yeare but hath euer bene reputed and taken for an holy Byshop a great learned man and a graue author vntill now at this present tyme whan the Papistes haue nothing to answer vnto him they begin in excusing of them selues to defame him Thus much haue I spoken for Theodoretus which I pray thee be not weary to read good reader but often and with delectation deliberation and good aduertisement to read For it conteineth playnly and breefly the true instruction of a Christian man concerning the matter which in this booke we treate vpon First that our sauiour Christ in his last supper whan he gaue bread and wine to his apostles saying This is my body This is my bloud it was bread which he called his body and wine mixed in the cup which he called his bloud so that he changed the names of the bread and wine which were the misteries sacramentes fignes figures and tokens of Christes flesh and bloud and called them by the names of the thinges which they did represent and signifie that is to say the bread he called by the name of his very flesh and the wine by the name of his bloud Second that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification yet neuertheles the thinges them selues remayned the selfe same that they were before the sanctification that is to say the same bread and wine in nature substance form and fashion The thyrd seing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed why be then their names changed and the bread called Christes flesh and the wine his bloud Theodoretus sheweth that the cause therof was this that we should not haue so much respect to the bread and wyne which we see with our eyes and tast with our mouthes as we should haue to Christ him selfe in whome we beleue with our hartes and fele and tast him by our faith and with whose flesh and bloud by his grace we beleue that we be spiritually fedde and norished These thinges we ought to remember the reuolue in our myndes and to lift vp our hartes from the bread and wine vnto Christ that sitteth aboue And bicause we should so do therfore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine but the body and bloud of Christ. The forth It is in these sacramentes of bread and wine
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
all his misticall conuersation here in his flesh and his doctrine consisting of his whole life pertayning both to his humanitie and diuinitie wherby the soule is nourished and brought to the contemplation of thinges eternall Thus teacheth Basilius how we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud which pertayneth only to the true and faythfull members of Christ. S. Hierom also sayth All that love pleasure more then God eate not the flesh of Iesu nor drincke his bloud Of the which himselfe sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe And in an other place S. Hierom sayth that heritikes do not eate and drincke the body and bloud of the Lord. And more ouer he sayth that heretiks eat not the flesh of Iesu whose flesh is the meat of faythfull men Thus agreeth S. Hierom with the other before rehersed that heretikes and such as follow worldly pleasures eate not Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud bicause that Christ sayd He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting life And S. Ambrose sayth that Iesus is the bread which is the meat of sainctes and that he that taketh this bread dyeth not a sinners death For this bread is the remission of sinnes And in other booke to him intituled he writeth thus This bread of life which came downe from heauen doth minister euerlasting life and who soeuer eateth this bread shall not dye for euer and is the body of Christ. And yet in an other booke set forth in his name he sayth on this wise He that did eate Manne dyed but he that eateth this body shall haue remission of his sinnes and shall not dye for euer And agayne he sayth As often as thou drinckest thou hast remission of thy sinnes These sentences of S. Ambrose be so playne in this matter that there nedeth no more but onely the rehersall of them But S. Augustine in many places playnly discussing this matter sayth He that agreeth not with Christ doth neither eate his body nor drinke his bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he receaue euery day the sacramēt of so hygh a matter And moreouer S. Augustine most playnly resolueth this matter in his booke De ciuitate Dei disputing agaynst two kindes of heretikes Wherof the one sayd that as many as were Christned and receaued the sacramēt of Christes body and bloud should be saued how so euer they liued or beleeued bycause that Christ sayd This is the bread that came from heauen that who so euer shall eate therof shall not dye I am the bread of lyfe which came from heauen who so euer shall eate of this bread shall liue for euer Therfore sayd these heretikes all such men must nedes be deliuered from eternall death and at length be brought to eternall life The other sayd that heretikes and scismatikes myght eate the sacrament of Christes body but not his very body bycause they be no members of his body And therfore they promised not euerlasting life to all that receaued Christes baptisme and the sacrament of his body but to all such as professed a true fayth although they liued neuer so vngodly For such sayd they do eate the body of Christ not onely in a sacrament but also in deede bycause they be members of Christes body But S. Augustine answering to both these heresies sayth That neither heretikes nor such as professe a true fayth in theyr mouthes and in theyr liuing shew the contrary haue eyther a true fayth which worketh by charitie and doth none euil or are to be counted among the members of Christ. For they can not be both members of Christ and members of the deuill Therfore sayth he it may not be sayd that any of them eate the body of Christ. For when Christ sayth he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him He sheweth what it is not sacramentally but indeed to eate his body and drincke his bloud which is when a man dwelleth so in Christ that Christ dwelleth in him For Christ spake those wordes as if he should say He that dwelleth not in me and in whom I dwell not let him not say or thincke that he eateth my body or drincketh my bloud These be the playne wordes of S. Augustine that such as liue vngodly although they may seme to eate Christes body bicause they eate the sacrament of his body yet in deed they neyther be members of his body nor do eate his body Also vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth that he that doth not eate his flesh and drincke his bloud hath not in him euerlasting lyfe And he that eateth his flesh and drincketh his bloud hath euerlasting lyfe But it is not so in those meates which we take to sustayne our bodyes For although without them we cannot liue yet it is not necessary that who so euer receaueth them shall liue for they may dye by age sicknes or other chaunces But in this meat and drincke of the body and bloud of our Lord it is otherwise For both they that eate and drincke them not haue not euerlasting lyfe And contrariwyse who so euer eate and drincke them haue euerlasting life Note and ponder well these wordes of S. Augustine that the bread and wine and other meates drinckes which nourish the body a man may eate and neuerthelesse dye but the very body and bloud of Christ no man eateth but that hath euerlasting life So that wicked men can not eate nor drincke them for then they must nedes haue by them euerlasting life And in the same place S. Augustine sayth further The sacramēt of the vnitie of Christes body bloud is takē in the Lordes table of some men to lyfe of some mē to death but the thing it selfe wherof it is a sacramēt is takē of all men to lyfe of no man to death And more ouer he sayth This is to eate that meate and drincke that drincke to dwell in Christ and to haue Christ dwelling in him And for that cause he that dwelleth not in Christ in whome Christ dwelleth not without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh nor drincketh his bloud although carnally and visibly with his teeth he byte the Sacrament of his body and bloud Thus writeth S. Augustine in the xxvj homely of S. Iohn And in the next homely following he sayth thus This day our sermon is of the body of the Lord which he sayd he would geue to eat for eternall life And he declared the maner of his gift and distribution how he would geue his flesh to eate saying He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him This therfore is a token or knowledge that a man hath eaten and drunken that is to say if he dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in him If he cleaue so to Christ that he is not seuered from him This therfore Christ
and sacramentes And where but a little before you had truely taught that the onely Immolation of Christ by himselfe vpon the alter of the crosse is the very satisfactory sacrifice for our reconciliation to God now in the end like a Cow that casteth downe her milke with her owne feete you ouerthrow all agayne in few wordes saying that priests make dayly the selfe same sacrifice that Christ made which is so foul an errour and blasphemy that as I sayd in mine other book if the priests daily make the selfe same sacrifice that Christ did himselfe and the sacrifice that he made was his death and the effusion of his most precious bloud vpon the crosse then followeth of necessity that euery day the priestes slea Christ and shed his bloud and be worse then the Iewes that did it but once Now followeth in your confutation thus Winchester And where the author would auoyd all the testimony of the fathers by pretence it should be but a manner of speach the Canon of the Councell of Nice before rehersed and the wordes of it where misteries be spoken of in proper termes for doctrine auoydeth all that shift and it hath no absurdity to confesse that Christ in his supper did institute for a remembraunce of the onely sacrifice the presence of the same most precious substaunce to be as the Canon of the Counsell in proper teacheth sacrificed by the Priestes to bée the pure sacrifice of the Church there offered for the effect of increase of life in vs as it was offered on the Crosse to atcheue life vnto vs. And S. Cyril who for his doctrine was in great authority with the counsell Ephesine writeth the very body and bloud of christ to be the liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice of the church as like wise in the old church other commōly termed the same and among other Chrisostome whom the author would now haue semed to vse it but for a manner of speach which in déed Chrysostome doth not but doth truly open the vnderstāding of that is done in the church wherin by this sacrifice done after the order of Melchisedech Christes death is not iterate but a memory dayly renewed of that death so as Christes offering on the Crosse once done and consummate to fynish all sacrifyces after the order of Aaron is now onely remembred according to Christes institution but in such wise as the same body is offered dayly on the alter that was once offered on the alter of the Cros but the same manner of offering is not dayly that was on the aulter of the Cros for the dayly offering is without bloudshed and is termed so to signify that bloudshedding once done to be sufficient And as Chrisostome openeth it by declaration of what manner our sacrifice is that is to say this dayly offering to be a remembraunce of the other manner of sacrifice once done and therefore sayth rather we make a remembraunce of it This saying of Chrisostome doth not empayre his former wordes where he sayth the host is the same offered on the cros and on the aulter and therefore by him the body of Christ that died but once is dayly present in déed and as the councell of Nice sayth sacrificed not after the manner of other sacrifices and as chrisostome sayth offered but the death of that precious body onely dayly remembred and not agayne iterate Caunterbury FOr aunswere hereto reade the xiij chapter of my fifte booke and that which I haue written here a little before of Nicene councel And where you say that the effect of the sacrifice of Christes body made by the Priestes is to increase life in vs as the effecte of the sacrifice of the same bodye made by himselfe vpon the crosse is to geue life vnto vs this is not onely an absurdity but also an intollerable blasphemy agaynst Christ. For the sacrifice made vpon the crosse doth both geue vs life and also encrease and continue the same and the priestes oblation doth neither of both For our redemption and eternall saluation standeth not onely in geuing vs life but in continuing the same for euer As Christ sayd that he came not onely to geue vs life but also to make vs increase and abound therein And S. Paule sayd The life which I now liue in flesh I liue by the fayth of the sonne of God who loued me and gaue himselfe for me And therefore if we haue the one by the oblation of Christ and the other by the oblation of the priest then deuide we our saluation betwene Christ and the priest And because it is no lesse gift to continue life for euer then to geue it vs by thys your mad and furious blasphemy we haue our saluation and redemption asmuch by the sacrifice made by the priest as wee haue by sacrifice made by Christ himselfe And thus you make Christ to be like an vnkind and vnnatural mother who whē she hath brought forth her child putteth it to an other to nurse and maketh her self but half the mother of it And thus you teach christen people to halte on both sides partly worshipping God and partly Baall partly attributing our saluation to Christ the true perfect eternall priest and partly to Antichrist and his priestes And concerning Cyril he speaketh not of a sacrifice propitiatory in that place as I haue more playnely declared in mine aunswere to Doctour Smithes prologue And whereas you call the dayly sacrifice of the church an vnbloudy sacrifice here it were necessary if you would not deceiue simple people but teach them such doctrine as they may vnderstand that you should in playne termes set forth and declare what the dayly offering of the priest without bloud shedding is in what wordes deedes crosses signes or gestures it standeth and whether it be made before the consecration or after before the distribution of the sacrament or after and wherein chiefly resteth the very pith and substaunce of it And when you haue thus done I will say you meane franckly and walke not colourably in cloaked words not vnderstanded and then also shall you be more fully aunswered when I know better what you meane And to Chrysostome needeth no further aunswere then I haue made already in the xiij chapter of my fifte book But let vs heare the rest of your booke Winchester And where the author sayth the old fathers calling the supper of our Lord a sacrifice ment a Sacrifice of laud and thanksgeuing Hippinus of Hamborugh no Papist in hys booke dedicate to the kinges Maiesty that now is fayth otherwise and noteth how the old fathers called it a Sacrifice propitiatory for the very presence of Christes most precious body there thus sayth he which presence all Christen men must say requireth on our part lauds and thanksgeuing which may be and is called in Scripture by the name of Sacrifice but that Sacrifice of our laudes and thankes cannot be a Sacrifice geuing life as it
is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do when he sayth it is vinificum which can be onely sayd of the very body and bloud of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of laudes and thankesgeuing cannot be sayd a pure and cleane Sacrifice whereby to fulfill the prophecy of Malachy and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church vnderstanded to be spoken of the dayly offering of the body and bloud of Christ for the memory of Christes death according to Christes ordinaunce in his supper as may at more length be opened and declared Thinking to the effect of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chiefe poyntes of the authors doctrine with such contradiction to thē as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessity require the more particuler confutation of that is vntrue on the aduersary part and confirmation of that is true in the Catholique doctrine requiring more tyme and leysure then I haue now and therefore offering my selfe ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shal be required I shall here end for this time with prayer to almighty God to graunt his truth to be acknowledged and confessed and vniformely to be preached and beleued of al so as all contention for vnderstanding of religion auoyded which hindereth Charity we may geue suche light abroad as men may see our good workes and glorify our father who is in heauen with the sonne and holy ghost in one vnity of godhead reigning without end Amen Caunterbury HIpinus sayth that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not beleue that Hipinus so sayd vntill you appoint me both the booke and place where he so sayth For the effect of his booke is cleane contrary which he wrote to reproue the propitiatory sacrifice which the Papistes fayne to be in the Masse Thus in deede Hipinus writeth in one place Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis sanguinis Christipraesentiam primo vocauerunt sacrificium deinde propter oblationes munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur conferebantur ad sacraministeria ad necessitatem credentium In which wordes Hipinus declareth that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two consideratiōs one was for the present of Christes flesh and bloud the other was for the offerynges which the people gaue there of their deuotion to the holy ministratiō and reliefe of the poore But Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporall presence nor of propitiatory Sacrifice but generally of presence and sacrifice which maketh nothyng for your purpose nor agaynst me that graunt both a presence and a sacrifice But when you shall shew me the place where Hipinus sayth that the old Fathers called the Lordes Supper a propitiatory sacrifice I shall trust you the better and him the worse And as for Cyrill if you will say of his head that the Sacrifice of the Church giueth life how agreeth this with your late saying that the sacrifice of the Church increaseth lyfe as the sacrifice on the Crosse giueth lyfe And if the Sacrifice made by the Priest both geue lyfe and encrease lyfe then is the Priest both the mother and nurse and Christ hath nothyng to do with vs at all but as a straunger And the sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is the sacrifice laud and thankes which all deuoute Christian people geue vnto God whether it be in the Lordes Supper in their priuate Prayers or in any worke they do at any tyme or place to the glory of God all which Sacrifices not of the Priestes onely but of all faythfull people be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ by whose bloud all their filthy and vnpurenes is cleane sponged away But in this last booke it seemeth you were so astonied and amased that you were at your wits end wist not where to become For now the Priest maketh a Sacrifice propitiatory now he doth not now he giueth lyfe now he giueth none now is Christ the full Sauiour and satisfaction now the Priest hath halfe part with him now the Priest doth all And thus you are so inconstant in your selfe as one that had bene netteled and could rest in no place or rather as one that had receaued such a stroke vpon his head that hee staggered with all and reeled here and there and could not tell where to become And your doctrine hath such ambiguities such perplexities such absurdities and such impieties in it and is so vncertaine so vncomfortable so contrary to Gods word and the old Catholicke Church so contrary to it selfe that it declareth from whose spirite it commeth which can be none other but Antichrist him selfe Where as on the other side the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure Church from the begynnyng is playne certaine without wrynkels without any inconuenience or absurditie so chearefull and comfortable to all Christen people that it must needes come from the spirite of God the spirite of truth and all consolation For what ought to be more certaine and knowen to all Christen people then that Christ dyed once and but once for the redemption of the world And what can be more true then that his onely death is our lyfe And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner that is sory for his sinne and returneth to God in his hart and whole mynde then to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heauy lode of his sinne and taketh the burden vpon his owne backe And if we shall ioyne the Priest herein to Christ in any part and giue a portion hereof to his sacrifice as you in your doctrine giue to the priest the one halfe at the least what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner that he may not hang wholly vpon Christ what perplexities and doubtes rise hereof in the sinners conscience And what an obscuryng and darkenyng is this of the benefite of Christ Yea what iniury and contumely is it to him And furthermore when we heare Christ speake vnto vs with his own mouth and shew him selfe to be seen with our eyes in such sorte as is conuenient for him of vs in this mortall lyfe to be heard and sene what comfort can we haue more The Minister of the Churche speaketh vnto vs Gods owne wordes whiche we must take as spoken from Gods owne mouth because that from his mouth it came and his word it is and not the Ministers Likewise when he ministreth to our sightes Christes holy Sacramentes we must thinke Christ crucified and presented before our eyes because the Sacraments so represent him and be his Sacraments and not the Priestes As in Baptisme we must thinke that as the Priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly and washeth him with water so must we thinke that God putteth to his hand inwardly and washeth the infant with his holy spirite and
of the Cardinalles Colledge in Oxford refused it Question of the kynges diuorce with Katherine Dowager Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe chief furtherers of the kynges diuorce Doct. Stephens D. Foxe Doct. Cranmer coÌ„ferryng together of the kynges cause Doct. Cranmers aunswere in the question of the kynges diuorce Doct. Cranmers deuise well lyked of The king troubled about the cause of his diuorce Doct. Cranmer sent for to the kyng in post Talke betwene the kyng and Doct. Cranmer The king troubled in coÌ„scieÌ„ce Doct. Cranmer excusing and disabling himselfe to the kyng Doct. Cranmer assigned by the kyng to searche the Scriptures in the cause of his diuorce The kyng first geuen to vnderstand that the Pope hath no authoritie to dispence with the word of God The kynges matter remoued from the popes Canon law to the triall of the Scriptures The kynges Mariage fouÌ„de by Gods word vnlawfull Doct. Cranmer with other sâ—nt to Rome Ambassadour to the Pope Arguing to the popes face that contrary to the word of God he had no power to dispense Doct. Cranmer made the popes Penitentiary Doct. Cranmer Ambassadour to the Emperour Conference betwene Byshop Cranmer and Cornelius Agrippa Doct. Cranmer made Archbyshop of Cant. 1. Tim. 3. Titus 1. The order of Doct. Cranmers study The gentle nature of Doctour Cranmer Doct. Cranmer stoute and constant in Gods cause Doct. Cranmer a stoute enemy agaynst the sâ—â— Articles Of this commyng of the I. Cromwell and the two Dukes to the Archbyshop ExaÌ„ple for Ecclesiasticall Pastours Archb. CraÌ„mer in displeasure about the imployng of Chauntrey landes The singular patience of this Archbyshop A story betwen the Archb. of Caunterbury a popish Priest his enemy The rayling of a popish Priest agaynst Doct. Cranmer Chersey â—â—yng for his kynseâ—â— to the Archb. The Priest sent for to the Archbyshop The Archbyshops wordes vnto the Parson The Priest coÌ„fesseth his fault to the Archb. The raâ—he tâ—â—ngeâ— of men sclaunderously speakyng â—uill by meÌ„ whoÌ„ they neuer knew nor saw before The Priestest aunswere The Masse Priest ignoraunt in the Scripture The giâ—e of popish Priests when they fauour not the Religion of a man they sclauÌ„der his person Euill will neuer sayd well The Archbyshop forgâ—â—eth and dismisseth the Priest The liberall doynges of this Archbyshop The Archbyshop clearyng all his debtes before his attainder The Archb. Cranmer euer constant in defence of Christs truth and Gospell The Archb. alone standeth in defence of the truth Bishop Heath and Byshop Skippe forsake the Archb. in the playne field The Archb. incensed by B. Heath and B. Skippe to geue ouer the defence of the Gospell The aunswere of the Archb. to Doct. Heath Skippe The Papistes busie to bryng the Archb. out of credit with the kyng The Archbyshop agayne accused to the kyng The kyng sent Syr Antony Deny at midnight for the Archb. The kynges wordes and aduise for the supportation of the Archbyshop The Archbyshops auÌ„swere to the kyng The kyngs fauourable care consideration towarde the Archb. of Cant. The kyng sendeth his â—â—gnet in the behalfe of the Archb. of Canterbury The Archbyshop beyng one of the Counsell made to staÌ„d at the Counsell chamber doore waityng Doct. Buttes the kings Phisition a frend of the Archb. The Archbyshop called before the Counsell The CouÌ„sel beyng set agaynst the Archb. hee sheweth the kyngs Kyng appealeth from them The kynges wordes to the Counsell in defence of the Archbyshop The Lordes of the Counsell glad to be freÌ„ds againe with the Archbyshâ—p The kyng a great supporter of Cranmer The Lord CroÌ„wels wordes to the Archbyshop The true and goâ—ly doctrine of the Sacrament in fiue bookes set forth by the Archb. of Canterbury An explication of StepheÌ„ Gardiner agaynst Cranmer Archbyshop of CaÌ„t. Manâ—taltameÌ„te repostum Iudicium paridis spraetaeque inniria matris Virg. AEneid 1. This Doctour Thornton was after the Byshop of Douer a cruell wicked persecuter This Byshop was Doctour Heath Byshop after of Yorkâ— Cranmer condemned of treason Cranmer released of treason and accused of heresie Cranmer had to Oxford Of this condeÌ„nation read in the last 〈◊〉 pag. 1554. The Archbyshop contented to recant Causes mouyng the Archbyshop to geue with the tyme. The Queenâ—s hart set agaynst Cranmer The Queene conferreth with Doct. Cole about Cranmers burnyng L. William of Thame L. ShaÌ„doys Syr Thomas Bridges Syr Iohn Browne appourted to be at Cranmers execution Cranmer writteth subscribeth the Articles with his owne handes Doct. Cranmer brought to D. Coles SerinoÌ„ Doct. Cranmer set vpoÌ„ a stage Doct. Coles Sermon deuided into three partes The summe effect of Doct. Coles Sermon at Oxford If Cole gaue this iudgement vpon Cranmer wheÌ„ hee had repented what iudgement is then to be geueÌ„ of Cole whiche alwayes hath pâ—â—dured in errour and neuer yet repented If all heretickes in England should be burned where should Doct. Cole haue bene ere now Lex non aequalitatis sed iâ—iquitatis No state in this earth so hye nor so sure but it may fall Doct. Cole encourageth the Archb. to take his death patiently 1. Cor. 10. Doct. Cole reioyseth in the Archbyshops conuersion bâ—t that reioysing lasted not long Dirâ—ges and Masses promised for Cranmers soule The teares of the Archb. Cranmer required to declare his fayth CraÌ„mer willing to declare his fayth The wordes of the Archb. to the people The Prayer of the Archb. The last words of exhortatioÌ„ of the Archb. to the people Exhortation to contempt of the world Exhortation to obedience Exhortation to brotherly loue Exhortation to rich meÌ„ of this world mouyng them to charitable almes Luke 18. 1. Iohn 3. The Archb. declareth the true coÌ„fession of his fayth without all colour or dissemblyng The Archb. reuoketh his former recantation and repenteth the same The Archb. refuseth the Pope as Christes enemy and Antichrist The Archb. standeth to his booke written agaynst Wincester The expectation of the Papistes deceaued The Popistes in a great chaffe agaynst the Archbyshop Cranmers aunswere to the Papistes Cranmer pulled downe from the stage Cranmer led to the fire The Archb. brought to the place of execution M. Ely refuseth to geue his haÌ„d to the Archb. The Archb. tyed to tht â—â—â—ke Cranmer putteth his right haÌ„d which subscribed first into the â—râ— The last wordâ— of Cranmer at his death The Friers lying report of Cranmer I would as much as may be do my due to the matter and him also The craft of winchester in the beginnyng The summe of the booke Because the author pretendeth a defence of the catholick faith it were reason to know what it is The effect of that this author calleth his faith Untrue report Bread wine water be not holy but holy tokens They be not bare tokens Christ is preseÌ„t in his sacramentes A catholike fayth Thus authors fayth hath no point of a catholike fayth Untrue report Scripture in letter fauoureth not thus autors fayth My doctrine is catholike by your owne description
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
tooke his leaue of the kynges highnesse for that night On the morow about ix of the clocke before noone the Counsaile sent a Gentleman busher for the Archbishop who when he came to the Counsaile chamber doore could not be let in but of purpose as it séemed was compelled there to waite among the pages lackeys and seruyngmen all alone Doct. Buttes the kynges Phisition resortyng that way and espying how my Lord of Canterbury was handled went to the kynges highnes and sayd My Lord of Canterbury if it please your Grace is well promoted for now he is become a lackey or a seruyngman for yonder he standeth this halfe houre without the Counsaile chamber doore amongest them It is not so quoth the kyng I trow nor the Counsaile hath not so litle discretion as to vse the Metropolitane of the Realme in that sorte specially beyng one of their owne number but let them alone sayd the kyng and we shall here more soone Anone the Archbishop was called into the Counsaile Chamber to whom was alledged as before is rehearsed The Archbyshop aunswered in like sort as the kyng had aduised him and in the ende when he perceiued that no maner of perswasion or intreatie could serue he deliuered to them the kyngs ryng reuokyng his cause into the kynges handes The whole Counsaile beyng thereat somewhat amased the Earle of Bedford with a loude voyce confirmyng his wordes with a solemne oth sayd When you first began this matter my Lordes I told you what would come of it Do you thinke that the kyng will suffer this mans finger to ake much more I warrant you will he defend his life agaynst brablyng varlets You do but comber your selues to heare tales and fables agaynst him And so incontinently vpon the recept of the kynges token they all rose and caryed to the kyng his ryng surrenderyng that matter as the order and vse was into his owne handes When they were all come to the kynges presence his highnesse with a seuere countenaunce sayd vnto theÌ„ Ah my Lordes I thought I had had wiser men of my Counsaile then now I finde you What discretion was this in you thus to make the Primate of the Realme one of you in office to waite at the Counsaile Chamber doore amongest seruyngmen You might haue considered that he was a Counseller as well as you and you had no such CoÌ„mission of me so to handle him I was coÌ„tent that you should try him as a Counseller not as a meane subiect But now I well perceiue that things be done agaynst him malitiously if some of you might haue had your myndes you would haue tried him to the vttermost But I doe you all to witte protest that if a Prince may be beholdyng vnto his subiect and so solemly laying his haÌ„d vpon his brest sayd by the fayth I owe to God I take this man here my Lord of Caunterbury to bee of all other a most faythfull subiect vnto vs and one to whom we are much beholdyng giuyng him great commendations otherwise And with that one or two of the chiefest of the Counsaile makyng their excuse declared that in requestyng his induraunce it was rather ment for his triall and his purgation agaynst the common fame and sclaunder of the world then for any malice conceiued agaynst him Well well my Lordes quoth the king take him and well vse him as he is worthy to be and make no more ado And with that euery man caught him by the hand and made fayre wether of altogethers whiche might easely be done with that man And it was much to bee marueiled that they would goe so farre with him thus to séeke his vndoyng this well vnderstandyng before that the kyng most entirely loued him and alwayes would stand in his defence who soeuer spake agaynst him as many other tymes the kynges patience was by sinister informations agaynst him tryed In so much that the Lord Cromwell was euermore wont to say vnto him My Lord of Canterbury you are most happy of all men for you may do and speake what you lifte and say what all men can agaynst you the kyng will neuer beleue one word to your detriment or hinderaunce After the death of kyng Henry immediatly succéeded his sonne kyng Edward vnder whose gouernement and protection the state of this Archbyshop beyng his Godfather was nothyng appaired but rather more aduaunced Duryng all this meane tyme of kyng Henry aforesayd vntill the entryng of kyng Edward it séemeth that Cranmer was scarsely yet throughly perswaded in the right knowledge of the Sacrament or at least was not yet fully rypened in the same wherein shortly after he beyng more groundly confirmed by conference with Byshop Ridley in processe of tyme did so profite in more ryper knowledge that at last he tooke vpon him the defence of that whole doctrine that is to refute and throw downe first the corporall presence secondly the phantasticall transubstantiation thirdly the Idolatrous adoration fourthly the false errour of the Papistes that wicked men do eate the naturall body of Christ and lastly the blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse Whereupon in conclusion he wrote fiue bookes for the publicke instructioÌ„ of the Church of England which instruction yet to this day standeth and is receaued in this Church of England Agaynst these fiue bookes of the Archbyshop Stephen Gardiner the Archenemy to Christ and his Gospell beyng then in the Tower slubbereth vp a certaine aunswere such as it was which he in open Court exhibited vp at Lambeth beyng there examined by the Archbyshop aforesayd and other the kynges Commissioners in kyng Edwardes dayes whiche booke was intitled An Explication and assertion of the true Catholicke fayth touchyng the blessed Sacrament of the aultar with a confutation of a booke written agaynst the same Agaynst this Explication or rather a caâ—illyng Sophistication of Stephens Gardiner Doctour of Law the sayd Archbyshop of Canterbury learnedly and copiously replying agayne maketh aunswere as by the discourse therof renewed in Print is euident to be sene to all such as with indifferent eye will Read and peruse the same Besides these bookes aboue recited of this Archbishop diuers other things there were also of his doing as the booke of Reformation with the booke of Homelies whereof part was by him contriued part by his procurement approued and published Wherunto also may be adioyned an other writing or confutation of his agaynst 88. Articles by the CoÌ„uocation deuised and propounded but yet not ratified nor receaued in the reigne and time of king Henry And thus much hetherto concernyng the deynges and trauailes of this Archbyshop of Caunterbury duryng the lines both of kyng Henry and of kyng Edward his sonne Which two kynges so long as they continued this Archbyshop lacked no stay of maintenaunce agaynst all his maligners After the death of king Edward Quéene Mary comming now to the Crowne and being established in
the possession of the Realme not long after came to London and after she had caused first the two Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolke and their two children the Lady Iane and the Lord Guilford both in age tender and innocent of that crime to be executed She put the rest of the Nobilitie to their lines and forgaue them the Archbishop of Canterbury onely except Who though he desired pardon by meane of frendes could obtaine none in so much that the Quéene would not once â—ouchsafe to sée hym For as yet the old grudges agaynst the Archbyshop for the diuorcement of her mother remained hid in the bottome of her hart Besides this diuorce she remembred the state of Religion chaunged all which was reputed to the Archbishop as the chief cause therof While these thinges were in doing a rumor was in all mens mouthes that the Archbishop to curry fauour with the Quéene had promised to say a Dirige Masse after the old custome for the funerall of king Edward her brother Neither wanted there some which reported that he had already said Masse at Caunterbury whiche Masse in déede was sayd by Doct. Thornton This rumor Cranmer thinkyng spéedely to stay gaue forth a writing in his purgation the tenour whereof being set out at large in the booke of Actes and Monumentes I néede not here againe to recite This Bill being thus written and lying openly a window in his chamber coÌ„meth in by chaunce Maister Scory Bishop then of Rochester who after he had read and perused the same required of the Archbishop to haue a Copie of the Bill The Archbishop when he had graunted and permitted the same to Maister Scory by the occasion therof M. Scory lending it to some frend of his there were diuers Copies takeÌ„ out therof the thing published abroad among the common people in so much that euery Scriueners shop almost was occupied in writing and copying out the same and so at length some of those Copies comming to the Bishops handes so brought to the Counsell they sending it to the Commissioners the matter was knowen so he commauÌ„ded to appeare Whereupon Doct. Cranmer at his day prefixed appeared before the sayd Commissioners bringing a true Inuentorie as he was commauÌ„ded of all his goodes That done a Bishop of the Quéenes priuie Counsell being one of the sayd Commissioners after the Inuentorie was receaued bringing in mention of the Bill My Lord said he there is a Bill put forth in your name wherein you séeme to be agréeued with setting vp the Masse againe we doubt not but you are sorie that it is gone abroad To whom the Archbishop aunswering againe saying as I doe not deny my selfe to be the very Authour of that Bill or Letter so must I confesse here vnto you concerning the same Bill that I am sorie that the sayd Bill went from me in such sort as it did For when I had written it M. Scory got the Copie of me and is now come abroad and as I vnderstand the Citie is full of it For whiche I am sorie that it so passed my handes for I had intended otherwise to haue made it in a more large and ample maner mynded to haue set it on Paules Church doore and on the doores of all the Churches in London with mine owne feele ioyned thereto At whiche wordes when they saw the constantnesse of the man they dismissed him affirming they had no more at that present to say vnto him but that shortly hee should heare further The said Bishop declared afterward to one of Doct. Cranmers frendes that notwithstaÌ„ding his attainder of treason the Quéenes determination at that time was that Cranmer should onely haue bene depriued of his Archbishopricke and haue had a sufficient liuing assigned him vpon his exhibiting of a true Inuentorie with commaundement to kéepe his house without medlyng in matters of Religion But how that was true I haue not to say This is certaine that not long after this he was sent vnto the Tower and soone after condemned of treason Notwithstanding the Quéene wheÌ„ she could not honestly denie him his pardon seing all the rest were discharged and specially seing he last of all other subscribed to king Edwardes request that against his owne will released to him his action of treason and accused him onely of heresie which liked the Archbishop right well and came to passe as he wished because the cause was not now his owne but Christes not the Quéenes but the Churches Thus stoode the cause of Cranmer till at length it was determined by the Quéene and the Counsel that he should be remoned from the Tower where he was prisoner to Oxford there to dispute with the Doctours and Diuines And priuely word was sent before to them of Oxford to prepare them selues and make them ready to dispute And although the Quéene and the Bishops had coÌ„cluded before what should become of him yet it pleased them that the matter should be debated with Argumentes that vnder some honest shew of disputation the murther of the man might be couered Neither could their hastie spéede of reuengement abide any long delay and therfore in all hast he was caried to Oxford What this disputation was and how it was handled what were the questions and reasons on both sides and also touching his condemnation by the Uniuersitie the Prolocutor because sufficiently it hath bene declared in the storie at large we mynde now therefore to procéede to his finall iudgement and order of condemnation whiche was the xii day of September an 1556. and seuen dayes before the condemnation of Bishop Ridley and Maister Latimer After the disputations done and finished in Oxford betwene the Doctours of both Uniuersities and the thrée worthy Bishops Doct. Cranmer Ridley and Larymer senteÌ„ce condemnatory immediatly vpoÌ„ the same was ministred against them by Doct. Weston and other of the Uniuersitie whereby they were iudged to be heretickes and so committed to the Maior and Sheriffes of Oxford by whom hee was caried to Bocardo their coÌ„mon Gaile in Oxford In this meane tyme while the Archbishop was thus remainyng in duraunce whoÌ„ they had kept now in prisoÌ„ almost the space of thrée yeares the Doctours and Diuines of Oxford busied them selues all that euer they could about Maister Cranmer to haue him recant assaying by all craftie practises and allurementes they might deuise how to bring their purpose to passe And to the intent they might winne him easely they had him to the Deanes house of Christes Church in the sayd Uniuersitie where he lacked no delicate fare played at the bowles had his pleasure for walking and all other thinges that might bring him from Christ. Ouer and besides all this secretly and sleightly they suborned certaine men whiche when they could not expugne him by argumentes and disputation should by entreatie and fayre promises or any other meanes allure him to recantation perceiuyng otherwise what a great
body from his spirite affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite and in the communion but his flesh And that Christes spirit renueth our life but increaseth it not and that his flesh increceth our life but geueth it not And agaynst all nature reasō and truth you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christes body and bloud in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all And against scripture and all comformity of nature you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacrament that you leaue no distinction proportion nor fashion of mannes body at all And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother of the true doctrine of Christ that thus vnnaturally speaketh deuydeth and confoundeth Christes body If Salomon were aliue he would surely geue iudgement that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh so vnnaturally and so vnlike his mother and be geuen to the true church of the faithful that neuer digressed from the truth of Gods word nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body but speake according to the same that Christes body although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body occupying one place and being of a certayne height and measure hauing all members distinct and set in good order and proportion And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye is not only the beginning but also the contynuance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life By him we be regenerated by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature as Christ doth in his without mixtion or confusion This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother and like a true and right beleeuing christian man Marye of that doctrine which you teach I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof which in scripture is called Babilō because of commixtion or confusion Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth superstition with religiō godlines with hipocrisie scripture with traditions that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant to confound all the doctrine of Christ yea Christ him selfe shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother and the true naturall mother of Antichrist And for the conclusion of your matter here I doubt not but the indifferent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts sleightes shiftes obliquities manifest vntruthes it may be easely iudged that what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet nothing is lesse intended then that truth should ether haue victory or appeare and be seene at all Winchester And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes which this author is not afraid to vtter a matter wonderfull considering his dignity if he that is named be the author in déede which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth First I will note vnto the reader how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament to be the faith of the papistes which saying what foundacion it hath thou mayest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish defended stoutly the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in England in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gospels professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany where Hosiander is chiefe preacher in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the word truly is there and as Buter saith that is substancially Which Catechisme was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from the beginning alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene Ciprian Chrisostome Hillary Cirill Ambrose and Theophilacte which authors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to idle wittes with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estéemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is published abroad in printe wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse and that in it is dispensed the true body true bloud of Christ which is plainly the same in essence that is to say substāce and the same bloud in essence signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye taken for no papist among vs to much estéemed as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Ciprian Hilary Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basill Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iudgement he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words this is my body rehearsed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what
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
is not in the sacrament And forasmuch as I speake not one word of the comprehension of our senses to what purpose do you bring this in if it be not to draw vs to a new matter to auoyd that which is in controuersy You do herein as if Iames should by of Iohn a percell of land and by his atturney take state and possession therein And after Iohn should trauers the matter and say that there was neuer no state deliuered and thereupon ioyne their issue And when Iames should bryng forth his witnesses for the state and possession theÌ„ should Iohn runne to a new matter and say that Iames saw the possession deliuered what were this allegation of Iohn to the purpose of the thing that was in issue whether the possession were deliuered in deede or no Were this any other thing then to auoid the issue craftely by bringing in of a new matter And yet this shift is a common practise of you in this booke and this is another point of the deuils Sophistry wherin it is pitty that euer such a wit as you haue should be occupied Again you say that impudently I beare the Catholick church in hand to teach that I list to beare in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching wheras al true christen men beleeue simply Christs words and trouble not their heads with such consequences This is in the author no whispering but plain railing say you This is your barking eloqueÌ„ce wherewith your booke is well furnished for as dogs barke at the moone without any cause so doe you in this place For I doe no more but truely reporte what the Papistes them selues doe write and no otherwise not bearing the Catholick church in hand that it so teacheth but charging the Papistes that they so teach nor bearing the Papistes in hand what I list or what by wantoÌ„ reason may be deduced of their teaching but reporting onely what their own words and sayinges be And if they be no true christen men that trouble their heades with such matters as you affirme they be not then was Innocent the third the chiefe author of your doctrin both of transubstantiation and of the reall preseÌ„ce no true christian man as I beleeue well inough Then was your Saint Thomas no true christian man Then Gabriell Duns Durand and the great rablement of the schoole authors which taught your doctrin of traÌ„substantiation and of the reall presence were not true christen men And in few words to comprehend the whol then were almost none that taught that doctrine true christen men but your selfe alone For almost all with one consent doe teach that wholl Christ is really in euery part of the host But your termes here of rayling mocking and scorning I would haue taken patiently at your hand if your tongue and pen had not ouershot theÌ„ selues in braging so far that the truth by you should be defaced But now I shal be so bold as to send those termes thether from whence they came And for the matter it selfe I am ready to ioyn an issue with you notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words But in Gods workes say you as the Sacramentes be we must think all seemelines in deede without deformity But what seemelines is this in a mannes body that the head is where the feete be and the armes where the legges be which the Papistes doe teach and your selfe seeme to confesse when you say that the partes of Christes body be distinct in themselues one from another in their own substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places And yet you seeme again to deny the same in your wise dialogue or quadriloge betweene the curious questioner the folish ansÌ„werer your wise catholick man standing by and the mediator In which dialoge you bring in your wise catholick man to condemne of madnes all such as say that Christes head is there where his feete be and so you condemne of madnes not onely al the scholasticall doctors which say that Christ is wholl in euery part of the coÌ„secrated bread but also your own former saying where you deny the distinction of the partes of Christs body in seuerall places Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser then you all who losing this knot of Gordius saith that Christes body how big soeuer it be may be as well signified by a little peece of bread as by a greate and so as concerning the reason of a sacrameÌ„t al is one whether it be an whol bread or a peece of it as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the wholl fonte or in a parte of the water taken out therof For the respect and consideration of the Sacrament is all one in the lesse and more But this fourth man say you hath no participation with faith condemning all the true publick faith testified in the church from the beginning hetherto which hath euer with wonder marueiled at the mistery of the Sacrament which is no wonder at all if bread be but a signification of Christ his body this is a wonderfull saying of you as of one that vnderstoode nothing vtterly what a Sacrament meaneth and what is to be wondred at in the Sacrament For the wonder is not how God worketh in the outward visible Sacrament but his marueilous worke is in the worthy receauers of the Sacramentes The wonderfull worke of God is not in the water which oâ—ely washeth the body but God by his omnipotent power worketh wonderfully in the receauers thereof scouring washing and making them clean inwardly and as it were new meÌ„ and celestiall creatures This haue allâ—olde authors wondered at this wonder passeth the capacities of all mens wits how damnation is turned into saluation and of the Sonne of the deuill condemned into hell is made the Sonne of God and inheritour of heauen This wonderfull worke of God all men may maruel and wonder at but no creature is able sufficiently to comprehend it And as this is wondred at in the Sacrament of Baptisme how he that was subiect vnto death receiueth life by Christ and his holy Spirite So is this wondred at in the Sacrament of Christes holy Table how the same life is continued and endureth for euer by continuall feeding vpon Christes flesh and his bloud And these wonderfull workes of God towardes vs we be taught by Gods holy worde and his Sacramentes of breade wine and water and yet be not these woÌ„derfull workes of God in the Sacraments but in vs. And although many authors vse this manner of speech that Christ maketh bread his body and wine his bloud and wonder thereat yet those authors mean not of the bread and wine in them selues but of the bread and wine eaten and dronken of faithfull people For when Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud he wake not those words to the bread wine but to the eaters and drinkers of them saying Eat this is my body Drink this is my
And yet it is not to be denied but that Christ is truely eaten as he was truly born but the one corporally and without figure and the other spiritually and with a figure Now followeth my 11 comparison They say that the body of Christ is euery day many tymes made as often as there be Masses sayd and that then and there he is made of bread and wine We say that Christes body was neuer but once made and then not of the nature substance of bread and wine but of the substance of his blessed mother Winchester The body of Christ is by Gods omnipotency who so worketh in his word made present vnto vs at such tyme as the church praye it may please him so to doe which prayer is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayer now set foorth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ which they can not be vnlesse God worketh it and make them so to be In which mistery it was neuer taught as this author willingly misreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that order exhibited and made preset vnto vs by conuersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine but a new presence of the body that is neuer old made present there where the substāce of bread and wine was before So as this comparison of difference is meere wrangling and so euident as it needeth no further aunswere but a note Lo how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter and without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in sclander if it were possible May not this be accompted as a part of Gods punishmēt for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part Caunterbury Christ is present when so euer the church praieth vnto him and is gathered togither in his name And the bread and wine be made vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ as it is in the book of common praier but not by chaunging the substaunce of bread and wine into the substance of Christes naturall body and bloud but that in the godly vsing of thē they be vnto the receauers Christes body and bloud As of some the Scripture saith that their riches is their redemption and to some it is their damnatiō And as Gods word to some is life to some it is death and a snare as the prophet saith And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at to some is a raysing frō death not by conuersion of substances but by good or euill vse that thing which to the godly is saluation to the vngodly is damnation So is the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Lords supper to the worthy receauers Christ himselfe and eternall life and to the vnworthy receauers euerlasting death and damnation not by conuersion of one substance into an other but by godly or vngodly vse thereof And therfore in the book of the holy communion we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and bloud of Christ but that vnto vs in that holy mistery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthely receaue the same that we may be partakers of Christes body and bloud and that therwith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished And a like praier of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion of all such offerings as at that time all the people vsed to offer praying that their offerings might be vnto them the body and bloud of Christ. And where you say it was neuer taught as I say that Christs body is made of the matter of bread you knowingly and willingly misreport me For I say not of the matter of bread but of bread which when you deny that the Papists so say it semeth you be now ashamed of the doctrin which the Papistes haue taught thys 4. or 5. hundred yeres For is it not playnely written of all the Papists both lawyers and scholl authors that the body of Christ in the sacramēt is made of bread and his bloud of wine And they say not that his body is made present of bread wine but is made of bread and wine Be not their books in print ready to be shewed Do they not say that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into nothing but into the body of Christ And do not your selfe also say here in this place that the substance of bread is conuerted into Christes precious body And what is that els but the body of Christ to be made of bread and to be made of a new matter For if the bread doe not vanish away into nothing but be turned into Christes body then is Christs body made of it and then it must needes follow that Christes body is made of new and of an orher substance then it was made of in his mothers wombe For there it was made of her flesh and bloud and here it is made of bread and wine And the Papistes say not as you now would shift of the matter that Christes body is made present of bread but they say plainly without addition that it is made of bread Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the Papists Ex pane fit Corpus Christi of bread is made the body of Christ and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance therof◠And what reason sentence or english could be in this saying Christes body is made present of bread Marye to be present in bread might be some sentence but the speeche will you in no wise admitte And this your saying here if the reader mark it wel turneth ouer quite and cleane all the wholl Papisticall doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament as well touching transubstantiation as also the carnall presence For their doctrine with one whol consent and agreement is this That the substance of bread remaineth not but is turned into the substance of Christes body and so the body of Christ is made of it But this is false say you and not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a place to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And so the wholl doctrine of the papists which they haue taught these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares doe you condemne with condigne reproches as a teaching intollerable not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play Why doe you then take vpon you to defend the Papistical doctrine if it be so intollerable Why doe you not forsake those scoffers and players which haue iugled with the world so long and embrace the
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
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
so no certayntie of any true body to be in Christ This reason had been more fitte to be made by a man that had lost both his witte and reason For in this place Tertullian must needes be so vnderstand that by the body of Christ is vnderstand the figure of his body because Tertullian so expoundeth it him selfe And must it be always so bicause it is here so Must euer Christes body be taken for a figure bicause it is here taken for a figure as Tertullian sayth Haue you so forgotten your Logike that you will make a good argument à particulari ad vniuersale By your owne manner of argumentation bicause you make a naughty argumēt here in this place shall I conclude that you neuer make none good Surely this place of Tertullian as you haue handled it is neither secret nor manifest poynt eyther of learning witte or reason but a meere sophistication if it be no worse What other papistes haue aunswered to this place of Tertullian I am not ignoraunt nor I am sure you be not so ignoraunt but you know that neuer none aunswered as you do But your answer varieth as much from all other papists as yours theyrs also do varie from the truth Here the reader may note by the way how many fowle shiftes you make to auoyd the saying of Tertullian First you say that bread was a figure in the prophets mouth but not in Christes wordes Second that the thing which the prophet spake of was not that which Christ spake of Third that other haue aunswered this place of Tertullian before Forth that you call this matter but a wrangling argument Fift that if Tertulian call bread a figure yet he termeth it not onely figure These be your shiftes Now let the reader looke vpon Tertullians playn wordes whyche I haue rehearsed in my booke and then let him iudge whether you meane to declare Tertullians mynd truely or no. And it is not requiset for my purpose to proue that bread is onely a figure for I take vpon me there to proue no more but that the bread is a figure representing Christes body and the wine his bloud And if breade be a figure and not onely a figure than must you make bread both the figure and the truth of the figure Now heare what other authors I do here alleadge And saynt Ciprian the holy marter sayth of this matter that Christs bloud is shewed in the wine and the people in the water that is mixt with the wine so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spirituall commixtion and ioyning of vs vnto Christ. By which similitude Ciprian ment not that the bloud of Christ is wine or the people water but as the water doeth signifie and represent the people so doeth the wine signify and represent Christs bloud and the vniting of the water and wine together signifieth the vniting of Christian people vnto Christ himselfe And the same saynt Ciprian in an other place writing here of sayth that Christ in his last supper gaue to his apostles with his owne handes bread and wine which he called his flesh and bloud but in the crosse he gaue his very body to be wounded with the handes of the souldiours that the apostles might declare to the world how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and bloud of Christ. And the manner he straight wayes declareth thus that those things which do signifye and those thinges which be signified by them may be both called by one name Here it is certain by saynt Ciprians mind wherfore and in what wise bread is called Christes flesh and wine his bloud that is to say because that euery thing that representeth and signifieth an other thing may be called by the name of thing which it signifieth And therfore Saynt Iohn Chrisostom sayth that Christ ordayned the table of his holy supper for this purpose that in that sacramēt he should dayly shew vnto vs bread and wine for a similitude of his body and bloud Saynt Hierom likewise sayth vpon the gospell of Mathew that Christ took bread which comforteth mans hart that he mght represent thereby his very body and bloud Also Saynt Ambrose if the booke be his that is intituled De his qui misterijs initianter sayth that before the consecration an other kind is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified Christ sayd his bloud beefore the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration is signified the bloud of Christ. And in his booke De sacramentis if that be also his he writeth thus Thou doost receiue the sacrament for a similitud of the flesh and bloud of Christ but thou doost obtayne the grace and vertue of his true nature And receiuing the bread in that foode thou art partaker of his godly substaunce And in the same booke he sayth As thou hast in baptisme reciued the similitude of death so likewise dost thou in the sacramēt drink the similitude of Christes precious bloud And agayne he sayeth in the sayd booke The priest sayth Make vnto vs this oblation to be acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ. And vpon the epistle of Saynt Paule to the Corinthians he sayth that in eating and drinking the bread and wine we doe signifie the flesh and bloud which were offered for vs. And the olde tastament he sayeth was instituted in bloud because that bloud was a witnes of gods benefite in signification and figure wherof we take the mistical cup of his bloud to the tuitiō of our body soule Of these places of saynt Chrisostom saynt Hierom and saynt Ambrose it is cleare that in the sacramentall bread and wine is not rially and corporally the very naturall substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ but that the bread and wine be similitudes misteries and representations significations sacramentes figures and signes of his body and bloud and therfore be called and haue the name of his very body flesh and bloud Winchester Ciprian shal be touched after when we speake of him agayn Chrisostom shall open himselfe hereafter playnly Saynt Hierom speaketh here very pithely vsing the word represent which signifieth a true reall exhibision for saynt Hierom speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an onely figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure the inuisible part is a truth which saynt Hierom sayth is here represented that is to say made present which onely signification doth not Saynt Ambrose shall after declare himselfe and it is not denied but the authors in speaking of the sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude token but those speaches exclude not the veritie and truth of the body and bloud of Christ for no approued author hath this exclution to say an onely signe an only token an
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
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
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
are called by Damascene the body and bloud of Christ bicause that such persons through the working of the holy ghost be so knitte and vnited spiritually to Christes flesh and bloud and to his diuinite also that they be fedde with them vnto euerlasting life Furthermore Damascene sayth not that the sacrament should bee worshiped and adored as the Papists terme it which is playne idolatrye but that we must worship Christ God and man And yet we may not worship him in bread and wine but sittyng in heauen with his father and being spiritually within our selues Nor he sayth not that there remayneth no bread nor wine nor none other substaunce but only the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ but he sayth playnly that as a burning coale is not wodde only but fier and wodde ioyned together so the bread of the Communion is not bread only but bread ioyned to the diuinite But those that say that there is none other substaunce but the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ do not onely deny that there is bread and wine but by force they must deny also that there is either Christes diuinitie or his soule For if the flesh and bloud the soule and diuininitie of Christ be foure substances and in the sacrament be but two of them that is to say his flesh and bloud than where is his soule and diuinitie And thus these men diuide Iesus seperating his diuinitie from his humanitie Of whome S. Iohn sayth Whosoeuer deuideth Iesus is not of God but he is Antichrist And moreouer these men do so separate Christes body from his members in the sacramēt that they leaue him no mans body at all For as Damascene sayth that the distinctiō of members pertayne so much to the nature of mans body that where there is no such distinctiō there is no perfect mans body But by these papists doctrine there is no such distinction of members in the sacrament for either there is no head feete handes armes legges mouth eyes and nose at all or els all his head all feete all handes all armes all legges all mouth all eyes and all nose And so they make of Christes body no mans body at all Thus being confuted the Papists erroures aswell concerning Transubstanciation as the real corporal and naturall presence of Christ in the sacrament which were two principall poyntes purposed in the beginning of this worke Now it is tyme some thing to speake of the third errour of the papistes which is concerning the eating of Christes very body and drinking of his bloud Winchester Last of all the author bussieth himselfe with Damascene and goeth about to aunswer hym by making of a summe which summe is so wrong accompted that euery man that readeth Damascene may be auditour to controule it And this will I say Damascene writeth so euidently in the matter that Peter Martyr for a shift is fayne to finde fault in his iudgement and age and yet he is .viii. C. yeares olde at the least and I say at the least because he is relieued of summe halfe as old agayne And what so euer his iudgement were he writeth as Melancton sayth his testimony of the fayth of the Sacrament as it was in his time I would write in here Damasceus wordes to compare them with the summe collected by this author wherby to disproue his particulars playnly but the wordes of Damascene be to be redde translated already abrode As for the foure substances which this author by accompte numbreth of Christ myght haue bene left vnreckened by tale because amonge them that be faythfull and vnderstand truely wher soeuer the substaunce of Christes very body is there is also vnderstanded by concomitaunce to be present the substaunce of his soule as very man and also of the Godhead as very God And in the mater of the sacrament therfore contending with hym that woulde haue the substaunce of bread there it may be sayd there is in the Sacrament the onely substaunce of Christes bodye because the worde onely thus placed excludeth other straunge substaunces and not the substances which without contention be knowen and confessed vnite with Christes body And so a man may be sayd to be alone in his house when he hath no straungers although he hath a number of his owne men And Erasmus noteth how the euangilest writeth Christ to haue prayed alone and yet certayne of his disciples were there And if in a contention raysed whether the father and sonne were both killed in such a field or no I defended the father to haue bene onely killed there and therupon a wager layd should I lose if by profe it appeared that not onely the father but also three or fower of the fathers seruauntes were slayne but the sonne escaped And as in this speache the worde onely serued to exclude that was in contention and not to reduce the number to one no more is it in the speach that this author would reproue and therfore neded not to haue occupyed him selfe in the matter wherin I heard him once say in a good audiēce hym selfe was satisfied In which mynde I would he had continued and hauing so sclender stuffe as this is and the truth so euident agaynst him not to haue resuscitate this so often reproued vntruth wherin neuer hitherto any one could preuayle Caunterbury AS for Damascene needeth no further aunswer then I haue made in my former booke But I pray the reader that he will diligently examine the place and so to be an indifferent auditour betwixt vs two Now when you be called to accompt for the number of substaunces in the Sacramēt I perceaue by your wrangling that you be somewhat moued with this audite for bycause you be called to accompt And I can not blame you though it somewhat greeue you for it toucheth the very quicke And although I my selfe can right well vnderstand your numbers that when you name but one you meane fower yet you should haue considered before hand to whome your booke was written You wrote to playne simple people in the english tongue which vnderstande no further but one to be one and fower to be fower And therfore when you say there is but one and meane fower you attemper not your speach to the capacities of them to whome you write Now haue I aunswered to all your friuilous cauilations agaynst my thyrd booke and fortified it so strongly that you haue spent all your shotte and powder in vayne And I trust I haue eyther broken your peeces or pegged them that you shall be able to shoote no more Or if you shoote the shotte shall be so faynte that it shall not be able to perce through a paper leafe And the life I trust to doe to all the munition and ordinaunce layde agaynst my fourth booke THE CONFVTATION OF the fourth booke THus hauing perused the effect of the third booke I will likewise peruse the fourth and then shall follow
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
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
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
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
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
a fall as you shall neuer be able to stand vpright agayne in this matter And my shaftes be shot so straight agaynst you and with such a force that they perse through shilde haburgen in such sort that all the harnes you haue is not able to withstand them or to make one arrow to start backe although to auoyde the stroke you shift your place seeking some meane to flye the fight For when I make mine argument of Transubstantiation you turne the matter to the reall presence like vnto a surgeon that hath no knowledge but when the head is wounded or sore he layth a playster to the heele Or as the prouerbe sayth Interrogatus de alijs respondet de caepis when you be asked of garlicke you answer of onions And this is one prety sleight of sophistry or of a subtill warrier when he seeth him selfe ouermatched and not able to resist then by some policy quite to put of or at the least to delay the conflict and so do you commonly in this booke of Transubstantiation For when you be sore pressed therin than you turne the matter to the reall presence But I shall so straytly pursue you that you shall not so escape For where you say that the fathers which vsed the examples of the Sacrament and of the body and bloud of Christ to shew the vnity of two natures in Christ did beleue that as really and as truely the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the Sacrament the fathers neither sayd nor beleued as you here report but they taught that both the Sacrament and the thing therby represented which is Christes body remayne in their proper substaunce and nature the signe being here and the thing signified being in heauen and yet of these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church But it is not required that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the signe and figure as the soule is in the body bicause there is no such vnion of person nor it is not required in the soule and body that they should be euer togither for Christes body and soule remayned both without eyther corruption or Transubstantiation when the soule was gone downe into hell and the body rested in the sepulcher And yet was he than a perfect man although his soule was not than really present with the body And it is not so great a meruayle that his body should be in heauen and the sacrament of it here as it is that his body should be here and his soule in hell And if the Sacrament were a man and the body of Christ the soule of it as you dreame in your traunse then were the Sacrament not in a traunse but dead for the tyme whilest it were here and the soule in heauen And like scoffing you might make of the Sacrament of Baptisme as you doe in the Sacrament of Christes body that it lyeth here in a traunse when Christ being the life therof is in heauen And where you thinke that my second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of me when I minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Trāsubstantiation onely you haue no probatiō of your thought but still you remayne in your dreames traunses and vayne phantasies which you haue vsed throughout your booke so that what so euer is in the bread and wine there is in you no Transubstantiation nor alteration in this thing at all And what auayleth it you so often to affirme this vntruth that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament as the soule of man is present in the body except you be like to them that tell a lye so often that with often repeating they think men beleue it and sometyme by often telling they beleue it them selues But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soule of man to proue therby the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament but to proue the two natures of the godhead and the manhoode in the person of Christ. Lette vs now discusse the minde of Chrisostome in this matter whome I bring thus in my booke S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth against the pestilēt errour of Apolinaris which affirmed that the Godhead and manhod in Christ were so mixed and confounded togither that they both made but one nature Agaynst whome S. Iohn Chrisostome writeth thus When thou speakest of God thou must consider a thing that in nature is single without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with such like And when thou speakest of man thou meanest a nature that is weake subiect to hunger thirst weeping feare sweating and such like passions which can not be in the diuine nature And when thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures togither in one persone who is both passible and impassible Passible as concerning his flesh and impassible in his deite And after he concludeth saying Wherfore Christ is both God and man God by his impassible nature and man bicause he suffered He himselfe being one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned togither which be not of one substance but ech of them hath his properties distinct from the other And therfore remayneth there two natures distinct and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord although the nature of the bread remayne still in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of Gods sonne so likewise here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of S. Chrisostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecration the nature of bread remayneth still although it haue an higher name and be called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eate the supernaturall bread of the body of Christ who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sitteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Winchester S. Chrisostomes wordes in deede if this author had had them eyther truely translated vnto him or had taken the paynes to haue truly translated them himselfe which as Peter Martyr sayth be not in print but were found in Florence a copy wherof remayneth in the archdeacon or Archbishop of Caunterburies handes or els if this author had reported the wordes as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyrs booke wherin some poynt the translator in English semeth to haue attayned by gesse the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr vttereth it himselfe if eyther of this had bene done the matter should haue seemed for so much the more playne But
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
if you deny you know whose spirite yon haue But your trust is altogither in obscure speaches wherwith you trust so to darken the matter that no man shall vnderstand it least that if they vnderstand it they must needes perceaue your ignorance and error But when you promise to come to the purpose as to say the truth all that you sayd before is clearly without purpose but when you promise I say now at length to come to the purpose your answere is nothing to the purpose of S. Chrisostoms mynd for he made not his resemblance as you say he did onely to shew the remayning of the accidents which you call the properties but to shew the remayning of the substances with all the naturall properties therof That as Christ had here in earth his diuinity and humanity remayning euery of them with his naturall properties the substance of his godhead being a nature single without composition without conuersion inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible and such like for these be Chrisostomes owne wordes and the substance of his humanity being a feble nature subiect to hunger thyrst weeping feare sweating and such passions so is it in the bread and Christes body that the bread after sanctification or consecration as you call it remayneth in his substance that it had before and likewise doth the body of Christ remayne still in heauen in his very true substance wherof the bread is a Sacrament and figure For els if the substance of the bread remayned not how could Chrisostome bring it for a resemblance to proue that the substance of Christes humanity remayneth with his diuinity Mary this that you say had bene a gay lesson for the Manichees to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents therof and yet is none in deede that then by this similitude they might say likewise that Christ appeared a man by all the accidences and properties of a man and yet he was none in deede And to make an ende of this author your vayne comment will not serue you to call the accidents of bread the nature of bread except you will alow the same in the Manichees that the nature of Christes body is nothing els but the accidences therof Now followeth Gelasius of the same matter Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius writing agaynst Eutiches and Nestorius of whome the one sayd that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other affirmed cleane contrary that he was very God but not man But agaynst these two heinous heresies Gelasius proueth by most manifest scriptures that Christ is both God and man and that after his Incarnation remayneth in him as well the nature of his Godhead as the nature of his manhod so that he hath in him two natures with their naturall properties and yet is he but one Christ. And for the more euident declaration hereof he bringeth two examples the one is of man who being but one yet he is made of two partes hath in him two natures remayning both togither in him that is to say the body the soule with their naturall properties The other example is of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which sayth he is a godly thing and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be there still Note well these wordes agaynst all the Papistes of our tyme that Gelasius which was Bishop of Rome more then a thousand yeares passed writeth of this Sacrament that the bread and wine cease not to be there still as Christ ceased not to be God after his incarnation but remayned still perfect god as he was before Winchester Now followeth to answere to Gelasius who abhorring both the hereses of Eutiches and Nestorius in his treatise agaynst the Eutichians forgetteth not to compare with theyr errour in extremity in the one side the extreame errour of the Nestorians on the other side but yet principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians with whome he was specially troubled These two heresies were not so grosse as the author of this booke reporteth them wherin I will write what Uigilius sayth Inter Nestorij ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non testoris se dissipatoris non pastoris sed praedatoris sacrilegum dogma Eutichetis ne foriam detestabilem sectam ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit vt vtrumque sine vtriusque periculo plerique vitare non possint dum si quis Nestorij per fidiam damnat Eutichetis puratur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietatem destruit Nestorij arguitur dogma erigere These be Uigilius wordes in his first booke which be thus much in English Betwene the abominable teaching of Nestorius sometyme not ruler but waster not pastor but pray searcher of the church of Constantinople and the wicked and detestable sect of Eutiches the craft of the deuils spoyling so facioned it selfe that men could not auoyd any of the secrets without danger of the other So as whiles any man condemneth the falsenes of Nestorian he may be thought fallen to the errour of the Eutichian and whiles he destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichian and whiles be destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichians heresie he may be challenged to releeue the teaching of the Nestorian This is the sentence of Uigilius by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtill conueyed without so playne contradiction as this author eyther by ignorāce or of purpose fayneth as though the Nestorian should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the Eutichian cleane contrary very God but not man For if the heresies had bene such Uigilius had had no cause to speake of any such ambiguity as he noteth that a man should hardly speake agaynst the one but he might be suspected to fauor the other And yet I graunt that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God bicause they would two distinct different natures to make also two distinct persons and so as it were two Christs the one onely man and the other onely God so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate nor as Gregory Nazianzene sayth man deitate for so he is termed to say The Eutichians as S. Augustine sayth reasoning agaynst the Nestorians became heretiques themselues and bicause we confesse truely by fayth but one Christ the sonne of God very God The Eutichians say although there were in the virgins wombe before the adunation two natures yet after the adunation in that mistery of Christes incarnation there is but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fansye transfused and so confounded wherupon by implication a man might gather the nature of humanity not to remayne in Christ after the adunation in the virgins wombe Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in his proces vttereth a catholike meaning against them both but he directeth speciall arguments of the two natures in man
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
though men had inuented and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must beleeue that is to say the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament according to the wordes of Christ This is my body which exclude the substance of bread declaring the substance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the Sacrament by the true fayth of a christen man Compare with this what this author writeth in hys ninth difference in the 47. leafe of his boke and so consider the truth of this report and how this author agreeth with himselfe Caunterbury I Suspect not the iudgement of the indifferent reader so much but that he can perceaue how vndirectly you answere to this third absurdity and be loth as it seemeth to answere any thing at all But it is no little confirmation of the catholike fayth to see you Papists vary so much among your selues and you alone to diuise so many thinges contrary to all the rest and yet you be vncertayne your selfe what you may say They say also with one accord sauing onely Smith you that in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christes body For he is not there visible and sensible with his voyce to be heard his colours to be seene his softnes to be felt his quantities to be extended and to be locall in place with his other accidents so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament Smith sayth that he is there not naturally as you say but against nature with all his qualities and accidents You dare neither adde them nor drawe them away being vncertayue whether they be there or no and being also vncertayne whether in the sacrament he haue distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but iesting and rayling to you which for lacke of answer be glad to shift of the truth as a matter of iesting And it is not my terming without the booke and at my pleasure to speake of substances without accidents and accidents without substances For I speake none otherwise therein then as it hath pleased the Papistes before to terme the same in all their bookes of that matter but I termed this matter so vppon the papisticall bookes as they at their pleasure deuised or dreamed without all manner of bookes written before their tyme. And the force of scripture constrayneth no man to the beleefe of Transubstantiation although the body of Christ were really corporally and carnally present who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances as with the accidents of bread and wine as fully is declared before And where you alleadge the disagreing of me with my selfe if you would haue taken the payne to reade some of the schole authors you should haue learned that there is no disagrement in my sayings at all For they say that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper formes and quantities as I sayd in the 47. leafe But yet those accidents say they be in heauen and not in the sacrament as I say in this place not varying one mite from myne other saying But ignorance in you thinketh a difference where none is at all Now followeth the fourth absurdity Fourthly they say that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be hath no substance there to fill that place and so must they needes graunt vacuum which nature vtterly abhorreth Winchester This author goeth about to finde so many absurdities that he speaketh he wotteth not what and where he seeth and feeleth quantity accompteth the place voyd for want of substance as though in consideration of common naturall thinges seuerally as they be in nature it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantity although in the naturall order of thinges there is no quantity without substance and is in this Sacrament onely by miracle There wanted a substance in consideration of this absurdity and was such a vacuum as nature playnly endureth Caunterbury A Lithe authors that write what vacuum is account a place that is not filled with a substaunce which hath quantity in it to be void and emty So that my saying is not grounded vpon ignoraunce but vpon the mind of all that write in that matter Where as your saying that quantity alone filleth place without substaunce hath no ground at all but the Papistes bare imagination And if quantity in the sacrament be without substaunce by miracle it is maruaile that no auncient writer in no place of their bookes made any mention of such a miracle But your selfe graunt inough for my purpose in this place that it is an absurdity in nature and wrought onely by miracle that quantity occupieth a place alone without substaunce Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right fayth but onely of your errour of transubstantiation Now to the fift absurdity Fiftly they are not ashamed to say that substaunce is made of accidentes when the bread mouleth or is turned into wormes or when the wine sowreth Winchester True beleuing men are not ashamed to confes the trueth of theyr fayth whatsoeuer arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary For Christes workes we know to be true by a most certayne fayth what mouldeth in bread or sowreth in wine we be not so assured or wheron worms ingēder it is not so fully agréed on amōg men The learned lawyer Vlpian writeth as I haue before alleadged that wine and vineger haue in manner one substaunce so as when wine sowreth and is vineger in manner the same substaunce remayneth in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that meanes that the accidents onely sower And if we agrée with the Phylosophers that there is Materia prima which in all thinges is one and altereth not but as a newe forme commeth taketh a new name fansying that as one waue in the water thrusteth away an other so doth one forme an other It should séeme by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents and the corruption of accidentes to be the generation of new accidentes the same Materia prima being as it were substantia that altereth not And this I write that may be sayd as it were to make a title to this authors certainety which is not so sure as he maketh it Amonges men haue bene maruailous fansies in consideration of naturall thinges and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret and therfore to our certaine fayth But to come nerer to the purpose it is wrong borne in hand that we affirme wormes to be engendred of accidentes but when the wormes be ingendred we graunt the wormes to be and will rather say whereof they be we cannot tell then to say that substaunce is made of accidents and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation and such as intreat those chaunces and accidentes doe not induce that
were the figure of the body of Christ in the Sacrament that processe declareth the mynde of the author to be that in the Sacrament is present the very truth of Christes body not in a figure agayne to ioyne one shadow to an other but euen the very truth to aunswere the figure and therfore no particular wordes in S. Hierome can haue any vnderstādyng contrary to his mynde declared in this processe Caunterbury TO S. Hierome I haue aunswered sufficiently before to your confutation of my third booke almost in the end which should be in vayne to repeate her agayne therfore I will go to your last marke Winchester Fourthly an other certaine marke is where the old authors write of the adoration of this Sacrament which can not be but to the thynges godly really present And therfore Saint Augustine writyng in his booke De Catechisandis rudibus how the inuisible thynges be honoured in this Sacrament meanyng the body and bloud of Christ and in the 98. Psalme speaketh of adoration Theodoretus also speakyng specially of adoration of this Sacrament These authors by this marke that is most certaine take away all such ambiguitie as men might by suspicious diuination gather sometyme of their seuerall wordes and declare by this marke of adoration playnly their fayth to haue bene and also their doctrine vnderstanded as they ment of the reall presence of Christes very body and bloud in the Sacrament and Christ him selfe God and mā to be there present to whose diuine nature and the humanitie vnite thereunto adoration may onely be directed of vs. And so to conclude vp this matter for as much as one of these foure markes and notes maybe founde testified and apparaunt in the auncient writers with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same this should suffice to exclude all argumentes of any by sentences and ambiguous speaches and to vphold the certaintie of the true Catholicke fayth in déede which this author by a wrong name of the Catholicke fayth impugneth to the great slaunder of the truth and his owne reproch Caunterbury YOur fourth marke also of adoratiō proueth no more that Christ is present in the Lordes Supper then that he is present in Baptisme For no lesse is Christ to be honored of him that is Baptised thē of him that receaueth the holy Communiō And no lesse ought he that is Baptised to beleue that in Baptisme he doth presently in deede and in truth put Christ vpon him and apparell him with Christ then he that receaueth the holy Communion ought to beleue that he doth presently feede vpon Christ eatyng his flesh and drinkyng his bloud which thyng the Scripture doth playnly declare and the old authours in many places do teach And moreouer the forme of Baptisme doth so manifestly declare Christ to be honored that it cōmaundeth the Deuill therein to honour him by these wordes Da honorem Deo Da gloriam Iesu Christo. With many other wordes declaryng Christ to bee honored in Baptisme And although our Sauiour Christ is specially to be adored and honored when he by his holy word and Sacramentes doth assure vs of his present grace benefites yet not onely then but alway in all our actes and deedes we should lift vp our hartes to heauen and ther glorifie Christ with his celestiall father and coeternall spirit So vntrue it is that you say that adoration can not be done to Christ but if he be really present The Papistes teach vs to haue in honour and reuerence the formes and accidentes of bread and wyne if they be vomited vp after the body and bloud of Christ be gone away and say that they must be had in great reuerence bicause the body and bloud of Christ had bene there And not onely the formes of bread and wyne say they must be kept with great reuerence but also the ashes of them for they commaund them to be burned into ashes must be kept with like reuerence And shall you than forbid any man to worshyp Christ him selfe when he doth spiritually and effectually eate his very flesh and drinke his very bloud when you will haue such honour and reuerēce done to the ashes which come not of the body and bloud of Christ but onely as you teach of the accidents of bread and wyne Thus haue I confuted your confutation of my second book concernyng Transubstātiation wherin you be so far from the cōfutation of my booke as you promised that you haue done nothyng els but confounded your selfe studying to seeke out such shiftes and cauillations as before your tyme were neuer deuised yet constrayned to graunt such errours and monstrous speaches as to Christen eares be intollerable So that my former booke aswell cōcernyng the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud as the eatyng and drinkyng of the same and also transubstantiation standeth fast and sure not once moued or shaken with all your ordinaunce shot agaynst it But is now much stronger then it was before beyng so mured and bulwarked that it neuer neede hereafter to feare any assault of the enemies And now let vs examine your confutation of the last part of my booke conteinyng the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiuiour Christ. ¶ The end of the second booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE FIFTE BOOKE AS touchyng the fift booke the title wherof is of the oblatiō and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ somewhat is by me spoken before which although it be sufficient to the matter yet some what more must also be now sayd wherewith to encounter the authours imaginations and surmises with the wrong construyng of the Scriptures and authours to wreast them besides the truth of the matter and their meanyng This is agréed and by the Scriptures playnly taught that the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ was and is a perfect worke once consummate in perfection with out necessitie of reiteration as it was neuer taught to be reiterate but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it It is also in the Catholicke teachyng grounded vpon the Scripture agrèed that the same sacrifice ones consummate was ordeined by Christes institution in his most holy Supper to be in the Church often remembred and shewed forth in such sort of shewyng as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ vnder the formes of bread and wyne which body and bloud the faythfull Church of Christen people graunt and confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue bene betrayed and shed for the sinnes of the world and so in the same Supper represented and deliuered vnto them to eate and fèede of it accordyng to Christes commaundement as of a most precious and acceptable sacrifice acknowledgyng the same precious body and bloud to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world whereunto they onely resort and onely accompt that their very perfect oblation and sacrifice of Christen people through which all other sacrifices necessarie on our part be
be Baptised for an other and if he be it auayleth nothyng so ought not one to receiue the holy Communion for an other For if a man be dry or hungry he is neuer a whit eased if an other man drinke or eate for him or if a man be all befiled it helpeth him nothing an other man to bewashed for him So auayleth it nothyng to a man if an other man be Baptised for him or be refreshed for him with the meate and drinke at the Lordes Table And therfore sayd S. Peter Let euery man be Baptised in the name of Iesu Christ. And our Sauiour Christ sayd to the multitude Take and care And further he sayd Drinke you all of this Whosoeuer therfore will be spiritually regenerated in Christ he must be Baptised him selfe And he that will liue him selfe by Christ must by him selfe eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud And briefly to conclude He that thinketh to come to the kyngdome of Christ him selfe must also come to his Sacramentes him selfe and keepe his Commaundements him selfe and do all thynges that pertayne to a Christian man and to his vocation him selfe least if he referre these thynges to an other man to do them for him the other may with as good right clayme the kyngdome of heauen for him Therfore Christ made no such difference betwene the priest and the lay mā that the priest should make oblation and sacrifice of Christ for the lay man and eate the Lordes Supper from him all alone and distribute and apply it as him liketh Christ made no such difference but the difference that is betwene the priest and the lay man in this matter is onely in the ministration that the priest as a common minister of the Church doth minister and distribute the Lords Supper vnto other and other receaue it at his handes But the very Supper it selfe was by Christ instituted and geuen to the whole Church not to be offered and eaten of the priest for other men but by him to be deliuered to all that would duely aske it As in a princes house the officers and ministers prepare the Table and yet other aswel as they eate the meate and drinke the drinke so do the priests and ministers prepare the Lordes Supper read the Gospell and rehearse Christes wordes but all the people say therto Amen All remember Christes death all geue thankes to God all repent and offer them selues an oblation to Christ all take him for their Lord and Sauiour and spiritually feede vpon him and in token therof they eate the bread and drinke the wine in his mysticall Supper And this nothyng diminisheth the estimation and dignitie of priesthode and other ministers of the Church but aduaunceth and highly commendeth their ministration For if they are much to be loued honored and esteemed that be the kynges Chauncelours Iudges officers and ministers in temporall matters how much than are they to be estemed that be ministers of Christes wordes and Sacramentes and haue to them committed the keyes of heauen to let in and shut out by the ministration of his word and Gospell Now for asmuch as I trust that I haue playnly inough set forth the propitiatory sacrifice of our Sauiour Iesu Christ to the capacitie and comfort of all men that haue any vnderstandyng of Christ and haue declared also the haynous abhomination and Idolatry of the Popishe Masse wherein the priestes haue taken vpon them the office of Christ to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the people and I haue also told what maner of sacrifice Christen people ought to make it is now necessary to make aunswere to the subtle persuasions and Sophisticall cauillations of the Papistes whereby they haue deceaued many a simple man both learned and vnlearned The place of S. Paule vnto the Hebrues which they doe cite for their purpose maketh quite and cleane agaynst them For where S. Paule sayth that euery high priest is ordayned to offer giftes and sacrifices for sinnes he spake not that of the priestes of the new Testamēt but of the old which as he sayth offered Calues and Goates And yet they were not such priestes that by their offerynges and sacrifices they could take away the peoples sinnes but they were shadowes and figures of Christ our euerlastyng priest which onely by one oblation of him selfe taketh away the sinnes of the world Wherfore the Popish priestes that apply this text vnto thēselues do directly contrary to the meanyng of S. Paule to the great iniury and preiudice of Christ by whom onely S. Paule sayth that the sacrifice and oblation for the sinne of the whole world was accomplished and fulfilled And as litle serueth for the Papistes purpose the text of the Prophet Malachie that euery where should be offered vnto God a pure sacrifice and oblation For the Prophet in that place spake no word of the Masse nor of any oblation propitiatory to be made by the priestes but he spake of the oblation of all faythfull people in what place so euer they be which offer vnto God with pure hartes and myndes sacrifices of laude and prayse prophecying of the vocation of the Gentiles that God would extende his mercy vnto them and not be the God onely of the Iewes but of all nations from East to West that with pure fayth call vpon him and glorifie his name But the aduersaries of Christ gather together a great heape of Authours whiche as they say call the Masse or holy Communion a Sacrifice But all those Authours be aunswered vnto in this one sentence that they called it not a sacrifice for sinne bycause that it taketh away our sinne which is takē away onely by the death of Christ but bicause the holy Cōmunion was ordeined of Christ to put vs in remēbraūce of the sacrifice made by him vpō the crosse for that cause it beareth the name of that sacrifice as S. Augustin declareth plainly in his Epistle ad Bonifacium before rehearsed in this booke pag. 141. And in his booke De fide ad Petrum Diaconū And in his booke De Ciuitate Dei he sayth That which men call a sacrifice is a signe or representation of the true sacrifice And the Maister of the Sentence of whom all the Schoole Authours take their occasion to write iudged truely in this poynt saying That whiche is offered and consecrated of the priest Is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy oblation made in the aultar of the Crosse. And S. Iohn Chrisostome after he hath sayd that Christ is our Byshop which offered that Sacrifice that made vs cleane and that we offer the same now least any man might be deceiued by his maner of speakyng he openeth his meanyng more playnly saying That which we doe is done for a remembraunce of that whiche was done by Christ For Christ sayth Doe this in remembraunce of me Also
at the holy communion by remembrance of the death resurrection and ascention of his sonne Iesu Christ and by confessing and setting forth of the same Heare by the vngodly handeling of this godly councell at his first beginning it may appeare to euery man how sincerely this Papist entendeth to proceede in the rest of this matter And with like sinceritie he vntruly belieth the sayd counsell saying that it doth playnly set forth the holy sacrifice of the Masse wich doth not so much as once name the Masse but speaketh of the sacrifice of the church which the sayd councell declareth to be the profession of christen people in setting forth the benefite of Christ who onely made the true sacrifice pro piciatory for remission of sinne And whosoeuer else taketh vpon him to make any such sacrifice maketh himselfe Antichrist And than he belyeth me in two thinges as he vseth commonly throughout his whole booke The one is that I deny the sacrifice of the Masse which in my booke haue most playnly set out the sacrifice of christen people in the holy communion or masse if D. Smith will needes so terme it and yet I haue denyed that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for sinne or that the priest alone maketh any sacrifice there For it is the sacrifice of all christen people to remember Christes death to laude and thanke him for it and to publish it and shew it abroad vnto other to his honor and glory The controuersy is not whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not for herein both D. Smith and I agree with the foresayd councell at Ephesus but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not and whether onely the priest make the sayd sacrifice these be the poyntes wherin we vary And I say so far as the councell sayth that there is a sacrifice but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sinne or that the priest alone doth offer it neyther I nor the counsell do so say but D. Smith hath added that of his owne vayne head The other thing wherin D. Smith belyeth me is this He sayth that I deny that we receaue in the sacrament that flesh which is adioyned to Gods owne sonne I meruaile not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had when he red ouer my booke It is like that he hath some priuy spectacles within his head wherwith when soeuer he loketh he seeth but what he list For in my booke I haue written in moe then an hundred places that we receaue the selfe same body of Christ that was borne of the virgine Mary that was crucified and buried that rose agayne ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty And the contention is onely in the manner and forme how we receaue it For I say as all the olde holy Fathers and Martirs vsed to say that we receaue Christ spiritually by fayth with our myndes eating his flesh and drincking his bloud so that we receaue Christes owne very naturall body but not naturally nor corporally But this lying papist sayth that we eate his naturall body corporally with our mouthes which neyther the counsell Ephesine nor any other auncient councell or doctor euer sayd or thought And the controuersy in the councell Ephesine was not of the vniting of Christes flesh to the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament but of the vniting of his flesh to his diuinity at his incarnation in vnity of person Which thing Nestorius the heretike denyed confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were but not that he was very God in nature which heresy that holy counsell confuting affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so ioyned in person to the dyuine nature that it was made the proper flesh of the sonne of God and flesh that gaue life but that the sayd flesh was present in the sacramēt corporally and eaten with our mouthes no mention is made therof in that councell And here I require D. Smith as proctor for the Papists eyther to bring forth some auncient councell or doctor that sayth as he sayth that Christs own naturall body is eaten corporally with our mouthes vnderstanding the very body in deed and not the signes of the body as Chrisostome doth or els let him confesse that my saying is true and recant his false doctrine the third tyme as he hath done twise already THan forth goeth this Papist with his preface and sayth that these wordes This is my body that shall be giuen to death for you no man can truely vnderstand of bread And his profe therof is this bicause that bread was not crucified for vs. First here he maketh a lye of Christ. For Christ said not as this papist alleadgeth This is my body which shal be giuen to death for you but onely he sayth This is my body which is giuen for you which wordes some vnderstand not of the giuing of the body of Christ to death but of the breaking and giuing of bread to his apostles as S. Paule sayd The bread which we breake c. But let it be that he spake of the geuing of his body to death and said of the bread This is my body which shal be geuen to death for you by what reason can you gather hereof that the bread was crucified for vs If I looke vpon the image of kinge Dauid and say This is he that killed Goliath doth this speach mean that the image of King Dauid killed Goliath Or if I hold in my hand my booke of S. Iohns gospell and say This is the gospell that S. Iohn wrote at Pathmos which fashion of speach is commonly vsed doth it folow hereof that my booke was written at Pathmos Or that S. Iohn wrote my booke which was but newly printed at Paris by Robert Stephanus Or if I say of my booke of S. Paules epistles This is Paule that was the great persecuter of Christ Doth this manner of speach signify that my booke doth persecute Christ Or if I shew a booke of the new testament saying This is the new testament which brought life vnto the world by what forme of argument can you induce hereof that my booke that I bought but yesterday brought life vnto the world No man that vseth thus to speake doth meane of the bookes but of the very thinges themselues that in the bookes be taught and contayned And after the same wise if Christ called bread his body saying This is my body which shall be giuen to death for you yet he ment not that the bread should be giuen to death for vs but his body which by the bread was signified If this excellent clarke and doctor vnderstand not these maner of speaches that be so playne then hath he doth lost his sences and forgotten his gramer which teacheth to referre the relatiue to the next antecedent But of these figuratiue speaches I haue spokē at large in my third booke First in the
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
body that shal be giuen for you I answer according to Cirils mynd vpon the same place that Christ alone suffered for vs all and by his woundes were we healed he bearing our sinnes in his body vpon a tree and being crucified for vs that by his death we might liue But what need I M. Smith to labor in answering to your question of the tyme when your question in it selfe contayneth the aunswere appoynteth the tyme of Christ giuing himselfe for the life of the world when you say that he gaue himselfe for vs to death which as you confes skant three lines before was not at his supper but vpon the crosse And if you will haue none other giuing of Christ for vs but at his supper as your reason pretendeth or els it is vtterly naught then surely Christ is much bound vnto you that haue deliuered him from all his mocking whipping scourging crucifying and all other paynes of death which he suffered for vs vpon the crosse and bring to passe that he was giuen onely at his supper without bloud or payne for the life of the world But then is all the world litle beholding vnto you that by deliuering of Christ from death will suffer all the world to remayne in death which can haue no life but by his death AFter the gospell of S. Ihon M. Smith aleadgeth for his purpose S. Paule to the corinthians who biddeth euery man to examine him selfe before he receaue this sacrament for he that eateth and drinketh it vnworthely is gilty of the body and bloud of Christ eating and drinking his owne damnation bicause he discerneth not our lordes body Here by the way it is to be noted that D. Smith in reciting the words of S. Paule doth alter them purposely commonly putting this word sacrament in the steede of these wordes bread and wine which wordes he semeth so much to abhorre as if they were toades or serpents bicause they make agaynst his Transubstantiation where as S. Paule euer vseth those wordes and neuer nameth this word Sacrament But to the matter What need we to examine our selues sayth D. Smith when we shall eate but common bread and drincke wine of the grape Is a man gilty of the body and bloud of Christ which eateth and drinketh nothing els but onely bare bread made of corne and meare wine of the grape Who sayth so good syr Do I say in my booke that those which come to the Lordes table do eate nothing els but bare bread made of corne nor drinke nothing but meare wine made of grapes How often do I teach and repeate agayne and agayne that as corporally with our mouthes we eate and drincke the sacramentall bread and wine so spiritually with our hartes by fayth do we eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud and do both feed and liue spiritually by him although corporally he be absent from vs and sitteth in heauē at his fathers right hand And as in baptisme we come not vnto the water as we come to other common waters when we washe our handes or bath our bodies but we know that it is a misticall water admonishing vs of the great and manifold mercies of God towards vs of the league and promise made betwene him and vs and of his wonderfull working and operation in vs. Wherfore we come to that water with such feare reuerence and humility as we would come to the presence of the father the sonne and the holy ghost and of Iesus Christ himselfe both God and man although he be not corporally in the water but in heauen aboue And who soeuer cōmeth to that water beyng of the age of discretiō must examine himselfe duely least if hee come vnworthely none otherwise then hee would come vnto other commō waters he be not renewed in Christ but in steede of saluation receaue his damnation Euen so it is of the bread and wine in the Lordes holy supper Wherfore euery man as S. Paule sayth must examine himselfe when he shall aproche to that holy table and not come to gods borde as he would do to common feastes and bankets but must consider that it is a misticall table where the bread is misticall and the wine also misticall wherin we be taught that we spiritually feed vpon Christ eating him and drincking him and as it were sucking out of his side the bloud of our redemption foode of eternall saluation although he be in heauen at his fathers right hand And whosoeuer cōmeth vnto this heauenly table not hauing regarde to Christes flesh bloud who should be there our spirituall foode but commeth therto without fayth feare humility reuerence as it were but to carnall feeding he doth not there feed vpon Christ but the deuill doth feede vpon him and deuoureth him as he did Iudas And now may euery man perceaue how fondly and falsly M. Smith concludeth of these wordes of S. Paule that our Sauiour Christes body and bloud is really and corporally in the sacrament AFter this he falleth to rayling lying and sclaundering of M. Peter Martir a man of that excellent learning and godly liuing that hee passeth D. Smith as farre as the sunne in his cleare light passeth the moone being in the Eclipse Peter Martyr sayth he at his first coming to Oxford when he was but a Lutherian in this matter taught as D. Smith now doth But when he came once to the Court saw that doctrine misliked them that might do him hurt in his liuing he anone after turned his tippet and sang an other song Of M. Peter Martyr his opinion and iudgement in this matter no man can better testify than I. For as much as hee lodged within my house long before he came to Oxford and I had with him many conferences in that matter and know that he was then of the same mynd that he is now and as hee defended after openly in Oxford and hath written in his booke And if D. Smith vnderstode him otherwise in his Lectures at the beginning it was for lacke of knowledge for that then D. Smith vnderstoode not the matter nor yet doth not as it appeareth by this folish and vnlearned booke which he hath now set out No more than he vnderstood my booke of the Cathechisme and therfore reporteth vntruly of me that I in that booke did set forth the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament Unto which false report I haue aunswered in my fourth booke the eight chapiter But this I confesse of my selfe that not long before I wrot the sayd Cathechisme I was in that error of the real presence as I was many yeares past in diuers other errors as of Transubstantiation of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priestes in the Masse of pilgrimages purgatory pardons and many other superstitions and errors that came from Rome being brought vp from youth in them and nouseled therin for lacke of good instruction from my youth the outragious fluds of Papisticall errors at
vntill the Papistes did transforme and transubstantiate the chiefe articles of our christen fayth Thus is an aunswere made vnto the false calumniations of Smith in the preface of his book or rather vnto his whole booke which is so full of bragging boasting slaundering misreporting wrangling wrasting false construing and lying that those taken out of the booke there is nothing worthy in the whole book to be aunswered Neuertheles in answering to the late byshop of Winchesters book I shall fully aunswere also D. Smith in all points that require aunswere And so with one answere shal I dispatch them both And in some places where one of thē varieth from an other as they do in many great matters in the chiefe and principall poynts I shall set them together Bithum cum Bachio Esernium cum Pacidiano to try which of them is more stout and valiaunt to ouerthrow the other ¶ Here endeth the aunswere vnto the Preface of M. Smithes booke which he wrote agaynst the defence of the true and catholicke doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST Matters wherein the Byshop of Winchester varyed from other Papistes OTher say That the body of Christ is made of bread He sayth that the body of Christ is not made of bread nor was neuer so taught but is made present of bread pag. 72. lin 14. pag. 178. lin 10. He sayth that Christ made the demonstratiō of the bread and called it his body when he sayd This is my body pag 257. lin 27. And in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. Other say contrary And Smith fol. 53. He sayth that This is my body is asmuch to say as this is made my body And so he taketh Est for fit pag. 295. lin 35. Other say that Est is taken there substantiue that is to say onely for is and not for is made Marcus Antonius fol. 171. facie 2 consideratione 6. He sayth that Christ is present in the Sacrament after the same maner that hee is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. Other say contrary that hee is in heauen after the maner of quantitie and that hee is not so in the Sacrament He sayth that where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man and that when we speake of Christ is body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie pag. 71. lin 37. Smith sayth that Christes body in the Sacrament hath not his proper forme and quantitie fol. 106. He sayth we beleue simply that Christes body is naturally and corporally in the Sacrament wihout drawyng away his accidences or addyng pag. 353. lin 1. Smith sayth we say that Christes body is in the Sacrament agaynst nature withall his qualities and accidentes fol. 105. He sayth that Gods workes be all seemelynes without confusion although he cā not locally distinct Christes head frō his foote nor his legges from his armes pag. 70. lin 27. Other say that Christes head and foote and other partes be not in deed loccally distinct in the Sacrament but be so confounded that where soeuer one is there be all the rest They teach that the body of Christ is made of bread he sayth it was neuer so taught pag. 79. lin 6. c. He sayth that Christes body is the Sacrament sensibly naturally carnally and corporally pag. 159. lin 9. c. Other say contrary Smith fol. 39. Other say that Christes feete in the Sacrament be there where his head is He sayth that who soeuer say so may be called mad pag. 61. lin 34. He sayth that Christes body is in the Sacrament naturally and carnally pag. 156. lin 6. Other say that corporally Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke and no further He sayth contrary pag. 52. lin 36. He saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in him that receiueth the Sacrament worthely so long as hee remaineth a member of Christ pag. 53. lin 1. pag. 56. lin 31. c. Other say contrary but that Christ flyeth vp into heauen so soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke Smith fol. 64. pag. 65. lin 2. 25. He sayth that no creature can eate the body of Christ but onely man pag. 66. lin 30. Other say cleane contrary He saith that an vnrepentaunt sinner receauyng the Sacrament hath not Christes body nor spirite within him pag. 225. lin 36. Smith saith that he hath Christes body and spirite within him fol. 136. He sayth that of the figure it may not be said Adore it worship it that is not to be Adored which the bodily eye seeth pag. 178. lin 40. pag. 239 lin 32. Marcus Antonius fol. 176. fa. 2. Smith sayth contrary fol. 145. fa. 2. He sayth that reason will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well inough pag. 264. lin 47. Smith sayth that Transubstantiation is agaynst reason and naturall operation fol. 60. Other say that wormes in the Sacrament be gendred of accidences He sayth that the be wrong borne in hand to say so pag. 355. lin 3. He sayth that the accidences of bread and wine do mould sowre and waxe vineger pag. 265. lin 11. 355. lin 8. And Marcus fol. 168. fa. 1. Smith sayth thus I say that the consecrated wine turneth not into vineger nor the consecrated bread mouleth nor engendreth wormes nor is burned nor receiueth into it any poyson as long as Christes body bloud are vnder the formes of them which do abide there so long as the naturall qualities properties of bread wine tary there in their naturall disposition and condition that the bread and wine might be naturally there if they had not bene chaunged into Christes body and bloud and also as long as the hoste and consecrated wine are apt to be receiued of man and no longer but goe and depart thence by Gods power as it pleaseth hym And then a new substaunce is made of God which turneth into vineger engendreth wormes mouleth is burned feedeth men and myse receiueth poyson c. fol. 64. 105. He sayth euery yea conteineth a nay in it naturally so as who soeuer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine For in the rule of common reason the graunt of one substaunce is the deniall of an other And therfore reason hath these conclusions throughly what soeuer is bread is no wyne what soeuer is wine is no milke c. So Christ saying This is my body sayth it no bread pag. 256. lin 38. pag. 265. lin 5. Smith sayth a boye which hath onely learned the Sophistry will not dispute so fondly fol. 77. Other say that the Masse is a sacrifice satisfactory by deuotion of the Priest and not by the thyng that is offered He sayth otherwise pag. 80. lin 43. He saith that the onely immolation of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankynd to the fauour of God pag. 437. lin 1.2 31. Smith sayth what
subiectes but they must seeke it at a straungers hands in a straunge land the like whereof I thinke was neuer seene I would haue wished to haue had some meaner aduersaryes I thinke that death shall not greeue me much more then to haue my most dread and most gratious soueraygne Lord and Lady to whom vnder God I do owe all obedience to be mine accusers in iudgement within their owne realme before any straunger and outward power But forasmuch as in the time of the Prince of most famous memory King Henry the 8. your graces father I was sworne neuer to consent that the byshop of Rome should haue or exercise any authoritie or iurisdiction in this realme of England therefore least I should allow his authority contrary to mine oth I refused to make aunswere to the Byshop of Gloucester sitting here in iudgemēt by the Popes authority least I should runne into periury An other cause why I refused the popes authority is this that his authority as he claimeth it repugneth to the crowne imperiall of this realme and to the lawes of the same which euery true subiect is bound to defend Fyrst for that the Pope sayth that all manner of power aswell temporall as spirituall is geuen first to him of God and that the temporall power he geueth vnto Emperours and Kinges to vse it vnder him but so as it be alwayes at his cōmaundement becke But contrary to this clayme the Emperial crowne and iurisdiction temporall of this Realme is taken immediately from God to be vsed vnder him onely and is subiect vnto none but to God alone Moreouer the imperiall lawes and customes of this realme the king in his Coronation and all Iustices when they receiue their offices be sworne and all the whole realme is bound to defend and maintayne But contrary hereunto the pope by his authority maketh voyd and commaundeth to blot out of our bookes all lawes and customes being repugnant to his lawes and declareth accursed all rulers and gouernours all the makers writers executors of such lawes or customes as it appeareth by many of the Popes lawes whereof one or two I shall rehearse In the decrees distin x. is written thus Constitutione contra canones decreta praesulum Romanorum vel bonos mores nullius sunt momenti That is the constitutions or statutes enacted agaynst the Canons and decrees of the Bishops of Rome or their good customes are of none effect Also Extra de sententia excommunicationis merit Excōmunicamus omnes hareticos vtriusque sexus quocumque nomine censeantur fautores receptatores defensores eorum nec non qui de catero sernari fecerint statuta edita consuetudines contra ecclesia libertatem nisiea de capitularibus suis intra duos menses post huiusmodi publicationem sentencia fecerint amoueri Item excōmunicamus statutarios scriptores statutorum ipsorum nec non potestates consules rectores consiliarios locorum vbi de catero huiusmodi statuta consuetudines edita fuerint velseruatae nec non illos qui secundum ea praesumpserint iudicarem vel in publicam formam scribere iudicata That is to say we excōmunicate all heretickes of both sexes what name so euer they be called by and their fauourers and receptours and defenders and also them that shall hereafter cause to be obserued statutes and customes made agaynst the liberty of the Church except they cause the same to be put out of their bookes or recordes within two monethes after the publication of this sentence Also we excommunicate the statute makers and writers of those statutes and also the potestates consuls gouernors and counsellors of places where such statutes and customes shall be made or kept and also those that shall presume to geue iudgement according to them or put into publike forme of writing the maners so iudged Now by these lawes if the Byshop of Romes authority which be claymeth by God bee lawfull of your graces lawes and customes of your Realme being contrary to the Popes lawes be naught and aswell your maiesty as your iudges iustices and all other executors of the same stand accursed among heretickes which God forbid And yet this curse can neuer be auoyded if the Pope haue such power as he claymeth vntil such times as the lawes and customes of this Realme beyng contrary to his lawes bee taken away and blotted out of the law bookes And although there bee many lawes of this Realme contrary to the lawes of Rome yet I named but a few as to conuict a Clarke before any temporall Iudge of this Realme for debt felony murther or for any other crime which Clarkes by the Popes lawes be so exempt from the Kynges lawes that they can be no where sued but before their Ordinary Also the pope by his lawes may geue all byshoprickes and benefices sprituall which by the lawes of this Realme can be geuen but onely by the Kinges and other patrones of the same except they fall into the lapse By the Popes lawes ius patronatus shal be sued onely before the ecclesiasticall iudge but by the lawes of this realme it shall be sued before the temporall iudge and to be short the lawes of this realme do agree with the Popes lawes like fire and water And yet the Kinges of this Realme haue prouided for their lawes by the premunire so that if any man haue let the excution of the lawes of this Realme by any authority from the sea of Rome he falleth into the premunire But to meete with this the popes haue prouided for their lawes by cursing For whosoeuer letteth the Popes lawes to haue full course within this realme by the Popes power standeth accursed So that the popes power treadeth all the lawes and customes of this Realme vnder his feete cursing all that execute them vntill such time as they geue place vnto his lawes But it may be said that notwithstanding all the popes decrees yet we do execute still the lawes and customes of this Realme Nay not all quietly without interruption of the Pope And where we do execute them yet we do it vniustly if the popes power be of force and for the same we stand excommunicate and shall doe vntill we leaue the execution of our owne lawes and customes Thus we be wel recōciled to Rome allowing such authority wherby the Realme standeth accursed before God if the Pope haue any such authority These thinges as I suppose were not fully opened in the parliament house when the popes authority was receiued agayne within this Realme for if they had I do not beleue that either the King or Queenes maiesty or the nobles of this Realme or the commons of the same would euer haue consented to receiue agayne such a forrayne authority so iniurious hurtfull and preiudiciall aswel to the crowne as to the lawes and customes and state of this realme as whereby they must needes acknowledge themselues to
Pope I thinke it was accordyng to the other othes which he vseth to minister to Princes which is to be obedient to him to defend his person to maintaine his authoritie honour lawes landes and priuileges And if it be so then I beseech your Maiestie to looke vpon your othe made to the crowne and the Realme and to expēd and way the two othes together to see how they agree and then to do as your graces cōscience shall geue you for I am surely perswaded that willyngly your Maiestie will not offend nor do agaynst your conscience for nothyng But I feare me there be contradiction in your othes and that those which should haue enformed your grace throughly did not their dueties therein And if your Maiestie ponder the two othes diligently I thinke you shall perceaue that you were deceaued and then your highnes may vse the matter as God shall put in your hart Furthermore I am kept here from company of learned men from bookes from counsell from penne and incke sauyng at this tyme to write to your Maiestie which all were necessary for a man in my case Wherfore I beseech your Maiestie that I may haue such of these as may stand with your Maiesties pleasure And as for myne appearaunce at Rome if your Maiestie will geue me leaue I will appeare there and I trust that God shall put in my mouth to defend his truth there aswell as here but I referre it wholly to your Maiesties pleasure Your poore Oratour T. C. ¶ To the Lordes of the Counsell IN most humble wise sueth vnto your right honourable Lordshyps Thomas Cranmer late Archb. of Cant. beseechyng the same to be a meanes for me vnto the Queenes highnesse for her mercy pardō Some of you know by what meanes I was brought and trayned vnto the will of our late soueraigne Lord kyng Edward the vi what I spake agaynst the same wherein I referre me to the reportes of your honours Furthermore this is to signifie vnto your Lordshyps that vpon Monday Tuesday and Wednisday last past were open disputations here in Oxford agaynst me M. Ridley and M. Latymer in three matters concernyng the Sacrament First of the reall presence secondly of Trāsubstantiation and thyrdly concernyng the Sacrifice of the Masse How the other two were vsed I can not tel for we were separated so that none of vs knew what the other said nor how they were ordered But as concernyng my selfe I can report that I neuer knew nor heard of a more confused disputation in all my lyfe For albeit there was one appointed to dispute agaynst me yet euery man spake his mynde and brought forth what him lyked without order and such hast was made that no aunswere could be suffered to be geuen fully to any argumēt in such weighty large matters there was no remedy but the disputations must needes be ended in one day whiche can scantly well be ended in three monethes And when we had aunswered them then they would not appoint vs one day to bring forth our proofes that they might aunswere vs agayne beyng required of me thereunto whereas I my selfe haue more to say then can be well discussed in .xx dayes The meanes to resolue the truth had bene to haue suffered vs to aunswere fully to all that they could say and then they agayne to aunswere to all that we could say But why they would not aunswere vs what other cause can there be but that either they feared the matter that they were not able to aunswere vs or els as by their hast might well appeare they came not to speake the truth but to condemne vs in post hast before the truth might be throughly tryed and heard for in all hast we were all three condemned of heresie vpon Friday This much I thought good to signifie vnto your Lordshyppes that you may knowe the indifferent handlyng of matters leauyng the iudgement thereof vnto your wisedomes and I beseech your Lordshyppes to remember me a poore prisoner vnto the Queenes Maiestie and I shall pray as I doe dayly to God for the long preseruation of your good Lordshyppes in all godlynesse and felicitie ¶ A Letter wherein hee reproueth and condemneth the false and sclaunderous reportes of the Papistes which sayd that he had set vp Masse agayne at Canterbury AS the deuill Christes auncient aduersary is a lyer the father of lying Euē so hath he sturred vp his seruaunts and members to persecute Christ his true word and Religion with lying whiche he ceasseth not to do most earnestly at this present For whereas the Prince of famous memory kyng Henry the eight seyng the great abuses of the Latin Masse reformed some thyng therein in his tyme and also our late soueraigne Lord kyng Edward the vj. tooke the same whole away for the manifold errours and abuses therof and restored in the place therof Christes holy Supper accordyng to Christes owne institution and as the Apostles in the primatiue Church vsed the same the deuil goeth about by lying to ouerthrow the Lordes holy Supper and to restore his Latin satisfactory Masse a thyng of his owne inuention and deuise and to bryng the same more easely to passe some haue abused the name of me Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury brutyng abroad that I haue set vp the Masse at Canterbury and that I offred to say Masse at the buriall of our late soueraigne Prince kyng Edward the vj. and also that I offred to say Masse before the Queenes highnes and at Paules Church and I wot not where And although I haue bene wel exercised these xx yeares to suffer and beare euill reportes and lyes and haue bene much greued thereat but haue borne all thynges quietly yet when vntrue reportes and lyes turne to the hinderaunce of Gods truth they be in no wise to be suffred Wherfore these be to signifie vnto the world that it was a false flatteryng lying dissemblyng Monke which caused Masse to be set vp there without myne aduise or counsell Reddat illi Dominus in die illo And as for offering my selfe to say Masse before the Queenes highnes or in any other place I neuer did it as her grace well knoweth But if her grace giue me leaue I shal be ready to proue agaynst all that will say the contrary that all that is sayd in the holy Communion set out by the most innocent and godly Prince kyng Edward the vj. in his high Court of Parliament is conformable to the order which our soueraigne Christ did both obserue and commaunded to be obserued and which his Apostles and primatiue Church vsed many yeares whereas the Masse in many thyngs not onely hath no foundation of Christ his Apostles nor the primatiue Church but is manifestly contrary to the same and containeth many horrible abuses in it And although many vnlearned and malitious do report that M. Peter Martyr is vnlearned yet if the Queenes highnesse will graunt thereunto I with
serue God and dwell in hym and haue him euer dwellyng in you What can be so heauy a burden as an vnquiet conscience to be in such a place as a man can not be suffered to serue God in Christes true Religion I lye be loth to depart from your kin and frendes remember that Christ calleth them his mother sisters and brethren that do his Fathers will Where we finde therefore God truely honored accordyng to his will there we can lacke neither frend nor kin If you be loth to depart for slaunderyng of Gods word remember that Christ when his houre was not yet come departed out of his countrey into Samaria to auoyde the malice of the Scribes and Phariseis and commaunded his Apostles that if they were pursued in one place they should flye to an other And was not Paule let downe by a basket out at a window to auoyde the persecution of Areta And what wisedome and policie he vsed from tyme to tyme to escape the malice of his enemies the Actes of the Apostles doe declare And after the same sorte did the other Apostles albeit wheÌ„ it came to such a poynt that they could no longer escape daunger of the persecutours of Gods true Religion than they shewed them selues that their flyeng before came not of feare but of godly wisedome to doe more good that they would not rashly without vrgent necessitie offer them selues to death whiche had bene but a temptation of God Yea when they were apprehended and could no longer auoyde then they stoode boldly to the profession of Christ then they shewed how litle they passed of death how much they feared God more then men how much they loued and preferred the eternall life to come aboue this short and miserable lyfe Wherfore I exhort you aswell by Christes commaundement as by the example of him and his Apostles to withdraw your selfe from the malice of your and Gods enemyes into some place where God is most purely serued which is no slauÌ„dering of the truth but a preseruyng of your selfe to God and the truth and to the societie and comfort of Christes litle flocke And that you will doe do it with speede least by your owne follie you fall into the persecutours handes and the Lord send his holy spirite to lead and guide you where soeuer you goe and all that be godly will say Amen T. C. A short Table or Index after the order Alphabeticall notyng the place or page of euery principall matters comprised in this Booke A. ABrahams will is called a sacrifice 85 Accidentes remoued there is no difference of substaunce 275 Adoration confuted .2 238 Aduerbes in lye 161 AEpinus 3â—9 15 Articles sixe not consented vnto by diuerse learned men 252 Authours for doctrine how to be read 127 B. BAptisme iniured by the Papistes 9. 20. 30. why ordayned in water .38 the water how chaunged therein 330 Berengarius 6. 7 Bertram his booke 6.77 Body of Christ whether a beast or byrd may eate it 66. whether ill men eate it .68 215. his eaten three maner of wayes .70 whether it hath proper formes quantities in the Sacrament .72 whether it be made of bread .79 looke Bread is not the sacrifice .87 to eate it is a figuratiue speach .111 looke eatyng how it is carnall .183 whether it be made of the matter of bread .203 what maner of body it is .238 is not the substaunce of the visible Sacrament 260 This is my Body how expounded 104. 121 Looke Sacramentes and the word Christ. Our Bodyes how they shal be spirituall is the resurrection 183 Bonauentura 53 Bread in the SacrameÌ„t is not holy but an holy token .3.186.156 yet is no bare token .4.10.92.207 but is deliuered from his bare name .291 to whoÌ„ it is but a bare token .10 how it is a chaunged in the Sacrament .330 341. the conuersion therof into Christes body is spirituall .325 how it is Christes body .292 and fleshe .20 why called Christes flesh .133 why it is Christes body to the receauer .208 what foode it is to the worthy receauer .333 it remayneth but bread after sanctification .263 it beyng broken how Christ may be sayd to be whole in euery part therof 350 Breakyng signifieth the whole vse of the Supper 260 Bucer 15 C. CAllyng is not makyng 346.107 Chaunge of thynges remoueth not substaunces 345 Christ how present in the Sacrament .4.5.8.49 124. how eaten in the Sacrament .8.10.18.20 22. how he is verely geuen in it .19 what it is to dwell in hym .23 he called the materiall bread his body .24 euill men eate him not .25 he meant not to make the bread his body .25 his ambiguous speaches not alwayes opened in the EuaÌ„gelistes .33 be excelleth all corporall foode .37 he is not corporally on earth .43 but in heauen .49 95. 142. Papistes say hee goeth no further then the stomacke .53 he is not receiued with the mouth .55 how long he taryeth with the receiuer .57 Papistes say he is whole in euery part of bread .63 but once offered .87 the dedication of his will to dye was not a propitiatory sacrifice .85 his intercession is no sacrifice for sinne .89 hee is in his Supper as in his assembly .93 how he is with vs also gone froÌ„ vs .102 his calling is not makyng .246.107 his glorified body hath his forme quaÌ„tities .129 he vseth figuratiue speaches .136 how he is in our handes .456 how he dwelleth in vs naturally .168 169. how vnited vnto vs .166 192. 175. he is verely truely present in the Sacrament .192 how we eate his sensible flesh that was Crucified .234 to be honored in heaueÌ„ not in the SacrameÌ„t .245 239. his humanitie proued by visible conuersatioÌ„ .278 his substauÌ„ce in Baptisme and the Supper how .289 he is ioyned to the bread as the holy Ghost is ioyned to the water .327 his wordes chaunge the kyndes of elementes .341 his sacrifice propitiatory what it is .370.372 and the effect of his sacrifice 391 Looke the word Sacrament and Sacrifice Church of God how it dayly offereth Christ. 89.90 Churche which is to be followed .380 and whiche Church can not erre 405 Church of Rome a stepmother .12 13. the mother of Transubstantiation .15 looke Transubstantiation Clemens Epistles fayned 146 Communion a short introduction thereunto 380 Confusion of Natures what it is 321 Consecration what it is .184 the Papistes vary in it 262. Conuersion two wayes 107 Conuersion of earthly creatures into Christes substaunce how 187 Corporall thynges haue two Natures 363 Cuttill the nature therof 19 D. DOctrine wantyng generall successe is not therfore vntrue 7 E. EAtyng signifieth beleuyng 31 Eatyng spirituall how it is 40.218 Eatyng of Christes body three maner of wayes 70.214 Eatyng of Christes body is a spirituall speach 113. 118 Eatyng of Christes flesh what it is 163.217 Euill men eate not Christes body 68. 215. 216 F. FAyth Catholique what as Winchester sayth .4 how grounded by the
but to be often remeÌ„bred The body and bloud of Christ is the onely sacrifice propritiatory for all the sinnes of the world Christes body is the christen mans sacrifice An issue De sacrificio lege Roffen Oecol lib. 3. cap. 2. 3. The sacrifice propitiatory not christes very body but hys death in that same body Chap. 1. The sacrifice of the Masse Chap. 2. Heb. 9. The difference betwene the sacrifice of Christ of the priestes of the old lawe Heb. 10. Heb. 7. Chap. 3. Two kindes of sacrifices The sacrifice of Christ. The sacrifices of the Church Psal. 50. 1. Pet. 2. Heb. 13. Chap. 4. A more playne declaration of the sacrifice of Christ. Heb. 8. Chap. 5. The sacrifice of the old law Heb. 9. Chap. 6. The Masse is not a sacrifice propitiatory Heb. 7. Heb. 8. Chap. 7. A confutatioÌ„ of the Papistes cauillation Chap. 8. The true sacrifice of all Christen people Galath 5. Chap. 5. The Popish Masse is detestable idolatry vtterly to be vanished from all christen congregations Cap. 10. Euery manne ought to receiue the sacrament himself and not one for an other Acc. 2. Math. 26. Cap. 11. The difference betwene the priest the lay man Chap. 12. The aunswere to the Papists Heb. 5. Malac. 1. Chap. 13. An aunswere to the Authours Augustinus ad Bonifa De Ciuita Lib. 10. cap. 5. Lombardus Lib. 4. Dist. 12. Chrisostom ad Heb. Hom. 17. Chap. 14. The lay persons make a sacrifice as well as the Priest Chap. 15. The Papisticall Masse is neither a sacrifice propitiatory nor of thaÌ„ks geuyng Luke 16. Chap. 16. There was no Papisticall Masses in the Primitiue Church Consilium Nicenum cap. 14. Canones Apostolorum cap. 8. Chap. 17. The caused meanes howe Papisticall Masses entred into the church The abuses of the Papisticall Masses Chap. 18 which Church is to be folowed A short instruction to the holy CommunioÌ„ Myne Issue Nicene counsell Priestes sacrificers An issue Iohn 1. De conse dist 2. cap. Semel est prosperj Semel Immolatus c. christus in semetipso tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento glosa ibidem id est eius immolatio representatur fit memoria passionis Gal. 3. Petrus Lombardus Immolatur 71 ante The diuersity of Christes sacrifice and ours The sacrifice of Christ. Heb. 7.8 Heb. 7.8 The sacrifice of the church Actes 1. Ephe. 4. Penaunce The Masse is a sacrifice propitiatory Good woorkes sacrifices propitiatory The Masse is a sacrifice satisfactory Rome 3. 1. Iohn 2. The difference betwene a sacrifice propitiatory gratificatory Psal. 49. Heb. 13. Rom. 3. 5. Actes 4. Satisfactory Masses Priestes in the Mas offer that is shewed forth Christes death Heb. 7. Christ is offred really not his sacrifice remembred or represented onely The effect of Christes sacrifice is both to geue life and to continue the same Ihon. 10. Gala. 2. Cyril in Ephesine counsell What is and wherin staÌ„deth the sacrifice of the church The sacrifice of the church geueth life Cyrill Mala. 1. Inconstancy Falshood feareth the light but light desireth to be tryed Fayth ought to be grounded vp on Gods word but the Papists ground their faith vpon them selues Ephesine couÌ„cell Cyrill the author of the words in the counsell Smith beleueth the counsell Smith belieth me twise in one place The first lye The second ly Smith sayth that Christ called not bread his body Luke 12. 1. Cor. 10. Setting of the cart before the Horses Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11. Of the woÌ„derfull workes of God Iohn 6. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. The place of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. Master Peter Martyr 1. Cor. 13. The ArgumeÌ„t of the doore and Sepulchre Math. 28. Mar. 16. Iohn 20. Actes 5. The appearyng of Christ in his Ascention Actes 13. S. Augustine Math. 3. 17. Actes 7. The Church The true fayth was in the Church froÌ„ the begynnyng and was not taught first by Berengarius What Churche it is that caÌ„ not erre Sâ—p 5. Psal. 7. 2. Ti. 2. â— Tim. 3. Luke 12. Gene. 7. Gene. 12. Eccle. 49. 3. Reg. 19. Iere. 25. and. 29 Act. 14. Math. 13. Math. 26. Mar. 24. 3. Reg. 19. Contrary in this deuils sophistry 27. 70. Contrary in the deuils sophistry 5. Falsa Falsum Falsum Falsum Nota. Concessum Concessum Concessum Sacramenta in signis fuerunt diuersa si in re paria Nota. Concessum etiaÌ„ Concessum Concessum ConcessuÌ„ etiam Concessum Concessum The kyng and Queene make themselues no better then subiectes in complaining of their owne subiect to an outwarde iudge as thogh they had no power to punishe him The first cause why hee would not make aunswere to the Popes Commissary is to auoyde periury The second cause is for that the Popes lawes are contrary to the crowne and lawes of England The Othe of the Kyng and Iustices and the duety of subiectes The Popes lawes and the lawes of England are contrary The Papistes to set vp a kingdome of their owne dissemble the knowne truth and are false to the crowne The third cause why he could not allow the Pope The Popes Religion is against Christes Religion Why Latin seruice ought not to be restored in English 1. Cor. 14. The Pope coÌ„maundeth both agaynst God naturall reason The Sacrament ought to be receaued in both kyndes of all Christians The deuill and the Pope are like The Pope is Antichrist that is Christs enemy Wherfore the Pope is Antichrist Luke 12. Math. 10. The Sacraments haue the names of those thinges wherof they are Samentes The Papistes make Christ two bodyes They put to hym three questions but they suffred him not to aunswere fully in one Behold SathaÌ„ sleepeth not Their cruell desire to reueÌ„ge could abide no delay This was D. Thornton afterward a cruell murderer of Gods Saints of whose horrible end read in the booke of Martyrs in the last Edition Fol. 1990. Col. 1. This ConstaÌ„tius was Stephen Gardiner as constant in deede as a wethercocke who thus named him selfe writyng agaynst this good Father Math. 3. Iohn 4. Math. 5. 1. Cor. 2.
vp in the study of Schoole Authours without regard had to the authoritie of Scriptures were coÌ„monly reiected by him so that he was greatly for that his seuere examination of the Religious sort much hated and had in great indignation and yet it came to passe in the end that diuers of them being thus compelled to study the Scriptures became afterwardes very well learned and well affected in so much that when they procéeded Doctours of Diuinitie could not ouermuch extoll and commende Maister Doct. Cranmers goodnes towardes them who had for a tyme put them backe to aspire vnto better knowledge and perfection Amongest whom Doct. Barret a white Frier who afterwardes dwelt at Norwich was after that sort handled giuyng him no lesse commeÌ„dation for his happy reiecting of him for a better amendement Thus much I repeate that our Apish and Popish sorte of ignoraunt Priestes may well vnderstand that this his exercise kynde of life and vocation was not altogether Hostelerlike I omit here how Cardinall Wolsey after the foundation of his Colledge in Oxford hearyng the fame of his learnyng vsed all meanes possible to place him in the same which he refused with great daunger of indignation conteÌ„tyng him selfe with his former Felowship in Cambridge Untill vpon occasion of the plague being in Cambridge he resorted to WalthaÌ„ Abbey and soiourned with one M. Cressey there whose wife was Doct. Cranmers niece and two of her children his pupilles in Cambridge Duryng this tyme the great and weightie cause of kyng Henry the viij his diuorce with the Lady Katherine Dowager of Spayne was in questioÌ„ Wherein two Cardinals Campeius Wolsey were appointed in Commission from the Pope to heare and determine the controuersie betwene the Kyng and the Quéene who by many dilatories dallying delaying the whole sommer vntill the moneth of August taking occasioÌ„ to finish their CoÌ„mission so moued the patience of the kyng that in all hast he remoued from London to WalthaÌ„ for a night or twaine whiles the Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke dispatched Cardinall Campeius home agayne to Rome By meanes wherof it chaunced that the kynges herbengers lodged Doct. Stephens Secretary and Doct. Foxe Almosiner who were the chief furtherers preferrers defenders of the foresayd cause in the kyngs behalfe in the house of the sayd M. Cressey where Doct. Cranmer was also resiaunt as before When Supper tyme came and all thrée Doctours mette together being of old acquaintaunce they entertayned eche other familiarly and the sayd Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe takyng occasion of their happy méetyng together began to conferre with Doct. Cranmer concernyng the kynges cause requestyng him to declare his opinion therein Whereunto Doct. Cranmer aunswered that he could say litle in the matter for that he had not studied nor looked for it Notwithstandyng he sayd to them that in his opinioÌ„ they made more adde in prosecutyng the lawes Ecclesiasticall then néeded It were better as I suppose quoth Doct. Cranmer that the question whether a man may mary his brothers wife or no were decided and discussed by the Diuines and by the authoritie of the word of God whereby the conscience of the Prince might be better satisfied and quieted then thus from yeare to yeare by frustratory delayes to prolong the tyme leauing the very truth of the matter vnbuâ—ted out by the word of God There is but one truth in it which the Scripture will soone declare make open manifest beyng by learned men well handled that may be aswell done in England in the Uniuersities here as at Rome or els where in any foreine nation the authoritie wherof will compell any Iudge soone to come to a diffinitiue sentence therfore as I take it you might this way haue made an end of this matter long sithens When Doct. Cranmer had thus ended his tale the other two wel liked of his deuise and wished that they had so procéeded afore tyme and thereupon conceiued some matter of that deuise to instruct the kyng withall who then was mynded to send to Rome agayne for a new Commission Now the next day when the kyng remoued to Grenewich like as he tooke him selfe not well handled by the Cardinals in thus differryng his cause so his mynde beyng vnquieted desirous of an end of his long tedious sute he called to him this his ij principall doers of his sayd cause namely the said Doct. Stephens and D. Foxe saying vnto theÌ„ What now my Maisters quoth the kyng shall we do in this infinite cause of mine I sée by it there must be a new CoÌ„mission procured from Rome and when we shall haue an end God knoweth and not I. When the kyng had sayd somewhat his mynde herein the Almosiner Doct. Foxe sayd vnto the kyng agayne we trust that there shal be better wayes deuised for your Maiestie then to make trauaile so farre to Rome any more in your highnes cause which by chaunce was put into our heades this other night beyng at Waltham and so discouered to the kyng their méetyng and conference with Doct. Cranmer at M. Cresseys house Wherupon Doct. Cranmer was sent for in post beyng as then remoued from Waltham towardes his frendes in Lincolne shyre and so brought to the Court to the kyng Whom the noble Prince benignely acceptyng demauÌ„ded his name and sayd vnto him Were you not at Waltham such a tyme in the company of my Secretary and my Almosiner Doct. Cranmer affirmyng the same the kyng sayd agayne had you not conference with them concernyng our matter of diuorce now in question after this sort repeatyng the maner and order therof That is right true if it please your highnes quoth Doct. Cranmer Well sayd the kyng I well perceiue that you haue the right scope of this matter You must vnderstand quoth the kyng that I haue bene long troubled in coÌ„science and now I perceiue that by this meanes I might haue bene long agoe releaued one way or other from the same if we had this way procéeded And therfore Maister Doctour I pray you and neuertheles because you are a subiect I charge and commauÌ„de you all your other busines affaires set apart to take some paynes to sée this my cause to be furthered accordyng to your deuise asmuch as it may lye in you with many other wordes in commendation of the Quéenes Maiestie Doct. Cranmer much disablyng him selfe to medle in so weightie a matter besought the kynges highnes to commit the triall and examinyng of this matter by the word of God vnto the best learned meÌ„ of both his Uniuersities Cambridge and Oxford You say well sayd the kyng and I am content there with But yet neuertheles I will haue you specially to write your mynde therein And so callyng the Earle of Wiltshyre to hym sayd I pray you my Lord let D. Cranmer haue intertaynement in your house at Durham place for a
But all this is spoken quite besides the matter and serueth for nothing but to cast a myst before mens eyes as it semeth you seeke nothing els thorow your whole booke And this your doctrine hath a very euill smacke that spirite and life should fall vppon naughty men although for theyr malice it tary not For by this doctrine you ioyne togither in one man Christ and Beliall the spirite of God and the spirite of the diuell lyfe and death and all at one tyme which doctrine I will not name what it is for all faythfull men know the name right well and detest the same And what ignoraunce can be shewed more in him that accoumpteth himselfe learned then to gather of Christes wordes where her sayth his wordes be spirit and life that spirit and lyfe should be in euill men because they heare his wordes For the wordes which you recyte by and by of S. Augustin shew how vayne your argument is when he sayth The wordes be spirite and life but not to thee that doest carnally vnderstand them What estimation of learning or of truth would you haue men to conceaue of you that bring such vnlearned argumentes wherof the inuadilitie appeareth within six lynes after Which must nedes declare in you either much vntruth and vnsincere proceding or much ignoraunce or at the least all exceding forgetfulnes to say anythyng reproued agayn within six lynes after And if the promises of God as you say be not disapoynted by our infidelitie then if euyll men eate the very body of Christ and drink his bloud they must nedes dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them and by him haue euerlasting lyfe bycause of these promises of Christ Qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in memanet et ego in eo Et quimanducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe And he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him And yet the third promise Qui manducat me ipse viues propter me He that eateth me he shall also lyue by me These be .iij. promises of God which if they can not be disapoynted by our infidilitie then if euyll men eat the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud as you say they doe in the sacrament then must it nedes follow that they shall haue euerlasting life and that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them bicause our infidilitie say you can not disappoynt Goddes promises And how agreeth this your saying with that doctrine which you were wont earnestly to teach both by mouth and penne that all the promises of God to vs be made vnder condition if our infidilitie can not disappoynt Gods promises For then the promises of God must nedes haue place whether we obserue the condition or not But here you haue fetched a great compasse circuit vtterly in vayne to reproue that thing which I neuer denied but euer affirmed which is That the substaunce of the visible sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which I say is bread and wine in the sacrament as water is in baptisme is all one substance to good and to badde and to both a figure But that vnder the fourme of bread and wine is corporally present by Christes ordinaūce his very body and bloud eyther to good or to ill that you neyther haue nor can proue yet thereupō would you bring in your conclusion here wherin you commit that folly in reasoning which is caled Petitio principij What neede you to make herein any issue when we agree in the matter For in the substance I make no diuersitie but I say that the substance of Christes body and bloud is corporally present neyther in the good eater nor in the euill And as for the substance of bread and wine I say they be all one whether the good or euill eate and drincke them As the water of Baptisme is all one whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned therin and it is one word that to the euill is a sauoure of death and to the good is a sauoure of lyfe And as it is one Sonne that shineth vppon the good and the badde that melteth butter and maketh the earth harde one flower wherof the bee sucketh hony and the spyder poyson and one oyntment as Decumenius sayth that kylleth the bettyll and strengthneth the doue Neuerthelesse as all that be washed in the water be not washed with the holy spirite so all that eate the sacramentall bread eate not the very body of Christ. And thus you see that your issue is to no purpose except you would fight with your owne shadowe Now forasmuch as after all this vayne and friuolous consuming of wordes you begin to make answere vnto my profes I shall here reherse my profes and argumentes to the intent that the reader seyng both my profes and your confutations before his eyes may the better consider and geue his iudgement therein My forth booke begynneth thus THe grosse errour of the Papistes is Of the carnall eating and drinking of Christes flesh and bloud with our mouthes For they say that whosoeuer eate and drincke the sacramentes of bread and wine do eat and drincke also with theyr mouthes Christes very flesh and bloud be they neuer so vngodly and wicked persons But Christ him selfe taught cleane contrary in the sixt of Iohn that we eate not him carnally with our mouthes but spiritually with our fayth saying Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleueth in me hath euerlasting lyfe I am the bread of life Your fathers did eat Manna in the wildernes and dyed This is the bread that cam from heauen that who so euer shall eate therof shall not dye I am the liuely bread that cam from heauen If any man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer And the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the lyfe of the world This is the most true doctrine of our sauiour Christ that whosoeuer eateth him shall haue euerlasting lyfe And by and by it followeth in the same place of S. Iohn more clearly Verely verely I say vnto you except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drincke his bloud you shall not haue life in you He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will rayse him agayne at the last day For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drincke He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuing 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