is a truth And therefore if I make a lye herein as Smyth saith I doe yet I lie not alone but haue you to beare me company And yet once again more may the reader here note how the Papists vary among them selues And it is vntrue that you say that good men beleeue vpon the credit of Christ that there is truely in the Sacrament the very true body of Christ. For Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud which as the old authors say must needs be vnderstanded figuratiuely but he neuer sayd that his true body is truely in the Sacrament as you here report of him And the manner of his presence you call so high a mistery that the carnall man can not reach it And in deed as you fayne the matter it is so high a mistery that neuer man could reach it but your selfe alone For you make the manner of Christes being in the Sacrament so spirituall that you say his flesh bloud and bones be there really and carnally and yet you confesse in your booke that you neuer red any old author that so said And this manner of handling of so pure a mistery is neither godly foolishnes nor worldly but rather a meere fransy and madnesse And although the scripture speak of Christes body to be eaten of vs yet that is vnderstanded of spiritual and not of corporall eating and of spirituall not of corporall presence The scripture sayth that Christ hath forspoken the world and is ascended into heauen Upon which words S. Augustine Uigilius and other auncient authors do proue that as concerning the nature of his manhode Christ is gone hence and is not here as I declared in my 3. booke the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters And where you thinke that this manner of speech was neuer red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity I am sure that it was neuer red in any approued author that Christ hath his proper forme and quantitie in the sacrament And Duns saith that his quantitie is in heauen and not in the Sacrament And when I say that Christ is in the Sacrament Sacramentally and without forme and quantitie who would thinke any man so captious so ignorant or so full of sophistry to draw my wordes to the forme of Christs diuinitie which I speake most plainly of the forme and quantity of his body and humanitie as I haue before declared And although some other might be so farre ouerseen yet specially you ought not so to take my words Forasmuch as you sayd not past 16. lynes before that my wordes seeme to implye that I ment of Christes humayne body And because it may appeare how truely and faithfully you reporte my words you adde this word all which is more then I speake and marteth all the wholl matter And you gather therof such absurdities as I neuer spake but as you sophistically doe gather to make a great matter◠of nothing And where of this word there you would conclude repugnaunce in my doctrine that where in other places I haue written that Christ is spiritually present in them that receaue the sacrament and not in the sacramentes of bread and wine and now it should seeme that I teach contrary that Christ is spiritually present in the very bread and wine if you pleased to vnderstād my wordes rightly there is no repugnaunce in my words at al. For by this word there I meane not in the Sacraments of bread and wine but in the ministration of the Sacrament as the olde authors for the most part when they speake of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament they meane in the ministration of the Sacrament Which my saying varyeth from no doctrine that I haue taught in any part of my booke Now followeth the tenth comparyson They say that the fathers and Prophets of the old Testament did not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ. We say that they did eat his body and drink his bloud although he was not yet borne nor incarnated Winchester This comparison of difference is clerkly conueyed as it were of a riddle wherin nay and yea when they be opened agrée and consent The fathers did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in the truth of promise which was effectuall to them of redemption to be wrought not in trueth of presence as we do for confirmation of redemption already wrought They had a certayn promyse and we a certayne present payment they did eat Christ spiritually beleeuing in him that was to come but they did not eat Christes body present in the Sacrament sacramentally and spiritually as we do Their Sacramentes were figures of the thinges but ours conteyn the very things And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned mē it may be verefied that the fathers did eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud yet there is no such forme of words in scripture and it is more agreeable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the fathers before Christes natiuitie did not eat the body and bloud of Christ which body and bloud Christ himselfe truely tooke of the body of the virgin Mary For although S. Paule in the tenth to the Corrinthians be so vnderstanded of some as the fathers should eat the same spirituall meat and drink the same spirituall drink that we do to which vnderstanding all doe not agrée yet following that vnderstanding we may not so presse the words as there should be no difference at al and this one difference S. Augustine noteth how their sacraments conteined the promise of that which in our sacrament is geuen Thus he sayth And this is euident of it selfe how to vs in the holy supper Christ saith This is my body that shal be betraied for you take eat which was neuer said to the fathers although their faith in substaunce agréed with ours hauing al one Christ and mediator which they looked for to come and we acknowledge to be already come come and to come as S. August saith differeth But Christ is one by whom all was created and mans fall repayred from whom is all féeding corporal spiritual in whom all is restored in heauē in earth In this faith of Christ the fathers were fed with heauenly spirituall food which was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ and redemption by them hoped which is atchieued by the mistery of the body and bloud of Christ by reason wherof I deny not but it may be said in a good sense how they did eat the body and bloud of Christ before he was incarnat but as I sayd before Scripture speaketh not so and it is no holsome fashion of spéech at this time which furthereth in sound to the eares of the rude the pestilent heresie wherin Ione of Kent obstinately dyed that is to say that Christ tooke nothing of the Uirgine but brought his body with him from aboue beyng a thing worthy to be noted how
them by Manna was geuen the same thing that now is geuen to vs in the sacramentall bread And if I would graunt for your pleasure that in theyr sacrameÌ„ts Christ was promised and that in ours he is really geuen doth it not then followe aswell that Christ is geuen in the sacrament of Baptisme as that he is geuen in the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud And S. Augustin contra Faustum esteemeth them madde that think diuersity betweene the things signified in the old and new testament because the signes be diuers And expressing the matter playnely sayth that the flesh and bloud of our sacryfice before Christs comming was promised â— y sacryfices of similitudes in his passion was geuen indeed after his asâ—â—ntion is solemnly put in our memory by the Sacrament And the thing which you say S. Augustine noteth to be geuen in the sacraments of the new testament and to be promised in the sacramentes of the olde S. Augustine expresseth the thing which he ment that is to say saluation and eternall lyfe by Christ. And yet in thys mortall lyfe we haue not eternall lyfe in possession but in promise as the prophets had But S. Augustine sayth that we haue the promise because we haue Christ all ready come which by the Prophets was promised before that he should come therefore S. Iohn the Baptist was called more then a Prophet because he said Here is the lamb of God already preset which the Prophets taught vs to looke for vntill he came The effect therfore of S. Augustins words plainly to be expressed was this that the prophets in the old testament Promised a sauiour to come redeem the world which the sacraments of that tyme testified vntill hys comming but now he is already come and hath by his death performed that was promised which our sacramentes testifie vnto vs as S. Augustine declareth more playnely in his booke De fide ad Petrum the xix chapter So that S. Augustine speaketh of the geuing of Christ to death which the sacraments of the old testament testified to come and ours testify to be done and not of the geuing of him in the sacraments And forasmuch as S. Augustine spake generally of all the sacraments therefore if you will by his words proue that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy communion you may aswell proue that he is corporally in baptisme For saint Augustine speaketh no more of the one then of the other But where saint Augustin speaketh generally of al the sacraments you restrayne the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lords supper onely that the ignoraunt reader should thinke that saynt Augustine spake of the corporall presence of Christ in the sacramentes and that onely in the sacraments of bread and wine where as saynt Augustine himself speaketh onely of our saluation by Christ and of the sacraments in generall And neuerthelesse as the fathers had the same Christ and mediator that we haue as you here confesse so did they spiritually eat his fâ—esh and drinke his bloud as we doe and spiritually feed of him and by faith he was present with theÌ„ as he is with vs although carnally and corporally he was yet to come vnto theÌ„ and from vs is gon vp to his father into heauen This besides saynt Augustine is plainely set out by Bertrame aboue 6. hundreth yeares passed whose iudgement in this matter of the sacrament although you allow not because it vtterly coÌ„demneth your doctrine therein yet forasmuch as hytherto his teaching was neuer reproued by none but by you alone and that he is commeÌ„ded of other as an excellent learned man in holy scripture and a notable famous man aswell in liuing as learning and that among his excellent works this one is specially praised which he wrot of the matter of the SacrameÌ„t of the body and bloud of our Lord therfore I shall reherse his teaching in this point how the holy fathers and Prophets before the comming of Christ did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud So that although Bertrams saying be not estemed with you yet the indifferent reader may see what was written in this matter before your doctrine was inuented And although his authority be not receiued of you yet his words may serue against Smyth who herein more learnedly and with more iudgement then you approueth this author This is Bertrams doctrine S. Paule saith that all the old fathers did eat the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spiritual drink But peraduenture thou wilt ask Which the same Euen the very same that christen people do daily eat and drinke in the church For we may not vnderstand diuers things when it is one and the self same Christ which in times past did feed with his flesh and made to drink of his bloud the people that were baptised in the cloude and sea in the wildernes and which doth now in the church feed christen people with the bread of his body and giueth theÌ„ to drink the floud of his bloud When he had not yet taken mans nature vpon him wheÌ„ he had not yet tasted death for the saluation of the world not redemed vs with his bloud neuertheles euen then our forefathers by spiritual meat and inuisible drink did eat his body in the wildernes and drink his bloud as the Apostle beareth witnesse saying The same spiritual meat the same spiritual drink For he that now in the church by his omnipotent power doth spiritually conuert bread wine into the flesh of his body and into the floud of his owne bloud he did theÌ„ inuisibly so worke that Manna which came from heauen was his body and the water his bloud Now by the thinges here by me alledged it euidently appereth that this is no nouelty of speech to say that the holy fathers and Prophets did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud For both the scripture and old authors vse so to speake how much soeuer the spech mislike them that like no fashion but their own And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of Ione of Kent Is this a good argument The fathers did eat Christes flesh and drinke his bloud spiritually before he was borne ergo after he was not corporally borne of his mother Or because he was corporally borne is he not therefore dayly eaten spiritually of his faithfull people Because he dwelt in the world corporally from his incarnation vnto his ascention did he not therfore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that tyme and hath so done euer sithens and will do to the worldes end Or if he be eaten in a figure can you induce thereof that he was not borne without a figure Do not such kynde of argumentes fauour the errour of Ione of Kent Yea do they not manifestly approue her pestiferous heresy if they were to be alowed What man that meaneth the trueth would bring in such manner of resoning to deface the truth
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
corporis Christi est Is not the bread which we breake the communion of Christes body And that euill men do not eate Christe his fleshe nor drinke his bloud for the scripture saith expressely He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him which is not true of ill men And for the corporall absence of Christ what can be more plainly said in the letter then he sayd of himself that he forsoke the world besides other scriptures which I haue alleaged in my 3. booke the 4. chapter And the scripture speaketh plainly in the Epistle to the Hebrues that Christ was neuer more offred then once But here you take such a large scope that you flee from the foure proper matters that be in controuersie vnto a new scope deuised by you that I should absolutely deny the presence of Christ and say That the bread doth only signifie Christes body absent which thing I neuer said nor thought And as Christ sayth not so nor Paule sayth not so euen so like wise I say not so and my booke in diuers places saith cleane contrary that Christ is with vs spiritually present is eaten dronken of vs and dwelleth within vs although corporally he be departed out of this world and is ascended vp into heauen Winchester And to the entent euery notable disagréement from the truth may the more euidently appeare I will here in this place as I will hereafter likewyse when the case occurreth ioyne as it were an issue with this author that is to say to make a stay with him in this point triable as they say by euidence and soone tried For in this point the scriptures bee already by the author brought forth the letter wherof proueth not his fayth And albeit he trauaileth bringeth forth the saying of many approued writers yet is there no one of them that writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the faith catholike And to make the issue playne and to ioyne it directly thus I say No author known and approued that is to say Ignatius Polycarpe Iustine Irene Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome Hilary Gregory Nazianzene Basill Emissen Ambrose Cyrill Hierome Augustine Damascene Theophilast none of these hath this doctrine in playne termes that the bread onely signifieth Christes body absent nor this sentence that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer after consecration nor that Christes body is none otherwyse present in the Sacrament but in a signification nor this sentēce that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped because there is nothyng present but in a signe And herein what the truth is may soone appeare as it shall by their workes neuer appeare to haue ben taught and preached receiued and beleued vniuersally and therfore can be called no catholike faith that is to say allowed in the whole through and in outward teaching preached and beleued Caunterbury IN your issues you make me to say what you list and take your issue where you list and then if xii false varlets passe with you what wonder is it But I will ioyne with you this issue that neither scripture nor aūcient author writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of your faith And to make the issue plaine to ioyne directly with you therin thus I say That no auncient and catholike authour hath your doctrine in playne termes And because I will not take my issue in bye matters as you do I will make if in the foure principall pointes wherin we vary wherupon my booke resteth This therfore shal be mine issue That as no scripture so no auncient author known and approued hath in plaine termes your Transubstantiation nor that the body and bloud of Christ be really corporally naturally and carnally wider the formes of bread and wine nor that euil men do eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ nor that Christ is offered euery day by the priest a sacrifice propiciatorie for sinne Wherfore by your owne description and rule of a catholike faith your doctrine and teaching in these 4. articles cannot be good and catholike except you can finde it in plaine termes in the scripture and old catholike doctors which when you do I will hold vp my hand at the barre and say giltie And if you cannot then it is reason that you do the lyke per legem Talionis Winchester If this author setting apart the worde Catholike would of his owne wil go about to proue howsoeuer scripture hath bene vnderstanded hitherto yet it should be vnderstanded in dede as he now teacheth he hath herein diuers disaduantages and hindrances worthy consideration which I will particularly note First the preiudice and sentence geuen as it were by his own mouth against himself now in the booke called the Catechisme in his name set forth Secondly that about vij C. yere ago one Bertram if the booke set forth in hys name be his enterprised secretly the lyke as appereth by the said booke yet preuayled not Thirdly Berengarius beyng in dede but an Archdeacō about v. C. yeres past after he had openly attempted to set forth such like doctrine recanted so fayled in his purpose Fourthly Wickliffe not much aboue an C. yeares past enterprised the same whose teaching God prospered not Fiftly how Luther in his workes handled them that would haue in our tyme raised vp the same doctrine in Germany it is manifest by his their writings wherby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many ouerthrowes so many rebuts so oftē reproofes to be desperate and such as God hath not prospered and sauoured to be receyued at any tyme openly as his true teaching Herein whether I say true or no let the stories try me and it is matter worthy to bée noted because Gamaliels obseruation written in the Actes of the Apostles in allowed to marke how they prosper and go forward in their doctrine that be authors of any news teaching Caunterbury I Haue not proued in my booke my iiij assertions by mine owne wit but by the collation of holy scripture and the sayings of the old holy catholike authors And as for your v. notes you might haue noted thē against your selfe who by them haue much more disaduauntage and hinderance then I haue As concerning the Catechisme by me set forth I haue answered in my fourth booke the 8. chapter that ignorant men for lack of iudgement and exercise in olde authors mistake my said Catechisme And as for Bertrame he did nothing els but at the request of king Charles set out the true doctrine of the holy catholike church from Christ vnto his tyme concerning the sacrament And I neuer heard nor red any mā that condemned Bertrame before this tyme and therfore I can take no hinderance but a great aduantage at his handes For all men that hitherto haue written of Bertrame haue much commended him And
Gospel of S. John Whereby appeareth how euidently they set forth the doctrine of the mistery of the eating of Christes flesh drinking his bloud in the sacrament which must néedes be vnderstanded of a corporal eating as Christ did after order in the institution of the sayd Sacrament according to his promise and doctrine here declared Canterbury HEre before you enter into my seconde vntrueth as you call it you finde faulte by the way that in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the Gospell of S. Iohn I begine a little to lowe But if the reader consider the matter for the which I alleadge S. Iohn he shal wel perceiue that I began at the right place where I ought to begin For I doe not bring forth S. Iohn for the matter of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament whereof is no mention made in that chapter as it would not haue serued me for that purpose no more doth it serue you althoughe ye cyted the whole Gospell But I bring saynt Iohn for the matter of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud wherin I passed ouer nothing that pertaineth to the matter but rehearse the whole fully and faithfully And because the Reader may the better vnderstand the matter and iudge between vs both I shall rehearse the wordes of my former booke which be these THe Supper of the Lord otherwise called the holy communion or sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ hath been of many men and by sundry wayes very much abused but specially within these four or fiue hundered yeares Of some it hath beene vsed as a Sacrifice propiciatory for sinne and otherwise superstitiouslye far from the intent that Christ did first ordaine the same at the beginning doing therein great wrong and iniury to his death and passion And of other some it hath been very lightly estemed or rather contemned and despiced as a thing of smal or of none effect And thus betweene both the parties hath been much variance and contention in diuers partes of Christendome Therefore to the intent that this holy Sacrament or Lords Supper may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed nor of the other party be abused to any other purpose then Christ himselfe did first appoint ordain the same and that so the contention on both parties may be quieted and ended the most sure and playn way is to cleaue vnto holye scripture Wherein whatsoeuer is found must be taken for a most sure ground and an infallible truth and whatsoeuer cannot be grounded vpon the same touching our faith is mans deuise changeable and vncertain And therfore here are set forth the very words that Christ him selfe and his Apostle S. Paule spake both of the eating and drinking of Christs body bloud also of the eating drinking of the sacramēt of the same First as concerning the eating of the body and drinkinge of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ hee speaketh him selfe in the sixte Chapiter of Saynt Iohn in this wise Verely verely I say vnto you except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I wil rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drinke Hee that eateth my fleshe 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 bread shall liue for euer Here haue I rehearsed the wordes of Christ faithfully and fully so much as pertayneth to the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud And I haue begun neither to high nor to low but taking only so much as serued for the matter But here haue I committed a fault say you in the translation for verely meate translating very meat And this is another of the euydent and manifest vntruthes by me vttered as you esteeme it Wherein a man may see how hard it is to escape the reproches of Momus For what an horrible crime trow you is committed here to call very meat that which is verely meat As who should say that very meat is not verely meate or that which is verely meate were not very meate The olde Authors say very meate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verus cibus in a hundreth places And what skilleth it for the diuersitye of the wordes where no diuersity is in the sence And whether we say very meat or verely meate it is a figuratiue speache in this place and the sence is all one And if you will looke vpon the new testament lately set forth in Greeke by Robert Steuens you shall see that he had three Greeke copyes which in the said sixt chap. of Iohn haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that I may be bold to say that you finde faulte here where none is And here in this place you shew forth your olde condition which you vse much in this booke in following the nature of a cuttil The property of the cuttill saith Pliny is to cast out a black incke or color when soeuer she spieth her selfe in danger to be taken that the water being troubled and darckned therewith she may hide her selfe and to escape vntaken After like maner do you throughout this wholl booke for when you see no other way to flye and escape then you cast out your blacke colors maske your selfe so in cloudes and darcknes that men should not discerne where you become which is a manyfest argument of vntrue meaning for he that meaneth plainly speaketh plainly Et qui sophisticè loquitur odibilis est saith the wise man For he that speaketh obscurely and darckly it is a token that he goeth about to cast mistes before mennes eyes that they should not see rather then to open their eyes that they may cleerely see the truth And therfore to answere you plainly the fattie fleshe that was geuen in Christes last Supper was geuen also vpon the crosse and is geuen daylye in the ministration of the Sacrament But although it be one thinge yet it was diuerslye geuen For vpon the crosse Christ was carnally geuen to suffer and to dye At his last Supper he was spiritually geuen in a promise of his death and in the Sacrament he is daily geuen in remembraunce of his death And yet it is all but one Christ that was promysed to die that died in deede and whose death is remembred that is to say the very same Christ the eternall word that was made flesh And the same flesh was also geuen to be spiritually eaten and was eaten in deede before his supper yea and before his
much as you say that it liketh me to reporte this most vntruely reade what the glose saith vpō the chapter Tribus gradibus de Consecrat dist a there you shall finde these words Certum est quod species quam citó dentibus teruntur tam citó in Coelum rapitur corpus Christi And if this glose be false and erroneous why was it published and set out by the authority of the Papistes Why hath it been writtē and printed in so many countreis and so many yeares without reprofe of any fault found therein by any man But here may wise men learn to beware of your doctrine For you reproue those Papistes which haue written of this matter 4. or 5. hundreth yeares past and doe inuent a new deuise of your own And therefore wise men when they see you teach one doctrine and the Papistes that were before your time teach another they will beleeue none of you all And where you say that in the beleefe of this mistery is great benefitte and consolation What benefitte I beseech you is it to vs if Christ be really and corporally in the formes of bread and wine a moneth or two or a yeare or two And if we receaue him really and corporally with the bread and wine into our mouthes or stomackes and no further and there he tarieth not in that sorte but departeth away from vs by and by agayn what great benefit or comforte I pray you is such a corporall presence vnto vs And yet this is the teaching of all the Papistes although you seeme to vary from them in this last point of Christes sodayne departure But when the matter shall be throughly answered I weene you will agree with the rest of the Papistes that as concerning his carnall presence Christ departeth from vs at the least wheu the formes of bread and wine be altered in the stomack And then I pray you declare what comfort and benefitte we haue by this carnall presence which by and by is absent and taryeth not with vs Such comfort haue weake and sick consciences at the Papistes handes to tell them that Christ was with them and now he is gone from them Neuerthelesse in the beleef of this mistery if it be vnderstāded according to Gods word is great benefit and consolation but to beleeue your addition vnto Gods word is neither benefit nor wisedome And I pray you shew in what place the Scripture saith that vnder the formes of bread and wine is the body of Christ really corporally and naturally or els acknowledge them to be your own additiō beside Gods word and your stout assertion herein to be but presumptuous boldnesse and wicked temeritie affirming so arrogantly that thing for the which you haue no authority of Gods word And where you seeme to be offended with the discussion of this matter what hurte I pray you can gold catch in the fire or truth with discussing Lyes onely feare discussing The Deuill hateth the light because he hath been a lyar from the beginning and is loth that his lies should come to light and triall And all Hipocrites and Papistes be of a like sorte afraide that their doctrine should come to discussing whereby it may euidently appeare that they be indued with the spirite of error and lying If the Papists had not feared that their doctrines should haue bene espied and their opions haue come to discussing the scriptures of God had bene in the vulgare and English tounge many yeares ago But God be praysed at the length your doctrine is come to discussing so that you can not so craftely walke in a cloude but the light of Gods word will alwaies shew where you be Our Sauiour Christ in the fifth of Iohn willeth vs to search the scriptures and to trie out the trueth by them And shall not we then with humble reuerence search the trueth in Christes Sacramentes And if we can not tel how Christ is present why do you then say that he is substantially present corporally present naturally and carnally present And how sure be you that Christ is in substaunce present because he is truely present Are you assured that this your doctrine agreeth with Gods word Doth not Gods word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit where he is not present in his corporall substance As when he saith Where two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them And also when he sayth I shall be with you till the end of the world Was it not a true presence that Christ in these places promised And yet can you not of this true presence gather such a corporall presence of the substance of Christs manhod as you vnlearnedly contrary to the scriptures◠go about to proue in the Sacramēt For when Christ said This is my body it was bread which is called his body in a figuratiue speach as all olde authors teach and as I haue proued in my third booke the 8 and 11 chap. And the manner how Christ caried himfelfe in his own handes sainct Augustine declareth it to be figuratiuely And because you can finde no repugnaunce betweene the two partes of this comparison to make them more plaine I shall fill them vp with more wordes as I did the other comparisons before This therefore shall be the comparison They say that Christ is really and corporally in the sacramentall bread beyng reserued so long as the forme of bread remayneth although it be an whole years and more but after the receiuing thereof he flyeth vp from the receauer into heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or digested in the stomacke But we say that after what manner Christ is receaued of vs in the same wise he remaineth in vs so long as we remaine the members of Christ. And where in the end you admonish the reader that what so euer you affirme or precisely deny you meane within the compasse of your knowledge and of publicke doctrine and of doctrine by consent receaued what do you here else but deuise certayne sleightes and prepare for your selfe priuy holes to start out at when so euer you should be taken with a manifestly So that you should not be cōpelled to abide by any word that you say For by these crafty sleightes and shifts of the compasse of your knowledge and of publick doctrine and of doctrine by common consent receaued you meane to say euer what you list And though neuer so manyfest a lye or vntruth be layd to your charge yet shall no manne neuer be able to proue it so manifestly against you but you shall haue one of these thre shiftes to flee out at for your defence Now foloweth in my booke the fift comparison They say that in the Sacrament the corporall members of Christ be not distant in place one frō an other but that where so euer the head is there be the feete and where so euer
reader the sayinges of these authors and see whether they say that one nature in Christ may be both in heauen and in earth both here with vs and absent from vs at one tyme and whether they resolue this matter of Christs being in heauen and in earth as Smith doth to be vnderstand of his māhoode in diuersitie of these respectes visible and inuisible And when thou hast well considered the authors sayinges then geue credite to Smith as thou shalt see cause But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hote that the Bishop of Winchester durste not once touch it and Smith as soone as he had touched it felt it so scawlding hote that he durst not abyde it but shranke away by and by for feare of burning his fingers Now here what followeth further in my booke But now seeing that it is so euident a matter both by the expresse words of Scripture and also by all the old authors of the same that our Sauiour Christ as concerning his bodely presence is ascended into heauen and is not here in earth And seeing that this hath been the true confession of the Catholicke faith euer since Christes ascention it is now to be considered what mooued the Papistes to make a new and contrary faith and what Scriptures haue they for their purpose What moued them I know not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condition of the sea of Rome which is of al other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for Scripture they alleadge none but onely one and that not truely vnderstanded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to iarre and sound contrary to all other Scriptures pertaining to the matter Christ toke bread say they blessed brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body These words they euer still repeate and beate vpon that Christ sayd this is my body And this saying they make their shooteanker to proue therby as well the reall and naturall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these words of Christ say they be most plain and most true Then for as much as he said This is my body it must needes be true that that thing which the Priest holdeth is his hands is Christs body And if it be Christes body then can it not be bread Whereof they gather by their reasoning that there is Christes body really present and noe bread Now forasmuch as all their proofe hangeth onely vpon these wordes this is my body the true sence and meaning of these wordes must be examined But say they what neede they any examination what wordes can be more plain then to say This is my body Truth it is in deed that the wordes be as plain as may be spoaken but that the sence is not so plain it is manifest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For when Christ gaue bread to his disciples and said This is my body there is no man of any discretiō that vnderstandeth the english tongue but he may well know by the order of the speache that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the old authors also do affirme although some of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the wordes seeme and purport but there must needes be some figure or mistery in this speech more then appeareth in the playne wordes For by this manner of speeche plainly vnderstand without any figure as the wordes lye can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread which all Christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherefore in these wordes must needes be sought out another sence meaning then the words of themselues do beare And although the true sense and vnderstanding of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the matter so playne that no scrouple or doubt shall remayne here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whiche processe shal be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speches And although it be manifest inough by the playn wordes of the gospel and proued before in the processe of Transubstantiation that Christ spake of bread when he sayd This is my body likewise that it was very wyne which he called his bloud yet least the Papistes should say that we sucke this out of our own fyngers the same shall be proued by testimony of the old authors to be the true and old fayth of the catholicke Church Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any auncient author to the contrary First Ireneus writing against the Valentinians in his fourth booke sayeth that Christ confessed bread which is a creature to be his body and the cuppe to be his bloud And in the same booke he writeth thus also The bread wherin the thanks be geuen is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same booke he saith that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice was his bloud And in the fift booke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his body a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plain that Christ taking very materiall bread a creature of God and of such sort as other bread is which we doe vse called that his body when he said this is my body and the wine also which doth feede and nourish vs he called his bloud Tertullian likewise in his booke written against the Iewes saith that Christ called bread his body And in his booke against Martian he oftentimes repeateth the selfe same wordes And S. Cipryan in the first booke of his epistles saith the same thing that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he called his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes and made into mine And in his second booke he saith these wordes Water is not the bloud of Christ but wine And againe in the same epistle he saith that it was wine which Christ called hys bloud and that if wine be not in the chalice then we drinke not of the fruit of the vine And in the same Epistle he saith that meale alone or water clone is not the body of Christ except they be both ioyned together to make therof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speaking of a lofe which is round in fashion and cannot see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierome wryting ad Hedibiam saith
that there is onely bread in the Sacrament sayth Smith and not Christes body what then What is that to purpose here in this place I pray you For I goe not about in this place to proue that onely bread is in the sacrament and not Christes body but in this place I proue onely that it was very bread which Christ called his body and very wine which he called his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud Which Smith with all his rablement of the Papistes deny and yet all the old Authors affirme it with Doctor Steuen Gardiner late Bishope of Winchester also who sayth that Christ made demonstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body And as all the old Authors be able to counteruayle the Papistes so is the late Bishope able to matche Smith in this mater so that we haue at the least a Rowland for an Oliuer But shortly to comprehend the aunswere of Smith where I haue proued my sayinges a dosen leaues together by the authoritie of Scripture and old catholike writers is this a sufficient aunswer onely to say without any proofe that al my trauayl is lost and that all that I haue alleadged is nothing to the purpose Iudge indifferently gentle Reader whether I might not by the same reason cast away all Smithes whole booke and reiect it quite cleane with one word saying All his labore is lost and to no purpose Thus Smith and Gardiner being aunswered I will returne agayne to my booke where it followeth thus Now this being fully proued it must needes folow consequently that this manner of speaking is a figuratiue speach For in playne and proper speach it is not true to say that bread is Christes body or wine his bloud For Christes body hath a soule lyfe sence and reason but bread hath neither soule lyfe sence nor reason Lykewise in playne speche it is not true that we eate Christes body and drinke his bloud For eating drinking in their proper and vsuall signification is with the tongue teeth and lyppes to swallow diuide and chawe in peeces which thinge to do to the flesh and bloud of Christ is horrible to be heard of any Christian. So that these speaches To eate Christes body and drinke his bloud to call bread his body and wine his bloud be speches not taken in the proper signification of euery worde but by translation of these wordes eating and drinking from the signification of a corporall thing to signifie a spirituall thing and by calling a thing that signifieth by the name of the thing which is signified thereby Which is no rare nor straunge thing but an vsuall manner and phrase in common speech And yet least this faulte should be imputed vnto vs that we do fayne thinges of our owne heades without auctoritie as the papistes be accustomed to do here shall be cited sufficient authoritye as well of Scriptures as of olde auncient authors to approue the same First when our Sauiour Christ in the sixt of Iohn sayd that he was the bread of lyfe which who so euer did eate should not dye but liue for euer and that the bread which he would geue vs was his flesh and therefore who so euer should eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should haue euerlasting lyfe and they that should not eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should not haue euerlasting lyfe When Christ had spoken these wordes with many moe of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud both the Iewes and many also of his disciples were offended with his wordes and sayd This is an hard saying For howe can hee geue vs his flesh to be eaten Christ perceiuing their murmuring hartes because they knew none other eating of his flesh but by chawing and swallowing to declare that they should not eate his body after that sort nor that he ment of any such carnall eating he sayd thus vnto them What yf you see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before It is the spirite that geueth life the flesh auaileth nothing the words which I spake vnto you be spirite and lyfe These wordes our Sauiour Christ spake to lift vp their mindes from earth to heauen and from carnall to spirituall eating that they should not phantasy that they should with their teeth eate him present here in earth for his flesh so eaten sayth he should nothing profite them And yet so they should not eate him for he would take his body away from them and ascend with it into heauen and there by fayth and not with teeth they should spiritually eate him sitting at the right hand of his father And therefore sayth he The wordes which I do speake be spirite and lyfe That is to say are not to be vnderstand that we shall eate Christ with our teeth grossely and carnally but that we shall spiritually and gostly with our fayth eate him being carnally absent from vs in heauen And in such wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eate him many yeares before he was incarnated and borne as Saint Paule sayth that all they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doo and drinke the same spirituall drinke that is to say Christ. For they spiritually by their fayth were fed and nourished with Christes body and bloud and had eternall lyfe by him before he was borne as we haue now that come after his ascention Thus haue you heard the declaration of Christ himselfe and of Saint Paul that the eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud is not taken in the common signification with mouth and teeth to eate and chaw a thing being present but by a liuely fayth in hart and minde to chaw and digest a thing being absent either ascended hence into heauen or els not yet borne vpō earth Winchester In the lx leaf the auctor entreateth whether it be a plaine spéech of Christ to say eate and drincke speaking of his body and bloud I answer the spéech of it selfe is propre commaunding them present to eate and drincke that is proponed for them and yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like cōmon effect worke in eating and drinking that heauenly meate drincke as it doth in earthly and carnall meates In this mistery man doth as Christ ordeined that is to say receyue with his mouth that is ordered to be receiued with his mouth graunting it neuerthelesse of that dignitie and estimation that Christes wordes affirms and whether he so doth or no Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it selfe alone whereof no good man iudgeth carnally or grosely ne discusseth the vnfaythfull question how which he can not conceiue but leaueth the déepenes thereof and doth as he is bidden This misterie receiueth no mans thoughtes Christes institution hath a propertie in it which can not be discussed by mans sensuall reason Christes wordes be spirite and life which this auctor wresteth with
his owne glose to exclude the truth of the eating of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to his speach the wordes grossely and carnally which wordes in such a rude vnderstanding be termes méeter to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery Wherein I will make the issue with this author that no catholike teaching is so framed with such termes as though we should eate Christs most precious body grossely carnally ioyning those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hillary vseth it but contrariwise speaking in the Catholique teaching of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spirituall maner of presence and yet there is present by gods power the very true naturall body and bloud of Christ whole God man without leauing his place in heauen and in the holy supper men vse their mouthes and téeth following Christes commaundement in the receiuing of that holy Sacrament being in fayth sufficiently instruct that they can not ne do not teare consume or violate that most precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuing it are cause of their owne iudgement and condemnation Caunterbury EAting and drinking with the mouth being so playne a matter that yong babes learne it and know it before they cā speake yet the Cut till here with his blacke colours and darke speaches goeth about so to couer and hyde the matter that neither yong nor olde learned nor vnlearned should vnderstand what he meaneth But for all his masking who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that eating in the propper and vsuall signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth And who knoweth not also that Christ is not so eaten Who can then be ignorant that here you speake a manifest vntruth when you say that Christes body to be eaten is of it selfe a propper speach and not figuratiue Which is by and by confessed by your selfe when you say that we do not eate that heauēnly meat as we do other carnall meates which is by chawing and deuiding with the mouth and teeth And yet we receaue with the mouth that is ordeined to be receiued with the mouth that is to say the Sacramentall bread and wine esteming them neuerthelesse vnto vs when we duly receiue them according vnto Christes wordes and ordinaunce But where you say that of the substaunce of Christes body no good man iudgeth carnally ne discusseth the vnfaythful question how you charge your selfe very sore in so saying and seeme to make demonstration vpon your selfe of whom may be sayd Ex ore tuo te iudico For you both iudge carnally in affirming a carnall presence and a carnall eating and also you discusse this question how when you say that Christes body is in the sacrament really substauncially corporally carnally sensible and naturally as he was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the cros And as concerning these wordes of Christ The wordes which I doe speake be Spirite and lyfe I haue not wrested them with myne owne glose as you misreport but I haue cited for me the interpretation of the catholik doctors and holy fathers of the church as I refer to the iudgement of the reader But you teach such a carnall grosse eating and drinking of Christes flesh bloud as is more meet to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to sette forth the high mistery of Christes holy supper For you say that Christes body is present really substauncially corporally and carnally and so is eaten and that we eate Christes body as eating is taken in common speach but in common speach it is taken for chawing and gnawing as doges do paunches wherfore of your saying it followeth that we do so eate Christes body as dogges eate paunches which all christian eares abhore for to heare But why should I ioyne with you here an issue in that mater which I neuer spake For I neuer read nor hard no man that sayd sauing you alone that we do eate Christ grossely or carnally or as eating is taken in common speach without any figure but all that euer I haue hard or read say quite cleane contrary But you who affirme that we eate Christ carnally and as eating is taken in common speach which is carnally grossely to chaw with the teeth must nedes consequently graunt that we eat him grossely and carnally as dogges eate paunches And this is a strange thing to heare that where before you sayd that Christ is present but after a spirituall maner now you say that he is eaten carnally And where you say that in the holy Supper men vse their mouth and teeth truth it is that they so do but to chawe the Sacramēt not the body of Christ. And if they doo not teare that most precious body and bloud why say you then that they eate the body of Christ as eatyng is taken in cōmon speech And wherefore doth that false Papisticall fayth of Pope Nicolas which you wrongfully call Catholike teach that Christs body is torne with the teeth of the faythfull De consecr dist 2. Ego Now folowe the particular authorities which I haue alleaged for the interpretation of Christes wordes which if you had well considered you would not haue sayd as you doe that I wrasted Christes wordes with mine owne glose For I beginne with Origene saying And Origene declaring the sayd eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud not to be vnderstand as the wordes doe sound but figuratiuely writeth thus vpon these wordes of Christ Except you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Consider sayth Origen that these thinges written in Godes bookes are figures and therefore examine and vnderstand them as spirituall and not as carnall men For if you vnderstand them as carnall men they hurt you and feede you not For euen in the Gospels is there foūd letter that killeth And not onely in the old Testament but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth hym that dooth not spiritually vnderstand that which is spoken For if thou follow the letter or wordes of this that Christ sayd Except you eat my flesh and drink my bloud this letter killeth Who can more playnely expresse in any wordes that the eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud are not to be taken in common signification as the wordes pretend and sound then Origene dooth in this place Winchester Now I will touch shortly what may be sayd to the particular authorities brought in by this author Origen is noted among other writers of the church to draw the text to all egories who doth not therby meane to destroy the truth of the letter and therefore whē he speaketh of a figure sayth not there is onely a figure which exclusiue only being away as it is not found by any author Catholick taught that the spéech
And with the figuratiue spech were the Ethnik and carnall eares offended not with the mistery which they vnderstood not And not to the Ethnik and carnall but to the faythfull and spirituall eares the wordes of Christ be figuratiue and to them the truth of the figures be playnely opened and declared by the Fathers wherin the Fathers be worthy much commendation because they trauayled to open playnly vnto vs the obscure and figuratiue speches of Christ. And yet in their sayd declarations they taught vs that these words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud are not to be vnderstanded plainly as the words properly signify but by a figuratiue speech Nor S. Augustine neuer wrote in all his long works as you do that Christ is in the sacrament corporally carnally or naturally or that he is so eaten nor I dare boldly say he neuer thought it For if he had he would not haue written so playnly as he doth in the places by me alleadged that we must beware that we take not litterally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely And specially he would not haue expressed by name the wordes of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud and haue sayd that they be figuratiue speches But S. Augustine dooth not onely tell how we may not take those words but also he declareth how we ought to take and vnderstand the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud which as he sayth is this To keep in our mindes to our great comfort profite that Christ was crucified and shed his bloud for vs and so to be partakers of his passion This sayth S. Augustine is to eat his flesh and to drinke his bloud And S. Augustine sayth not as you do that Christes words be figuratiue to the vnfaythfull for they be figuratiue rather to the faythfull then to the vnfaythfull For the vnfaythfull take them for no figure or mistery at all but rather carnally as the Caparnaites did And there is in deede no mistery nor figure in eatyng with the mouth as you say Christes flesh is eaten but in eating with the soule spirite is the figure mistery For the eating and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faythful and vnfaythfull to the carnall and spirituall both vnderstand in like what is eating and drinking with the mouth And therfore in no place do the doctors declare that there is a figure or mistery in eating drinkyng of Christes body with our mouthes or that there is any truth in that mistery but they say cleane contrary that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouthes And if in any place any old author write that there is a figure or mistery in eating and drinking of Christ with our mouthes shew the place if you will haue any credite S. Augustine specially whom you do here alleadge for your purpose sayth directly agaynst you Nolite par are fauces sed cor Prepare not your mouth or iawes but your hart And in an other place he sayth Quid paras ventrem dentem Crede manducasti Why doost thou prepare thy belly and teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten But to auoyde the saying of Saynt Augustine by me alleadged you say that Saynt Augustines rule perteyneth not to Christes supper which your sayeng is so strange that you be the first that euer excluded the words of Christ from his Supper And Saynt Augustine ment as well at the supper as at all other tymes that the eating of Christes flesh is not to be vnderstanded carnally with our teeth as the letter signifieth but spiritually with our mindes as he in the same place declareth And how can it be that Saynt Augustins rule perteineth not to Christs supper when by the rule he expoundeth Christes wordes in the sixt of Ihon which you say Christ spake of his supper Dyd Christ speak of his supper and Saynt Augustines wordes expounding the same perteyn not to the supper You make Saynt Augustine an expositor lyke your selfe that commonly vse to expounde both doctours and scripturs cleane from the purpose eyther for that by lacke of exercise in the Scriptures and Doctours you vnderstand them not or els that for very frowardnes you will not vnderstand any thing that misliketh you And where you say that we must do as Christ commaunded vs without carnall thought or sensuall deuise Is not this a carnall thought and sensuall deuise which you teach that we eat Christ corporally without teeth And contrary to that which you sayd before that Christs body in the sacrament is a spirituall body and eaten onely spiritually Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually I pray you tell me Now thou seest good reader what auayle all those gloses of carnall flesh and spirituall flesh of the flesh of Christ and the flesh of a common man of a figure to the vnfaythfull and not to the faythfull that the fathers tearmed it a figure bycause els the Ethnike eares could not abyd it and because they would reuerently couer the mistery And when none of these shiftes will serue he runneth to his shotte anker that Saynt Agustins rule perteineth nothing to Christes supper Thus mayst thou se with what sinceritie he handleth the ould writers And yet he myght right well haue spared all his long talke in this matter seing that he agreeth fully with me in the state of the whole cause that to eat Christes flesh and to drincke his bloud be figuratiue speaches For he that declareth the cause why they be figuratiue speaches agreeth in the matter that they be figuratiue speaches And so haue I my full purpose in this article Now heare what foloweth in my booke The same authors dyd say also that when Christ called the bread his body and the wine his bloud it was no proper speach that he than vsed but as all Sacraments be figures of other thinges and ye haue the very names of the thinges which they do signifie so Christ instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and bloud did vse figuratiue speaches calling the bread by the name of his body and the wine he called his bloud bicause it represented his bloud Tertullian herein writing agaynst Martion sayth these words Christ did not reproue bread wherby he did represent his very body And in the same booke he sayth that Iesus taking bread and distributing it amongs his disciples made it his body saying This is my body That is to say sayth Tertullian a figure of my body And therfore sayth Tertullian That Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud bicause that in the old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and bloud Winchester Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christes very body in which place he termeth the same body speaketh catholiquely in such phrase as S. Hierom speaketh and then Tertullian sayth afterward as this author therin truely bringeth hym forth that Christ made the bread
vnto his Apostles and ascended into heaueÌ„ Which things diuers hereticks sayd were not done verily in deed but apparantly to mens sightes and that in deed he had no such carnall corporall body as he appered to haue And agaynst such errors speaketh the epistle and not of the reall and corporall presence of Christ in the sacrameÌ„t although Eucharistia or the sacrament be ordeyned for a remembrance of that very body and so hath the name of it as the sacraments haue the names of the things which they signify But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from the true sence and purpose that was ment to an other sence and purpose that was not ment may appeare the truth of the Papistes who wrast and misconstrue all old auncient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and vngodly purposes Next in my book followeth mine aunswere to Dionisius Dionysius also Whom they alleage to prayse and extoll this sacrament as in deed it is most worthy being a sacrament of most high dignity and perfection representing vnto vs our most perfect spirituall coniunction vnto Chryst and our continuall nourishing feeding comfort and spiritual life in him yet he neuer sayd that the flesh and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wine really corporally sensibly and naturally as the Papists would beare vs in hand but he calleth euer the bread and wine signes pledges and tokens declaring vnto the faythfull receiuers of the same that they receaue Christ spiritually that they spiritually eat his flesh drinke his bloud And although the bread and wine be figures signes tokens of Christes flesh and bloud as S. Dionyse calleth them both before the Consecration and after yet the Greek annotations vpon the same Dionyse do say that the very things themselues be aboue in heauen And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in thys poynt of Christes real and corporal presence so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean agaynst them and that specially in three poynts in Transubstantiation in reseruation of the Sacrament and in the receiuing of the same by the Priest alone Winchester As touching Dionysius a wise reader may without any note of mine se how this author is troubled in hym and calleth for ayd the help of him that made the greek commeÌ„taries vpon Dionysius and pleadeth therwith the forme of the wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally wherof two that is to say really and sensibly the old authors in sillables vsed not forsomuch as I haue red but corporally and naturally they vsed speaking of this sacrament This Dionyse spake of this mistery after the dignitie of it not contending with any other for the truth of it as we do now but extolling it as a marueilous high mistery which if the bread be neuer the holyer and were onely a signification as this author teacheth were no high mistery at all As for the things of the Sacrament to be in heauen the church teacheth so and yet the same thinges be indéede present in the sacrament also which is a mistery so deepe and darke from mans naturall capacitie as is onely to be be beleued supernaturally without asking of the question how wherof S. Chrisostom maketh an exclamation in this wise O great beneuolence of God towards vs he that sitteth aboue with the father at the same houre is holden here with the hands of all men and geueth himselfe to them that will claspe and embrace him Thus sayth Chrisostom confessing to be aboue and here the same things at once and not onely in mens brests but hands also to declare the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible Sacrament whereby Christ is present in the mids of our sences and so may be called sensibly present although mans sences can not comprehend and feel or tast of him in their proper nature But as for this Dionyse he doth without argumeÌ„t declare his fayth in the adoratioÌ„ he maketh of this SacrameÌ„t which is openly testified in his workes so as we need not to doubt what his fayth was As for this authors notes they be descant voluntary without the tenor part being be like ashamed to alleadge the text it self least his thrée notes might seeme fayned without ground as before in S. Clements epistle and therfore I will not trouble the reader with them Canterbury I Aske no more of the reader but to read my book and theÌ„ to iudge how much I am troubled with this author And why may not I cite the grek commentaryes for testimony of the truth Is this to be termed a callyng for ayd Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for ayde Is not your doing rather a caling for ayd when you be fayne to flye for succor to Martin Luther Bucer Melancthon Epinius Ionas Peter Marter and such other whom al the world knoweth you neuer fauored but euer abhorred their names May not this be termed a calling for ayd when you be driuen to such a straight and need that you be glad to cry to such men for helpe whom euer you haue hindered and defamed asmuch as lay in you to do And as for pleading of those wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally they be your owne termes and the termes wherein resteth the whole contention betweene you and me and should you be offended because I speak of those termes It appeareth now that you be loth to here of those wordes and would very gladly haue them put in silence and so should the variance betweene you and me clearely ended For if you will confesse that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament really corporally sensibly and naturally then you and I shal shake hands and be both earnest frends to the truth And yet one thing you do here confesse which is worthy to be noted had in memory that you read not in any old author that the body of Christ is really and sensibly in the sacrament And hereunto I adde that none of them say that he is the bread and wine corporally nor naturally No neuer no papist said that Christes body is in â—he sacrament naturally nor carnally but you alone who be the first auâ— or of this gros error which Smith himself condeÌ„neth and denieth that euer ChristiaÌ„ man so taught although some say that it is there really some substantially and some sensibly Now as concerning the high mistery which S. Denys speaketh of he declareth the same to be in the meruelous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures beyng made after his image and being his liuely temples and Christes misticall body and not in the vnreasonable and vnsensible and vnliuely creatures of bread and wine wherin you say the deep and darke mistery standeth But notwithstanding any holines or godlines wrought in the receauers of them yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselfes but be only tokens
writer among the Grekes hath more playnly spokeÌ„ for you then Theophilacte hath and yet when that shal be well examined it is nothing at all as I haue playnly declared shewing your vntruth aswell in allegation of the authors wordes as in falsefying his name And as for the Catechisme of Germany by me translated into English to this I haue aunswered before and truth it is that eyther you vnderstand not the phrase of the old authors of the church or els of purpose you will not vnderstand me But hereunto you shall haue a more full aunswer when I come to the proper place therof in the iiij part of my booke And as coÌ„cerning the wordes of Theophilact vpon the gospel of Iohn he speaketh to one effect and vseth much like termes vpon the gospels of Mathew Marke and Iohn wherunto I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And because the aunswer may be the more present I shall rehearse some of my wordes here agayne Although sayd I Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ and the drinking of his very bloud and not onely of the figures of them and of the conuersion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet he meaneth not of a grosse carnall corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud for so not onely our stomackes would yerne our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh and to drink his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite and auayle vs but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread calling the bread not onely a figure but also the body of Christ geuing vs by those wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eate corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drincke his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable This I wrot in my former booke which is sufficient to aunswer vnto all that you haue here spoken And as concerning the bread that Christ did eate and feede vpon it was naturally eaten as other men eate naturally changed and caused a naturall nourishment and yet the very matter of the bread remayned although in an other forme but in them that duely receaue and â—at the Lordes holy supper all is spirituall aswell the eating as the change and nourishment which is none impediment to the nature of bread but that it may still remayne And where you come to the translation of this word species to signifie apparence this is a wonderfull kinde of translation to translat specie in apparence because apparet is truly translated appeareth with like reason aurum myght be translated meate because edâ—re signifieth to eate And your other translation is no lesse wonderfull where you turne the vertue of Christes body into the veritie And yet to cloke your folly therin and to cast a mist before the readers eyes that he should not see your vntruth therin you say that by vertue in that place must be vuderstanded verite First what soeuer be vnderstande by the worde vertue your fayth in translation is broken For the sense being ambiguous yoâ— ought in translation to haue kept the word as it is leauing the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader and not by altering the word to make such a sense as please you which is so foule a fault in a translatour that if Decolampadius had so done he should haue ben called a man faulty and gilthy a corruptour a deceauour an abuser of other men a peruerter a deprauer and a man without fayth As he might be called that would translate Verbum caro factum est The second person became man Which although it be true in meaning yet it is not true in translation nor declareth the fayth of the translatour But now as your translation is vntrue so is the meaning also vntrue and vnexcusable For what man is so far destitute of all his senses that he knoweth not a difference betwene the veritie of Christes body and the vertue therof Who can pretend ignoraunce in so manifest a thing Doth not all men know that of euery thing the vertue is one and the substance an other Except in God onely who is of that simplicitie without multiplication of any thing in him or diuersitie that his vertue his power his wisdome his iustice and all that is sayd to be in him be neyther qualites nor accidentes but all one thinge with his verie substauÌ„ce And neyther the right hand of God nor the vertue of God which you bring for an example and serueth to no purpose but to blind the ignorauÌ„t reader be any thing els but the very substaunce of God although indiuersitie of respectes and considerations they haue diuersitie of names except you will deuide the most single substaunce of God into corporall partes and members following the errour of the Aâ—cropomorphites But the like is not in the body of Christ which hath distinctioÌ„ of integrall partes and the vertue also and qualities distinct from the substance And yet if the example were like he should be an euill translator or rather a corrupter that for a dextris virtutis Dei would traÌ„slate a dextris Dei or coÌ„trary wise And therfore all traÌ„slators in those places folow the wordes as they be be not so arrogaÌ„t to alter one title in theÌ„ therby to make theÌ„ one in wordes although the thing in substaunce be one For wordes had not theyr signification of the substances or of thinges onely but of the qualities maners respectes and considerations And so may one word signifie diuers thinges one thing be signified by diuers wordes And therfore he that should for on word take an other because they be both referred to one substaunce as you haue done in this place should make a goodly yere of worke of it not much vnlike to him that should burne his house and say he made it because the making burning was both in one matter and substaunce It is much pitie that you haue not bestowed your tyme in translation of good authors that can skill so well of translation to make specieÌ„ to signifie apparence and that take vertue sometyme for veritie and somtime for nothing a dextris virtutis Dei to signifie no more but a dextris Dei and virtutem carnis to signifie no more but carnem and virtutem sanguinis sanguinem And why not seing that such wordes signifie ad placitum that is to say as please you to translate them And it seameth to be a strange thing that you haue so quicke an eye to espye other mens faultes and cannot see in Theophilact his playne aunswer but to take vpon you to teach him to aunswer For when he asketh the question why doth
water And when the rodde was tourned into a serpent and water into bloud the earth into a man and his ribbe into a woman Were not the woman man bloud and serpent made of the matter of the ribbe the earth the water and the rodde And is not euery thing made of that which is tourned into it As bread is made of Corne wine of grapes beare of water hoppes and mault and so of all thinges like And when you haue confessed your selues so many yeares passed that Christ is made of bread in the sacrament what moueth you now to say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread except that eyther you will say that the priest doth it and not Christ which were an intollerable blaspheme or that the truth is of such a nature that euen the very aduersaries therof sometime vnwares acknowledge it or els that force of argumentes constrayneth you to confesse the truth agaynst your will whē you see none other shift to escape But if you take vpon you to defend the receaued doctrine of the Papistes you must affirme that doctrine which they affirme and say that bread in the Sacrament is the matter wherof Christes body is made wherof must than nedes follow ex consequenti that he hath from tyme to tyme a new body made of new bread besides the body which was incarnated and neuer but once made nor of none other substaunce but of his mother So that it is but a vayne cauilation onely to elude simple people or to shift of the matter to say as you do that Christ is not made of the breade but is made to be present there For than should he haue sayd There is my body and not This is my body And to be present requireth no new making but to be present by conuersion requireth a new making As the wine that was bought at the mariage in the Cane of Galilee if there were any such was present without conuertion and so without new making but the wine that was made of water was present by conuertion which could not be without new making And so must Christes body be newly made if it be present by corporall conuertion of the substaunce of bread into the substaunce of it And now I referre to euery indifferent reader to iudge betwene vs both which of vs is most snarled Now let vs examine the other authors following in my booke And the same is to be aunswered vnto all that the aduersaries bring of S. Augustine Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus Gregorius and other concerning the eating of Christ in the Sacrament Which thing can not be vnderstanded playnly as the wordes sound but figuratiuely and spiritually as before is sufficiently proued and hereafter shal be more fully declared in the fourth parte of this booke Winchester Bicause this author who hitherto hath answered none substancially would neuerthelesse be seene to aunswer all he windeth vp sixe of them in one fardell S. Augustine Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus and Gregorius and dispatcheth them all with an ut supra and among them I think he would haue knitte vp all the rest of the learned men of all ages amonges whome I know none that write as this Author doth of the Sacrament or impugneth the Catholique fayth as this author doth by the enuious name of Papistes Sence Christes time there is no memory more than of sixe that haue affirmed that doctrine which this author would haue called now the Catholike doctrine and yet not writtē by them of one sorte neither receiued in beleefe in publique profession But secretly when it hapned begunne by conspiration and in the ende euer hitherto extincte and quenched First was Bertrame then Berengarius then Wicleffe and in our time Decolampadius Zwinglius and Ioachimus Uadianus I will not recken Peter Martir bicause such as know him sayth he is not learned nor this author bycause he doth but as it were translate Peter Martir sauing he roueth at solutions as liketh his phantasie as I haue before declared Whyche mater being thus it is a strange title of this Booke to call it the trewe Catholique doctrine Caunterbury ALl that you haue these many yeres gathered togither for your purpose or that can be gathered may be well trussed vp in a very small fardell and very easely borne and caried away For any weight that is therin For your doinges bee like to him that would fayne seme to haue some thing and hauing nothing els filleth a great male full of strawe that men should thynke he caried some thing where indeed a litle bouget had ben sufficient for so much in value And as for your owne doctrine it is so straunge that neither it agreeth with the scripture nor with the old catholike churche nor yet with the later church or congregation of the Papistes but you stand poste alone after the fall of the Papisticall doctrine as sometime an old poste standeth when the building is ouerthrowen And where you say that since Christes tyme there is no mo but syxe that haue affirmed the doctrine that I haue taught all that haue been learned and haue redde the olde authors of the catholike church may euidently see the contrary That sithens Christes tyme the doctrine of my booke was euer the catholike and publike receaued fayth of the church vntill Nicholas the secondes tyme who cōpelled Berengarius to make such a deuilish recantation that the papistes thē selues be now ashamed of it And since that tyme haue many thousandes been cruelly persecuted onely for the profession of the true fayth For no maune myght speake one worde agaynst the byshope of Romes determination herein but he was taken for an heretike and so condemned as Wiclieffe Husse and an infinite numbre mo And as for Bertram he was neuer before this tyme detected of any errour that euer I redde but onely now by you For all other that haue written of him haue spoken much to his commendation and prayse But I know what the matter is he hath written against your mynde which is a fault and errour great inough As for Doctour Peter Martyr he is of age to aunswer for him selfe but concerning him that told you that he was not learned I would wish you to leaue this olde rooted fault in you to be light of credite For I suppose that if his lernyng that tolde you that lye and yours also wer set both togither you should be farre behind Master Peter Martyr Marye in wordes I think that you alone would ouerlay two Peter Martyrs he is so sobre a man and delighteth not in wasting of wordes in vayne And none do say that he is not lerned but such as know hym not or be not lerned themselues or els be so malicious or enuious that they wittingly speake agaynst theyr owne consciēce And no doubt that man bringeth hym selfe out of the estimation of a learned man which hath heard him reason and reade and sayth that he is
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
popish diuines but the true worshippers of Christ worship him in spirite sitting in his high glory and Maiesty and pluck him not downe from thence corporally to eate him with their teeth but spiritually in hart ascend vp as S. Chrisostō sayth and feede vpon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his father To which spirituall feding is required no bodely presence nor also mouth nor teeth and yet they that receaue any sacrament must adore Christ both before and after sitting in heauen in the glory of his father And this is neyther as you say it is a cold nor grosse teaching of S. Augustine in this place to worship the flesh and humanity of Christ in heauen nor your teaching is not so farre from all doubtes but that you seeme so afrayd your selfe to stand to it that when you haue sayde that Christ is to be worshipped in his humanity as it were to excuse the matter agayne you say you speake not properly And this doctrine of S. Augustine was very necessary for ij considerations One is for the exposition of the Psalme which he tooke in hand to declare where in one verse is commaunded to worship the earth being gods fotestole and this he sayth may be vnderstād in the flesh of Christ which flesh being earth and the foode of faythfull christen people is to be worshipped of all that feede and liue by him For notwithstanding that his flesh is earth of earth and a creature and that nothing ought to be worshipped but God alone yet is found out in Christ the explication of this great doubt and mistery how flesh earth and a creature both may and ought to be worshipped That is to say when earth and flesh being vnited to the godhead in one person is one perfect Iesus Christ both God and man And this is neyther a cold nor grosse saying of S. Augustine but an explication of the diuine and high mistery of his incarnation The other cause why it is necessary both to teach and to exhort men to honor Chistes flesh in heauen is this that some know it not and some doe it not For some heretikes haue taught that Christ was but a man and so not to be honored And some haue sayd that although he be both God and man yet his diuinity is to be honored and not his humanity For extirpation of which errors it is no grosse nor cold saying that Christes flesh in heauen is to be honored And some know right well the whole Christ God and man ought to be honored with one entier and godly honor and yet forgetting them selfe in theyr factes do not according to their knowledge but treading the sonne of God vnder their feete and despising the bloud wherby they were sanctified crucifie agayne the sonne of God and make him a mocking stocke to all the wicked And many professing Christ yet hauing vayne cogitatiōs and phātasies in their heades do worship and serue Antichrist and thinking them selues wise become very fooles in deed And count you it then a cold and a grosse saying that Christ in heauen is to be honored wherin so many olde authors haue trauayled and written so many bookes and wherin all godly teachers trauayle from tyme to tyme And yet bring you here nothing to proue that S. Augustine spake of the reall presence of Christes flesh in the sacramēt and not of Christ being in heauen but this your cold and grosse reason And this will serue to answere also the place here following of S. Ambrose who spake not of the worshipping of Christ onely at the receauing of the sacrament but at all tymes and of all resonable creatures both men and angels Winchester And for the more manifest confirmation that S. Augustine ought thus to be vnderstanded I shall bring in S. Ambrose saying of whome it is probable S. Augustine to haue learned that he writeth in this matter Saynt Ambrose wordes in his booke De spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. be these Non mediocris igitur quaestio ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum Legimus enim alibi Coelum ucihi thronus terra autem scabellum pedum meorum Sed nec terra adoranda nobis quia creatura est dei Videamus tamen ne terrà m illam dicat adorandam Propheta quam Dominus Iesus in carnis assumptione suscepit Itaque per scabellum terrae intelligitur per terram antem caro christi quam hodie quoque in misterys adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu ut supra diximus adorarunt neque enim diuisus Christus sed vnus Which wordes may be englished thus It is therfore no meane question and therfore we should more diligently consider what is the foote stoole For we read in an other place heauen is my throne and the earth the foote stoole of my feete But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of vs bicause it is a creature of God And yet let vs see though least the prophet means that earth to be worshipped which our Lord Iesus tooke in the taking of flesh So then by the footestoole let the earth be vnderstanded and then by the earth the flesh of Christ which we do now worship also in the misteries and which the Apostles as we haue before sayde worshipped in our Lord Iesu for Christ is not deuided but one Hitherto S. Ambrose wherby may appeare how S. Ambrose and S. Augustine tooke occasion to open their fayth and doctrine touching adoration vpon discussion of the selfe same words of the prophet Dauid And S. Ambrose expressely noteth our adoration in the misteries where we worship Christes flesh inuisibly present as the Apostles did when Christ was visibly present with them And thus with these so playne wordes of S. Ambrose consonant to those of S. Augustine and the opening of S. Augustines wordes as before I trust I haue made manifest how this Author trauayleth agaynst the streame and laboreth in vayne to writh S. Augustine to his purpose in this matter The best is in this author that he handleth S. Augustine no worse then the rest but all after one sort bycause they be al of like sort agaynst his new catholique fayth cōfirme the old true Catholique fayth or do not improue it For of this high mistery the authors write some more obscurely and darkely thē other and vse diuersities of speaches and wordes wherwith the true doctrine hath bene of a very few impugned but euer in vayne as I trust in God this shall be most in vayne hauing this author vttered such vntruthes with so much blinde ignorāce as this worke well wayed cōsidered that is to say who made it when he made it of like how many were or might haue bene should haue bene of coūsayle in so great a matter who if they were any be al reproued in this one worke all such circūstāces cōsidered this booke may do as much good to releaue
by some persons they know right well that were then present But after when it pleased almighty God more clearly to shine vnto vs by the light of this word our eyes by his goodnes were opened darkenes discussed and that which was done in ignoraunce and darkenes was by knowledge and light in publique Counsell rehersed and taken away as well concerning the doctrine as the hardnes of the law For if the doctrine had bene true and godly there is no christen harted man but he would haue desired the establishment and continuaunce therof But the doctrine being false and such as came onely from Rome they be not worthy to be likened to those truthes which came from God and were vttered by Balaam and Cayphas but to be numbred among those lyes which came from his vicar who when he speaketh lyes ex proprijs loquitur he speaketh properly of himselfe And the Byshop of Rome was not cleane gone out of England as sone as the lawes were made agaynst his authority but remayned still by his corrupt doctrine as I feare me he doeth yet in some mennes hertes who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresayd law But yet is all togither to be imputed to the Byshop of Rome forasmuch as from thens came all the foresayd errours ignorance and corruption into these parties Now where you take vpon you here to purge your selfe of Papistry by me and Zuinglius if you haue no better compurgators then vs two you be like to fayle in your purgation For neyther of vs I dare say durst swere for you in this matter though Zuinglius were aliue Or if your purgatioÌ„ stand to this poynt that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body although in a formall and proper speach bread is not in deede his body you may be as rancke a Papist as euer was for any purgation you can make by this way For Christ called bread made of wheate his body as the wordes of the Euangelistes playnly declare and all old writers teach and in your booke of the deuils sophistrie you haue confessed saying that Christ made demonstration of bread when he sayd This is my body And therfore bring some better purgation then this or els had you bene better not to haue offered any purgation in a matter that no man charged you withall than by offering a purgation aud fayling therin to bring your selfe into more suspition And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation you make your argument thus That forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament there is of necessity TransubstantiatioÌ„ also This your argument hath two great faultes in it The first is that your antecedent is false and then you can not conclude therof a true consequent The second fault is that although the autecedent were graunted vnto you that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament yet the consequent can not be inferred therof that there is of necessity Transubstantiation For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament as well with the substance of the bread as without it and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents forasmuch as neyther Christes body there occupieth any place as you say yourselfe nor no more doth the substance of bread by it selfe but by meanes of the accidentes as you say also Now forasmuch as you say that you will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes which you heard me once more seriously reherse in solemne open audience I knowledge that not many yeares passed I was yet in darkenes concerning this matter being brought vp in scholasticall and Romish doctrine wherunto I gaue to much credite And therfore I graunt that you haue heard me stand and defend the vntruth which I then tooke for the truth and so did I heare you at the same tyme. But prayse be to the euerliuing God who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from myne eyes and I pray vnto his diuine maiesty with all my hart that he will likewise do once the same to you Thy will be fulfillid O Lord. But forasmuch as you passe ouer my handling of Christes wordes as you vse commonly to passe in post when you haue no direct answer to make I shall here repete my wordes agayne to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I haue handled them and then iudge whether you ought so slenderly to pas them ouer as you do My wordes be these ¶ The second booke THus haue you heard declared fower thinges wherin chiefly the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the trew word of God and from the olde catholique Christian fayth in this matter of the Lordes supper Now least any man should thinke that I fayne any thing of myne owne head without any other grounde or authority you shall heare by Gods grace as well the errors of the Papistes confâ—ted as the catholique truth defended both by gods most certayne word and also by the most old approued authors and Martirs of Christes Church And first that bread and wine remayne after the wordes of consecration and be eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper is most manifest by the playn wordes of Christ himselfe when he ministred the same supper vnto his desciples For as the Euangilistes write Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body Here the Papistes triumph of these wordes when Christ sayd This is my body which they call the wordes of Consecration For say they assone as these wordes be fully ended there is no bread left nor none other substance but onely Christes body When Christ sayd this the bread say they remayned And when he sayd is yet the bread remayned Also whan he added my the bread remayned still And when he sayd bo yet the bread was there still But when he had finished the whole sentence This is my body then say they the bread was gone and there remayned no substance but Christes body as though the bread could not remayne when it is made a Sacrament But this negatiue that there is no bread they make of theyr owne braynes by their vnwritten verities which they most highly esteme Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread but Christ spake not that negatiue This is no bread but sayd affirmingly This is my body not denying the bread but affirming that his body was eaten meaning spiritually as the bread was eaten corporally And that this was the meaning of Christ appeareth playnly by S. Paule in the tenth chap. to the Corinth the first epistle where he speaking of the same matter sayth Is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ Who vnderstood the mynd of Christ better then S. Paule to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsailes And S. Paule is not afrayd for our better
sometimes in Scripture a thing is told after that was done before But S. Augustine saith not that it is so in this matter nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the three Euangelistes with S. Paule also disordered the truth of the story in a matter wherein the truth can not be knowen but by the order S. Augustine De consensu Euangelistarum saith That that which Luke rehearseth of the chalice before the giuing of the bread was spoken by Christ after the distribution of the bread as the other two Euangelistes report the same And if these woordes Hoc est corpus meum had bene put out of the right place in all the three Euangelistes and also in S. Paule would not S. Augustine haue giuen warning therof aswell as of the other And would all other authors expounding that place haue passed ouer the matter in silence and haue spoken not one word therof specially being a matter of such waight that the Catholicke faith and our saluatiō as you say hangeth therof Do not all the profes that you haue hang of these wordes Hoc est corpus meum This is my body And shall you say now that they be put out of their place And then you must needes confesse that you haue nothing to defend your selfe but onely one sentence and that put out of order and from his right place as you say your selfe where in deede the Euangelistes and Apostles being true rehearsers of the story in this matter did put those wordes in the right place But you hauing none other shift to defend your errour do remoue the wordes both out of the right place and the right sense And can any man that loueth the truth giue his eares to heare you that turne vp side downe both the order and sense of Christes wordes contrary to the true narration of the Euangelistes contrary to the interpretation of all the old authors and the approued faith of Christes Church euen from the beginning onely to mainteine your wilful assertions and Papisticall opinions So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of learned Diuines it had the right sence but when it came to the handling of ignoraūt Lawyers and Sophisticall Papistes such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture and old Catholicke writers might declare and defend the truth at their perils but the Papisticall Sophisters and Lawyers would euer define and determine all matters as pleased them But all truthes agree to the truth and falsehode agreeth not with it selfe so it is a playne declaration of vntruth that the Papistes varie so among themselues For some say that Christ consecrated by his owne secret power without signe or wordes some say that his benediction was his cōsecration some say that he did consecrate with these wordes Hoc est corpus meum and yet those vary among themselues for some say that he spake these wordes twise once immediatly after benediction at what tyme they say he consecrated and agayne after when he commaunded them to eate it appointyng than to his Apostles the forme of consecration And lately came new Papistes with their v. egges and say that the consecration is made onely with these v. wordes Hoc est enim corpus meum And last of all come you and Smith with yet your newer deuises saying that Christ spake those wordes before he gaue the bread immediatly after the breakyng manifestly contrary to the order of the text as all the Euangelistes report and contrary to all old authours of the Catholicke Church which all with one consent say that Christ gaue bread to his Apostles and contrary to the booke of Common prayer by you allowed which rehearseth the wordes of the Euangelistes thus that Christ tooke bread and when he had blessed and geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to his disciples where all the relation is made to the bread Is this your faythfull handling of Gods word for your pleasure to turne the wordes as you list Is it not a thing much to be lamented that such as should be the true setters fourth of Christes Gospell do trifle with Christes wordes after this sort to alter the order of the gospell after their owne phantasie Can there be any trifling with Christes wordes if this be not And shall any christen man geue credite to such corrupters of holy scripture Haue you put vpon you harlots faces that you be past all shame thus to abuse gods worde to your owne vanity And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to bely me that I phansy that the apostles should be so hasty to drincke or Christ had told them what he gaue where as by my wordes appeareth cleane contrary that they drancke not before all Christes wordes were spoken And where you say that Christ gaue that he had consecrated and that he made of bread here you graunt that Christes body which he gaue to his disciples at his last supper was made of bread And then it must folow that eyther Christ had two bodyes the one made of the flesh of the virgine Mary the other of bread or els that the selfe same body was made of two diuers matters and at diuers and sundry tymes Now what doctrine this is let them iudge that be learned And it is worthy a note how vnconstant they be that will take vppon them to defend an vntruth and how good memories they had nede to haue if they should not be taken with a lye For here you say that Christes body in the Sacrament is made of bread and in the xi comparison you sayd that this saying is so fond as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And where you say that S. Paule speaketh not of materiall bread but of Christes body when he sayth that we be partakers of one bread the wordes of the text be playne against you For he speaketh of the bread that is broken whereof euerye man taketh parte whiche is not Christes body excepte you wyll say that we eate Christes bodye deuided in peaces as the grose Capernaites imagined And S. Augustine with other olde authors do write that Paule spake of such bread as is made of a great multitude of graynes of corne gathered togither and vnited into one materiall lofe as the multitude of the spirituall members of Christ be ioyned to gither into one misticall body of Christ. And as concerning Theodorete and Chrisostome they say as playnly as can be spoken that the bread remayneth after consecration although we call it by a more excellent name of dignity that is to say by the name of Christes body But what estimation of wisedome or learning so euer you haue of yourselfe surely there appeareth neyther in you in this place whereuppon the alteration of the name of bread you would gather the alteration of the substaunce or Transubstantiation Be not kinges and
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
that the two natures in Christ his diuinity and his humanity be not confounded And for ignorance of confusion you confounde all togither Gelasius and Theodorete proue that the two natures in Christ be not confounded bicause they remayne both in their owne substances and properties so that the remayning declareth no confusion which should be confounded if they remayned not If a droppe of milke be put into a pot of wine by and by it looseth the first nature and substance and is confounded with the nature and substance of wine And if wine and milke be put togither in equale quantity then both be confounded bicause neyther remayneth neyther perfect wine with his substāce natural proprieties nor perfect milke with the substance proprieties of milke but a cōfusion an humble iomble or hotch potch a posset or sillabub is made of thē both togither like as in mans body the foure elemēts be cōfoūded to the cōstitutiō of the same not one of the elemēts remayning in his proper substāce forme pure naturall qualities So that if one nature remayne not the same is confounded And if there be more natures that lose their substance they be all confounded except there be an vtter consumption or adnihilation of the thing that looseth his substance and therfore the argument which all the old ecclesiasticall authors vse to saue the confusion of the two natures in Christ is to proue that they both remayne And if we may learne that by the similitude of the sacrament as Gelasius and Theodoret teach and you here confesse the same then must needes the substance of bread and wine remayne or els is there none example nor similitude of the remayning of two natures in Christ but of their confusion as by youre fayned doctrine the substance of bread is confounded with the body of Christ neyther being adnihilate nor remayning but transubstantiated confounded and conuerted into the substance of Christes body And thus with your well vnderstanding of the matter you confound all togither where as I with my ignorance not blaspheming that holy vnion and mistery of Christes incarnation doe saue all the natures whole without mixtion confusion or Transubstantiation either of the diuine humayne nature in Christ or of the soule and body in man or of the bread wine in the Sacramēt but all the substāce natures be saued remayne cleerly with their natural properties conditions that the proportiō in that poynt may be like and one to be the true Image and similitude of the other But surely more grosse ignoraunce or wilfull impiety then you haue shewed in this matter hath not lightly bene seene or red of And where you say that I by ouersight or the Printer by negligence haue left out a not if I should haue put in that not of myne owne head contrarye to the originall in Greeke and to all the translatours in Latine and the translation of Master Peter Martyr also I should haue bene as farre ouerseene as you bee whiche as it seemeth of purpose confound and corrupt you care not whether any Authors wordes or their meanyng And as for my forked dilemma you shall neuer be able to aunswer ther to but the more you trauayle therein the more you shall entangle your selfe For eyther you must graunt as vnwilling as you be that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne after the consecration or els that the nature and substance of Christes humanity and diuinitie remayne not after his incarnation wherein erred not onely Eutiches whome you say I should haue put for Nestorius but also Martion Ebion Ualentinus Nestorius and other as in my booke I haue declared And one thing is principally to be noted in your answere to Theodoret how you can sophisticate and falsefy all mens sayinges be they neuer so playne For where betweene me and the Papistes the matter here in contention is this Whether the bread and wine remayne in their proper nature and substauce or no. I saying that they remayne and the Papistes saying that they remayne not the Issue being in this poynt whether they remayne or remayne not I bring for me Chrisostome who sayth the nature of bread remayneth I bring Gelasius who sayth that there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine I bring this Theodoret whose wordes be these The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substances forme and figure Now how can any man deuise to speake the truth in more playne wordes than these be For they say the very same wordes that I say And yet bicause the truth is not liked here must be deuised a crafty Lawyers glose of them that neuer sought other but to calumniate the truth and must be sayd agaynst all learning reason and speach that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents well yet then you confesse that those olde auncient Authors agree with me in wordes and say as I do that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated but remayne in their former substance And then the issue playnly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses vntill such tyme as you can proue that these authors spake one thing and ment an other and that qualities and accidents be substances And if you vnderstoode whereunto the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth you would not say that they spake agaynst the Eutiches any more then they do agaynst the Nestorians For if the bread and wine remayne not as you say but be swallowed vp of the body and bloud of Christ then likewise in the principall mistery eyther the deity must be swallowed vp of the humanity or the humanity of the deity The contrary wherof is not onely agaynst the Eutichians but also agaynst the Nestorians Martionistes and all other that denied any of his two natures to remayne perfectly in Christ. And where as you with all the route of the Papistes both priuately and openly report me to be vnlearned and ignorant bycause you would therby impayre my credite in this weighty matter of our fayth my knowledge is not any whit the lesse bicause the Papistes say it is nothing nor yours any deale the more bicause the Papistes do say that you onely be learned whome for any thing that euer I could perceaue in you I haue found more full of wordes and talke then of learning And yet the note of ignorance I nothing passe of if therby the truth and Gods glory should not be hindered Now after the reproofe of your doctrine of Transubstantiation by all the old writers of Christes church I write in my booke after this māner Now forasmuch as it is proued sufficiently as well by the holy Scripture as by naturall operation by naturall reason by all our sences and by the most olde and best learned authors and holy martirs of Christes church that the substance of bread and wine do remayne and be receaued of
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
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
at the holy communion by remembrance of the death resurrection and ascention of his sonne Iesu Christ and by confessing and setting forth of the same Heare by the vngodly handeling of this godly councell at his first beginning it may appeare to euery man how sincerely this Papist entendeth to proceede in the rest of this matter And with like sinceritie he vntruly belieth the sayd counsell saying that it doth playnly set forth the holy sacrifice of the Masse wich doth not so much as once name the Masse but speaketh of the sacrifice of the church which the sayd councell declareth to be the profession of christen people in setting forth the benefite of Christ who onely made the true sacrifice pro piciatory for remission of sinne And whosoeuer else taketh vpon him to make any such sacrifice maketh himselfe Antichrist And than he belyeth me in two thinges as he vseth commonly throughout his whole booke The one is that I deny the sacrifice of the Masse which in my booke haue most playnly set out the sacrifice of christen people in the holy communion or masse if D. Smith will needes so terme it and yet I haue denyed that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for sinne or that the priest alone maketh any sacrifice there For it is the sacrifice of all christen people to remember Christes death to laude and thanke him for it and to publish it and shew it abroad vnto other to his honor and glory The controuersy is not whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not for herein both D. Smith and I agree with the foresayd councell at Ephesus but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not and whether onely the priest make the sayd sacrifice these be the poyntes wherin we vary And I say so far as the councell sayth that there is a sacrifice but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sinne or that the priest alone doth offer it neyther I nor the counsell do so say but D. Smith hath added that of his owne vayne head The other thing wherin D. Smith belyeth me is this He sayth that I deny that we receaue in the sacrament that flesh which is adioyned to Gods owne sonne I meruaile not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had when he red ouer my booke It is like that he hath some priuy spectacles within his head wherwith when soeuer he loketh he seeth but what he list For in my booke I haue written in moe then an hundred places that we receaue the selfe same body of Christ that was borne of the virgine Mary that was crucified and buried that rose agayne ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty And the contention is onely in the manner and forme how we receaue it For I say as all the olde holy Fathers and Martirs vsed to say that we receaue Christ spiritually by fayth with our myndes eating his flesh and drincking his bloud so that we receaue Christes owne very naturall body but not naturally nor corporally But this lying papist sayth that we eate his naturall body corporally with our mouthes which neyther the counsell Ephesine nor any other auncient councell or doctor euer sayd or thought And the controuersy in the councell Ephesine was not of the vniting of Christes flesh to the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament but of the vniting of his flesh to his diuinity at his incarnation in vnity of person Which thing Nestorius the heretike denyed confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were but not that he was very God in nature which heresy that holy counsell confuting affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so ioyned in person to the dyuine nature that it was made the proper flesh of the sonne of God and flesh that gaue life but that the sayd flesh was present in the sacramēt corporally and eaten with our mouthes no mention is made therof in that councell And here I require D. Smith as proctor for the Papists eyther to bring forth some auncient councell or doctor that sayth as he sayth that Christs own naturall body is eaten corporally with our mouthes vnderstanding the very body in deed and not the signes of the body as Chrisostome doth or els let him confesse that my saying is true and recant his false doctrine the third tyme as he hath done twise already THan forth goeth this Papist with his preface and sayth that these wordes This is my body that shall be giuen to death for you no man can truely vnderstand of bread And his profe therof is this bicause that bread was not crucified for vs. First here he maketh a lye of Christ. For Christ said not as this papist alleadgeth This is my body which shal be giuen to death for you but onely he sayth This is my body which is giuen for you which wordes some vnderstand not of the giuing of the body of Christ to death but of the breaking and giuing of bread to his apostles as S. Paule sayd The bread which we breake c. But let it be that he spake of the geuing of his body to death and said of the bread This is my body which shal be geuen to death for you by what reason can you gather hereof that the bread was crucified for vs If I looke vpon the image of kinge Dauid and say This is he that killed Goliath doth this speach mean that the image of King Dauid killed Goliath Or if I hold in my hand my booke of S. Iohns gospell and say This is the gospell that S. Iohn wrote at Pathmos which fashion of speach is commonly vsed doth it folow hereof that my booke was written at Pathmos Or that S. Iohn wrote my booke which was but newly printed at Paris by Robert Stephanus Or if I say of my booke of S. Paules epistles This is Paule that was the great persecuter of Christ Doth this manner of speach signify that my booke doth persecute Christ Or if I shew a booke of the new testament saying This is the new testament which brought life vnto the world by what forme of argument can you induce hereof that my booke that I bought but yesterday brought life vnto the world No man that vseth thus to speake doth meane of the bookes but of the very thinges themselues that in the bookes be taught and contayned And after the same wise if Christ called bread his body saying This is my body which shall be giuen to death for you yet he ment not that the bread should be giuen to death for vs but his body which by the bread was signified If this excellent clarke and doctor vnderstand not these maner of speaches that be so playne then hath he doth lost his sences and forgotten his gramer which teacheth to referre the relatiue to the next antecedent But of these figuratiue speaches I haue spokē at large in my third booke First in the
may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar I am not so ignorant but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paule and sayd to him Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes that euer he speake vpon earth And yet we finde that Christ speaketh sayth he but in heauen and from heauen and not vpon earth For he spake to Paule from aboue saying Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me The head was in heauen and yet he sayd why doest thou persecute me bycause he persecuted his members vpon earth And if this please not Maister Smith let him blame S. Augustin and not me for I fayne not this my selfe but onely alledge S. Augustin And as the father spake from heauen whan he sayd This is my beloued sonne in whom I am pleased and also S. Stephen saw Christ sittyng in heauen at his fathers right hand euen so ment S. Augustin that S. Paule and all other that haue sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention haue sene and heard him from heauen NOw when this Papist goyng forward with his woorkes seeth his building so feeble weake that it is not able to stand he returneth to his chief foūdation the Church and Councels generall willyng all men to stay thereupon to leaue disputyng reasonyng And chiefly he shoareth vp his house with the Councell Lateranence whereat sayth he were xiij hundred Fathers xv But he telleth not that viij hundred of them were Monkes Friers and Chanons the Byshop of Romes owne deare deare-lynges chief champions called together in his name not in Christes From which broode of vypers Serpentes what thyng can be thought to come but that dyd proceede frō the spirite of their most holy father that first begat them that is to say from the spirite of Antichrist And yet I know this to bee true that Christ is present with his holy Churche whiche is his holy elected people and shall be with them to the worldes end leadyng gouernyng them with his holy spirite teachyng them all truth necessary for their saluation And when so euer any such be gathered together in his name there is he among them he shall not suffer the gates of hell to preuaile agaynst them For although he may suffer them by their owne frailenes for a tyme to erre fall and to dye yet finally neither sathan hell sinne nor eternall death shall preuaile agaynst them But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome whiche accompteth it selfe to be the holy Catholicke Churche and the Byshop therof to be most holy of all other For many yeares ago Sathan hath so preuailed agaynst that stinkyng whore of Babylon that her abhominations be knowen to the whole world the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her dronkennes and poyson haue all nations tasted AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius Almericus Carolostadius Oecolampadius Zuinglius affirmyng that the Church euer sithens Christes tymes a thousand fiue hūdreth yeares and moe hath beleued that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament and neuer taught otherwise vntill Berengarius came about a thousand yeares after Christ whom the other folowed But in my booke I haue proued by Gods word the old auncient Authors that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally but is bodily corporally ascended into heauen there shall remaine vnto the worldes end And so the true Church of Christ euer beleued from the beginnyng with out repugnaunce vntill Sathan was let louse and Antichrist came with his Papistes which fayned a new and false doctrine contrary to Gods word and the true Catholicke doctrine And this true fayth God preserueth in his holy church still and will doe vnto the worldes end maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell And almighty God from time to time hath strēgthened many holy Martirs for this fayth to suffer death by Antichrist and the great harlot Babilon who hath embrewed her handes and is made drunken with the bloud of Martyrs Whose bloud God will reuēge at length although in the meane time he suffer the patiēce and fayth of his holy Saynts to be tried ALl the rest of his Preface contayneth nothing els but the authority of the Church which Smith sayth cannot wholy erre and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same that he preferreth it aboue Gods word affirming not onely that it is the piller of truth and no lesse to bee beleued then holy scripture but also that we should not beleue holy scripture but for it So that he maketh the word of men equall or aboue the word of God And truth it is in deed that the church doth neuer wholy erre for euer in most darcknes God shineth vnto his elect and in the midst of all iniquity he gouerneth them so with his holy word and spirite that the gates of hell preuayle not agaynst them And these be knowne to him although the world many times know them not but hath them in derision and hatred as it had Christ and his Apostles Neuerthelesse at the last day they shal be knowen to all the whole world when the wicked shal wonder at their felicity and say These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked We fooles thought their liues very madnes and their end to be without honour But now loe how they be accounted among the children of God and theyr portion is among the sayntes Therfore we haue erred frō the way of truth the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vnto vs we haue wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world that no mā can discerne it but God alone who onely searcheth the hartes of all men knoweth his true children from other that be but bastardes This church is the piller of trueth because it resteth vpon Gods word which is the true and sure foundation wil not suffer it to erre fall But as for the opē knowne church the outward face therof it is not the piller of truth otherwise thē that it is as it were a register or treasory to keepe the bookes of Gods holy will testament to rest onely thereupon as S. Augustine and Tertullian meane in the place by M. Smith alleadged And as the register keepeth all mens wils and yet hath none authority to adde change or take away any thing nor yet to expound the wils further then the very words of the will extend vnto so that he hath no power ouer the will but by the will euen so hath the church no further power ouer the holy scripture which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god but onely to keepe it and to see it obserued and kept For if the Church proceede further to make any new Articles of the fayth besides the Scripture
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the