the sayd M. Peter Martyr and other iiij or v. which I shall chose will by Gods grace take vpon vs to defend not onely the cōmon prayers of the Church the ministration of the Sacraments and other rites ceremonies but also all the doctrine and Religion set out by our soueraigne Lord kyng Edward the vi to be more pure accordyng to Gods word then any other that hath bene vsed in Englād this M. yeares so that Gods word may be the Iudge and that the reasons and profes vpon both parties may be set out in writing to the intent aswell that all the world may examine and Iudge thereon as that no man shall start backe from his writyng And where they boast of the fayth that hath bene in the Church this M. and v. hundreth yeares we will ioyne with them in this point and that the doctrine and vsage is to be followed which was in the Church a M. v. hundreth yeares past and we shall proue that the order of the Church set out at this present in this Realme by Act of Parliament is the same that was vsed in Church .1500 yeares past and so shall they be neuer able to proue theirs ¶ An Epistle to a certaine Lawyer for his aduise and counsell touchyng his Appeale THe law of nature requireth of all mē that so farforth as it may be done without offence to God euery one should seeke to defend and preserue his owne life Which thyng whē I about three dayes agoe bethought my selfe of and there withall remembred how that Martin Luther appealed in his tyme from Pope Leo the tenth to a generall Councell least I should seeme rashly and vnaduisedly to cast away my selfe I determined to Appeale in like sort to some lawfull and free generall Counsell But seyng the order and forme of an Appeale pertaineth to the Lawyers wherof I my selfe am ignoraunt and seyng that Luthers Appeale commeth not to my hand I purposed to breake my mynde in this matter to some faythfull frend and skilfull in the law whose helpe I might vse in this behalfe and you onely among other came to me remembraunce as a man most meete in this Uniuersitie for that purpose But this is a matter that requireth great silence so that no mā know of it before it be done It is so that I am summoned to make myne answere at Rome the xvi day of this moneth before the which day I thinke it good after sentence pronoūced to make myne Appeale But whether I should first Appeale from the Iudge delegate to the pope so afterward to the generall Councell or els leauyng the Pope I should Appeale immediatly to the Councell herein I stand in neede of your counsell Many causes there be for the whiche I thinke good to Appeale First because I am by an Othe bound neuer to consent to the receiuyng of the Byshop of Romes authoritie into this Realme Besides this whereas I vtterly refused to make aunswere to the Articles obiected vnto me by the Byshop of Gloucester appointed by the Pope to be my Iudge yet I was content to aunswere Martin and Story with this Protestation that myne aunswere should not be taken as made before a Iudge nor yet in place of Iudgement but as pertainyng nothyng to Iudgement at all and moreouer after I had made myne aunswere I required to haue a Copy of the same that I might either by addyng thereunto by alteryng or takyng from it correct and amend it as I thought good The which though both the Byshop of Gloucester and also the kyng and Queenes proctors promised me yet haue they altogether brokē promise with me and haue not permitted me to correct my sayd aunsweres accordyng to my request and yet notwithstandyng haue as I vnderstand Registred the same as actes formally done in place of iudgement Finally forasmuch as all this my trouble commeth vpon my departyng from the Byshop of Rome and from the popish Religion so that now the quarell is betwixt the Pope him selfe and me and no man can be a lawfull and indifferent Iudge in his owne cause it seemeth me thinke good reason that I should be suffered to Appeale to some generall Councell in this matter specially seyng the law of nature as they say denieth no man the remedy of Appeale in such cases Now since it is very requisite that this matter should be kept as close as may be if perhaps for lacke of perfect skill herein you shall haue neede of further aduise then I beseech you euen for the fidelity and loue you beare to me in Christ that you will open to no creature aliue whose the case is And for asmuch as the tyme is now at hand and the matter requireth great expedition let me obtaine this much of you I beseech you that laying aside all other your studies and businesse for the tyme you will apply this my matter onely till you haue brought it to passe The chiefest cause in very deede to tell you the truth of this myne Appeale is that I might gayne tyme if it shall so please God to liue vntill I haue finished myne aunswere agaynst Marcus Antonius Constantius which I haue now in hand But if the aduersaryes of the truth will not admit myne Appeale as I feare they will not Gods will be done I passe not vpon it so that God may therein be glorified be it by my life or by my death For it is much better for me to dye in Christes quarell and to raigne with him then here to be shut vp and kept in the prison of this body vnlesse it were to continue yet still a while in this warrefare for the commoditie and profite of my brethren and to the further aduauncyng of Gods glory to whom be all glory for euermore Amen There is also yet an other cause why I thinke good to Appeale that whereas I am cited to goe to Rome to aunswere there for my selfe I am notwithstandyng kept here fast in prison that I can not there appeare at the tyme appointed And moreouer for asmuch as the state I stand in is a matter of lyfe and death so that I haue great neede of learned coūsell for my defence in this behalfe yet when I made my earnest request for the same all maner of counsell and helpe of proctors aduocates and lawyers was vtterly denied me Your louyng frend T. C. ¶ To maistres Wilkinson a godly matrone exhortyng her to flye in the tyme of persecution and to seeke her dwellyng where she might serue God accordyng to his word THe true cōforter in all distresse is onely God through his sonne Iesus Christ and who soeuer hath him hath company enough although he were in a wildernesse all alone and he that hath xx thousād in his company if God be absent is in a miserable wildernesse and desolation In him is all comfort and without him is none Wherfore I beseech you seeke your dwellyng there as you may truely and rightly
AN AVNSVVERE BY THE REVEREND FATHER in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitane Vnto a craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour IESV CHRIST Wherein is also as occasion serueth aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng Here is also the true Copy of the booke written and in open Court deliuered by D. Stephen Gardiner not one word added or diminished but faythfully in all pointes agreeyng with the Originall Reuised and corrected by the sayd Archbyshop at Oxford before his Martyrdome Wherein hee hath beautified Gardiners doynges with asmuch diligence as might be by applying Notes in the Margent and markes to the Doctours saying which before wanted in the first Impression Hereunto is prefixed the discourse of the sayd Archbyshops lyfe and Martyrdome briefly collected out of his Hystory of the Actes and Monumentes and in the end is added certaine Notes wherein Gardiner varied both from him selfe and other Papistes gathered by the sayd Archbyshop Read with Iudgement and conferre with diligence laying aside all affection on either partie and thou shalt easely perceaue good Reader how slender and weake the allegations and perswasions of the Papistes are wherewith they goe about to defende their erroneous and false doctrine and to impugne the truth Anno. M. D. LI. AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Daye dwellyng ouer Aldersgate beneath S. Martines Anno. 1580. Cum gratia Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis A PREFACE TO THE READER I Thinke it good gentle Reader here in the begynnyng to admonish thee of certaine wordes kyndes of speaches which I do vse sometyme in this myne aunswere to the late Byshop of Winchesters book least in mistakyng thou doe as it were stumble at them First this word Sacrament I doe sometymes vse as it is many tymes taken among writers and holy Doctours for the Sacramentall bread water or wine as when they say that Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum a Sacrament is the signe of an holy thyng But where I vse to speake sometymes as the old Authors do that Christ is in the Sacramentes I mean the same as they did vnderstand the matter that is to say not of Christes carnall presence in the outward Sacrament but sometymes of his Sacramentall presence And sometyme by this word Sacrament I meane the whole ministration and receiuyng of the Sacramētes either of Baptisme or of the Lordes Supper and so the old writers many tymes doe say that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the Sacramentes not meanyng by that maner of speach that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the water bread or wine which be onely the outward visible Sacramentes but that in the due ministration of the Sacramentes accordyng to Christes ordinaunce and institution Christ and his holy spirite be truely and in deede present by their mightie and sanctifiyng power vertue and grace in all them that worthely receiue the same Moreouer when I say and repeat many tymes in my book that the body of Christ is present in them that worthely receaue the Sacrament least any man should mystake my woordes and thinke that I meane that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signes yet hee is corporally in the persons that duely receiue them this is to aduertise the Reader that I meane no such thyng but my meanyng is that the force the grace the vertue and benefite of Christes body that was Crucified for vs and of his bloud that was shed for vs be really and effectually present with all them that duely receaue the Sacramentes but all this I vnderstand of his spirituall presence of the which he sayth I will be with you vntill the worldes ende And wheresoeuer two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the myddest of them And hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Nor no more truely is he corporally or really present in the due ministration of the Lordes Supper than hee is in the due ministration of Baptisme That is to say in both spiritually by grace And wheresoeuer in the Scripture it is sayd that Christ God or the holy Ghost is in any man the same is vnderstand spiritually by grace The thyrd thyng to admonish the Reader of is this that when I name Doctour Stephen Gardiner Byshop of Winchester I meane not that he is so now but forasmuch as he was Byshop of Winchester at the tyme when he wrote his booke agaynst me therfore I aunswere his booke as written by the Byshop of Winchester whiche els needed greatly none aunswere for any great learnyng or substaunce of matter that is in it The last admonition to the Reader is this where the sayd late Byshop thinketh that he hath sufficiently proued Transubstantiation that is to say that the substaunce of bread and wine can not be in the Sacrament if the body and bloud of Christ were there bycause two bodyes can not be togethers in one place although the truth be that in the Sacrament of Christes bodye there is corporallye but the substaunce of bread onelye and in the Sacrament of the bloud the substaunce of wine onelye yet how farre hee is deceiued and doth vary from the doctrine of other Papistes and also from the principles of Philosophy whiche he taketh for the foundation of his doctrine in this point the Reader hereby may easely perceiue For if we speake of Gods power the Papistes affirme that by Gods power two bodyes may be together in one place and then why may not Christes bloud be with the wyne in the cup and his fleshe in the same place where the substaunce of the bread is And if we consider the cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place by the rules of nature it shall euidently appeare that the body of Christ may rather be in one place with the substaunce of the bread thē with the accidents therof and so likewise his bloud with the wine For the naturall cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place as the Philosophers say is their accidentes their bignes and thicknes and not their substaunces And then by the very order of nature it repugneth more that the body of Christ should be present with the accidentes of bread and his bloud with the accidentes of wyne then with the substaunces either of bread or wyne This shall suffice for the admonition to the Reader ioynyng thereto the Preface in my first booke whiche is this A PREFACE TO THE READER OVr Sauiour Christ Iesus according to the will of his eternall Father when the time thereto was fully complished taking our nature vpon him came into this world from the high throne of hys Father
who worketh vniformely and yet is not in all that receaue of like effect not of any alteration or diminution in it but for the diuersitie of him that receaueth So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholicke Church vnder the name of Papists is a very true report and for want of grace reproued by the Author as though it were no true doctrine And the second part of the comparison on the authors side contained vnder We say by them that in hypocrisy pretend to bée fruethes frendes conteineth an vntrueth to the simple reader and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader because of the word very which referred to the effect of eating the body of Christ whereby to receaue lyfe may be so spoaken that none receaue the body of Christ with the very effect of lyfe but such as eate the sacrament spiritually that is to say with true fayth worthely And yet euill men as Iudas receaue the same very body touching the truth of the presence thereof that S. Peter did For in the substāce of the Sacrament which is Gods worke is no varietie who ordeineth all as afore vniformely but in man is the varietie amongst whom he that receaueth worthely Christes body receaueth life and be that receaueth vnworthely receaueth condemnation There followeth further Caunterbury I Thanke you for this demurre for I my selfe could haue chosen no better for my purpose And I am content that the trial of the whole matter be iudged hereby as you desire You say that all that be baptised good and euill eate the body of Christ and I say only the good and not the euill Now must neyther I nor you be iudges in our own causes therefore let Christ be iudge betwene vs both whose iudgemēt it is not reason that you refuse Christ sayth Who so euer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the lyuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came down from heauen Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Now I aske you this question whether euil men shal liue for euer Whether they liue by Christ Whether they dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them If you say nay as you must needes if you will say the truth then haue I proued my negatiue wherein stood the demurre that ill men eat not Christs body nor drinke his bloud for if they did then by Christs own words they should liue for euer and dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them And what proofes will you require more vpon my part in this demurre For if Christ be with me who can be able to stand agaynst me But you alleadge for you S. Paule who speaketh for you nothing at al. For the messenger will not speake against him that sent him I know that S. Paule in the 11. to the Corinthians speaketh expressly of the vnworthy eating of the bread but in no place of the vnworthy eating of the body of Christ. And if he doe shew the place or t is the demurre passeth against you and the wholl matter tried with me by your own pact and couenant And yet for further proofe of this demure I refer me to the 1.2.3.4 and 5. chapters of my 4. booke And where you bring S. Augustine to be witnesse his witnesse in that place helpeth nothing your cause For he speaketh there generally of the vsing of the Sacramentes well or ill as the dyuersity of men be rehearsing by name the sacrament of circumcision of the paschal lamb and of baptisme Wherefore if you wil proue any real and corporall presence of Christ by that place you may aswell proue that he was corporally present iii circumcisiō in eating of the paschal lamb and in baptism as in the Lords supper And here ye vse such a subtilty to deceaue the symple reader that he hath good cause to suspect your proceedinges and to take good heed of you in all your writings who do nothing els but go about to deceaue him For you conclude the matter of the substance of the Sacrament that the reader might thinke that place to speak only of the sacrament of Christs body aud bloud and to speak of the substaunce thereof where S. Augustine neither hath that word Substaunce nor speaketh not one word specially of that sacrament but all his processe goeth chiefely of Baptisme which is alone sayth S. Augustine against the Donatists which reproued Baptisme for the vice of the minister whether the minister be good or ill and whether he minister it to good or to ill For the Sacraments is all one although the effect be diuers to good and to euill And as for them whom ye say that in hypocrisy pretend to be truthes frends all that be learned and haue any iudgemēt know that it is the Papists which no few yeres passed by hypocrisy and fained religion haue vttered and solde theyr lyes and fables in sted of Gods eternall truth and in the place of Christ haue set vp idols and Antichrist And for the conclusion of this comparison in this word Very you make such a wrangling where none occasion is geuen as neuer was had before this tyme of any learned man For who heard euer before this tyme that an adiectiue was referred to a verb and not to his proper substantiue of any man that had any learning at all And as for the matter of Iudas is answered before For he receaued not the bread that was the Lord as S. Augustine sayth but the bread of the Lord. Nor no man can receaue the body of Christ vnworthely although he may receaue vnworthely the Sacrament thereof And hitherto D. Smyth hath found no fault at all in my comparisons whereby the reader may see how nature passeth arte seing here much more captiousnesse in a subtill sophisticall wit then in hym that hath but learned the Sophisticall art Now followeth the eyght comparyson They say that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud only at that time when they receaue the Sacramēt We say that they eat drink and feed of Christ continually so long as they be members of his body Winchester What forehead I pray you is so hardened that can vtter this amōg them that know any thing of the learning of Christs Church In which it is a most common distinction that there is thrée manner of eatinges of Christes body and bloud one spirituall only which is here affirmed in the second part of We say wherin the author and his say as the church sayth Another eating is both sacramentally and spiritually which is when men worthely communicate in the supper The thyrd is sacramentally only which is by men vnworthy who eat and drink in the holy supper to their
asked of commen bread when we breake it whether we breake the substance or onely the accidents First I must learnedly say If the substance be broken it is by meane of the accident in quantitie and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophye as this author doth in diuinity agaynst the catholique fayth to say in diuision we breake not the substance of bread at all the heresie in philosophy were not of such absurditye as this author mayntayneth in diuinity For I haue some probable matter to say for me where as he hath none For my strange answer I would say that albeit a naturall thing as bread consisting of matter and essenciall forme with quantity and therby other accidents cleauing and annexed may be well sayd to be in the whole broken as we see by experience it is Yet speaking of the substance of it alone if one should aske whether that be broken and it should be answered yea then should the substance appeare broken and whole all at one tyme seeing in euery broken peece of bread is a whole substance of bread and where the pâ—ece of bread broken is so little a crumme as can no more in deed be deuided we say neuertheles the same to be in substance very bread and for want of conuenient quantity bread indiuisible and thus I write to shew that such an aunswere to say the accidents be broken hath no such clere absurdity as this author would haue it séeme But leauing of the matter of Philosophy to the scholes I will graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges and therefore therein is a speciall miracle of God But when the accidentes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible part of the sacrament then the same accidents to be broken eaten and drunken with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh them is no miracle or maruaile and as for absurdity no point at all for by quantitye which remayneth is all diuision we ought to confes and good christen men do profes the mistery of the sacrament to be supernaturall and aboue the order of nature and therefore it is a trauaile in vayne to frame the consideration of it to agrée with the termes of philosophy But where this author sayth that nothing can be aunswered to be broken but the accidents yes verely for in time of contention as this is to him that would aske what is broken I would in other termes aunswere thus that thou seest is broken And then if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the sacrament vnder which is present inuisibly the substaunce of the most precious bodye of Christ. If he will aske yet further is that body of Christ broken I wil say no. For I am learned in fayth that that glorious body now impassible cannot be deuided or broken and therefore it is whole in euery part of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in common bread in euery part that is broken According whereunto it is in the booke of common prayer sette forth howe in ech part of that is broken of the consecrate bread is the whole body of our sauior Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say Is not that that is broken bread I would aunswere as a beleuing man by fayth truely no. For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christ inuisibly there and the breaking to be not in it but in the visible figure Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my fayth is a most certayne truth beleueth things as they verely be for Christs word is of strength not onely to shew and declare as other mens wordes do but therewith effectuall to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clarks soberly entreat the matter such as minde well I meane to consider accidentes and substance which termes the rude vnderstand not it is not necessary therefore in those termes to make aunswere to such as be contentiously curious who labour with questions to dissolue the trueth of the mistery in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we should that is no inconuenience in the mistery but an imperfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauing such giftes of God as other haue nor studying to attayne learning as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scholes with a deuoute minde to aunswere all captious questions hath for the exercitation of mens sences bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is now picked out by this author and brought to the common peoples eares in which it might sound euill they not being able to make aunswere therunto wereby they might be snarled and intangled with vayne fansies against that trueth which before without curiosity of questions they truely and constantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible formes of bread wine for signification the thing whereof is the very body and bloud of Christ which being the trueth of the whole it is no absurdity to confes truely the partes as they be if occasion require howsoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carnall mans eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the trueth should be altered into a lye wherewith to make melody to theyr vnderstandinges For howsoeuer carnal reason be offended with spirituall truth it forceth not but agaynst the whole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine can be iustified with whose testimonye how the fayth of the church in the sacrament now agréeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this author to reporte the contrary Caunterbury HEre may the reader perceiue how much you sweat and labor so that it pittieth me to see what trauaile you take babling many things no thing to the purpose to aunswere my first absurditye And yet at the end you be enforced to affirme all that I charge you withall that is to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawed and swallowed without any substaunce at all And more I need not to say here then before I haue aunswered to your clarkely dialogue betweene the scholler and the rude man sauing this that you make all men so wise that they iudge accidents in their common vnderstanding to be called substaunces and that no man is able to know the difference of one substaunce from an other And here you fall into the same folly that Basill speaketh For if he that goeth about to seperate accidentes from their substaunce fayle of his purpose end in nothing indeed then you separating the accidentes of bread from their substaunce and the substaunce of Christes body from the accidentes by your owne saying alleadged of Basill you must fayle of your purpose in the end bring both
politicke consideration to goe forward yet he so handled him selfe aswell in the Parlament house as afterwardes by writing so obediently with such huÌ„ble behauiour in wordes towards his Prince protesting the cause not to be his but almightie Gods who was the author of all truth that the kyng did not onely well like his defence willyng him to depart out of the ParlameÌ„t house into the Counsaile chaÌ„ber whilest the Acte should passe be graunted for safegard of his conscience which he with humble proâ—estatioÌ„ refused hopyng that his Maiestie in processe of time would reuoke them agayne but also after the Parlament was finished the kyng perceiuyng the zealous affectioÌ„ that the Archb. bare towardes the defence of his cause which many wayes by Scriptures and manifold authorities and reasons he had substauntially confirmed and defended sent the Lord Cromwell then Uicegerent with the two Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke all the Lordes of the Parlament to dyne with him at Lambeth Where it was declared by the Uicegerent and the two Dukes that it was the kynges pleasure that they all should in his highnes behalfe cherish comfort and animate him as one that for his trauaile in that Parlament had shewed him selfe both greatly learned and also discret and wise and therfore they willed him not to be discouraged for any thing that was passed contrary to his allegations He most humbly thanked the kynges Maiestie of his great goodnesse towardes him and them all for their paynes saying I hope in God that hereafter my allegatioÌ„s authorities shall take place to the glory of God and the commoditie of the Realme in the meane tyme I will satisfie my selfe with the honorable consent of your honours and the whole Parlament Here is to be noted that this mans stoute and godly defence of the truth herein so bound the Princes coÌ„science that he would not permit the truth in that man to be cleane ouerthrowen with authoritie and power and therfore this way God workyng in the Princes mynde a playne token was declared hereby that all thyngs were not so sincerely handled in the confirmation of the sayd vi Articles as it ought to haue bene for els the Prince might haue had iust cause to haue borne his great indignation towardes the Archbyshop Let vs pray that both the like stoutnes may be perceiued in all Ecclesiasticall and learned men where the truth ought to be defended and also the like relentyng and flexibilitie may take place in Princes and Noble men when they shall haue occasion offered them to maintaine the same so that they vtterly ouerwhelme not the truth by selfe will power and authoritie Now in the end this Archbyshops constancie was such towardes Gods cause that he confirmed all his doynges by bitter death in the fire with out respect of any worldly treasure or pleasure And as touchyng his stoutnesse in his Princes cause the contrary resistaunce of the Duke of Northumberland agaynst him proued right well his good minde that way which chaunced by reason that he would not consent to the dissoluyng of Chauntreys vntill the kyng came of age to the intent that they might then better serue to furnish his royall estate then to haue so great treasure consumed in his noneage Which his stoutnes ioyned with such simplicitie surely was thought to diuers of the Counsaile a thyng incredible specially in such sort to contend with him who was so accounted in this Realme as few or none would or durst gaynstand hym So deare was to him the cause of God and of his Prince that for the one he would not kéepe his conscience clogged nor for the other lurke or hide his head Otherwise as it is sayd his very enemies might easely intreate him in any cause reasonable and such thyngs as he graunted he did without any suspition of rebraidyng or méede therfore So that he was altogethers voyde of the vice of the stubbâ—rnes and rather culpable of ouer much facilitie and gentlenes Surely if ouermuch patience may be a vice this maÌ„ may séeme peraduenture to offend rather on this part then on the contrary Albeit for all his doynges I can not say for the most part such was his mortification that way that few we shall finde in whoÌ„ the saying of our Sauiour Christ so much preuailed as with him who would not onely haue a man to forgiue his enemies but also to pray for them that lesson neuer went out of his memory For it was knowen that he had many cruell enemies not for his owne desertes but onely for his Religion sake and yet what soeuer he was that either sought his hinderaunce either in goodes estimation or life and vpon coÌ„ference would séeme neuer so slenderly any thyng to relent or excuse him selfe he would both forget the offence committed and also euermore afterwardes frendly entertayne him and shew such pleasure to him as by any meanes possible he might performe or declare In somuch that it came into a common Prouerbe Do vnto my Lord of Canterbury displeasure or a shrewed turne and then you may be sure to haue him your frend whiles he liueth Of which his gentle disposition in absteinyng from reuengement amongest many examples therof I will repeate here one It chauÌ„ced an ignorauÌ„t Priest Parson in the North parts the Towne is not now in remeÌ„braunce but he was a kinsman of one Chersey a Grocer dwellyng within LondoÌ„ beyng one of those Priests that vse more to study at the Alchouse theÌ„ in his chaÌ„ber or in his study to sit on a time with his honest neighbours at the Alchouse within his own Parish where was coÌ„municatioÌ„ ministred in coÌ„mendation of my Lord CraÌ„mer Archb. of Cant. This sayd Parson enuying his name onely for ReligioÌ„ sake sayd to his neighbours what make you of him quoth he he was but an Hostler and hath no more learnyng theÌ„ the goslyngs that goeth yonder on the gréene with such like sclaunderous vncomely wordes These honest neighbours of his not well bearyng those his vnséemely words Articled against him sent their coÌ„playnt vnto the Lord Cromwell theÌ„ Uicegerent in causes Ecclesiasticall who sent for the Priest and committed him to the Fléete mindyng to haue had him recant those his sclaunderous wordes at Paules Crosse. Howbeit the Lord Cromwell hauing great affaires of the Prince then in hand forgat his prisoner in the Fléete So that this Chersey the Grosser vnderstandyng that his kinsman was in duraunce in the Fléete onely for speakyng wordes agaynst my Lord of Canterbury consulted with the Priest and betwene them deuised to make sute rather vnto the Archbyshop for his deliueraunce then to the Lord Cromwell before whom he was accused vnderstandyng right well that there was great diuersitie of natures betwene those two estates the one geÌ„tle and full of clemency and the other seuere and somewhat intractable namely agaynst a Papist So that Chersey tooke vpon him first to
seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request it is not like that he would write against the receiued doctrine of the church in those daies And if he had it is without all doubt that some learned man either in his tyme or fithens would haue written against him or at the least not haue commended him so much as they haue done Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish recantation as I haue declared in my first booke the 17. chapter And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple boasting himselfe as god hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres And as touching Martin Luther it semeth you be sore pressed that be faine to pray aide of him whom you haue hitherto euer detested The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift or to run for succour vnto a beast which he most hateth And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse more seuerely and earnestly then doth Martin Luther But it appeareth by your conclusion that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike that you haue forgotten your logike For this is your argumeÌ„t Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not Berengarius attempted the same and failed in his purpose Wickliffe enterprised the same whose teaching god prospered not therefore god hath not prospered fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching I will make the like reason The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of god to bring them from their abhominable superstitions and idolatry Ioell Amâ—s and Mitheas attempted the same whose doctrine preuailed not god prospered not their teaching among those people but they were condemned with their doctrine therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching If you will aunswer as you must nedes do that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not was by reason of the aboundant superstition idolatry that blinded their eies you haue fully answered your own argument and haue plainly declared the cause why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares the church of Rome which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry therfore might not abide to heare of the truth And the true doctrine of the sacrament which I haue set out plainly in my booke was neuer condemned by no councell nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second with his monkes and friers to condemne the truth and confirme these your heresies And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prosperous successe in this matter the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while persecute the truth And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife For he perceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those dayes to idolatry hypocrisie and superstition through traditions of Phariseis and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine religion which was approued by God least in so doing they should not onely resist the Apostles but God himselfe which counsail if you had marked followed you would not haue done so vnsoberly in many things as you haue done And as for the prosperitie of them that haue professed Christ his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes as S. Iohn Baptist prospered with Herode and our sauiour Christ with Pilate Annas and Caiphas Now which of these prospered best say you Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same Winchester But all this set apart and putting aside all testimonies of the olde church and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to search out an vnderstanding and in doyng therof to forget what hath bene taught hitherto How shall this author establish vpon scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is there in scripture that enâ—ountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body wherby to alter the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper verily and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God exclodeth that repugnance which mans reason would déeme of Christes departyng from this world and placing his humanitie in the glory of his Father Caunterbury THe Scripture is playne and you confesse also that it was bread that Christ spake of when he sayd This is my body And what nede we any other scripture to encounter with these words seyng that all men know that bread is not Christes body the one hauing sense and reason the other none at all Wherfore in that speach must nedes be sought an other sence meanyng then the wordes of themselues do geue which is as all olde writers do teach and the circumstances of the text declare that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christes body And yet as he geueth the bread to be eaten with our mouthes so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith And therfore I say that Christ geueth himselfe truely to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with fayth not with mouth And yet you would beare me in hand that I say that thing which I say not that is to say that Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body And because you be not able to confute that I say you would make me to say that you can confute As for the great power and omnipotency of God it is no place here to dispute what God can do but what he doth I know that he can do what he will both in heauen and in earth no man is able to resist his wil. But the question here is of his will not of his power And yet if you caÌ„ ioyne together these two that one nature singuler shal be here and not here both at one time and that it shal be gone hence when it is here you haue some stroÌ„g syment and be a cunning Geometrician but yet you shall neuer be good Logician that woulde
he had with his Apostles the night before his death at which time as Mathew sayth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cup and when hee had geuen thankes he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke hence forth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day whē I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome This thing is rehearsed also of S. Marke in these wordes As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and sayd Take eate this is my body and taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he sayd to them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many verely I say vnto you I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine vntill that daye that I drinke it new in the kingdome of God The Euangelist S. Luke vttereth this matter on this wise When the houre was come he sate down and the twelue Apostles with hym And he said vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer For I say vnto you hēceforth I will not eat of it any more vntil it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he toke the cuppe and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you For I say vnto you I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill the kingdome of God come And he toke bread and when hee had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body which is geeuen for you This doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he toke the cup saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud which is shedde for you Hitherto you haue herd all that the euangelistes declare that Christ spake or did at his last supper concerning thinstitutiō of the communion and sacramēt of his body and bloud Now you shall here what S. Paul sayth concerning the same in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians where he writeth thus Is not the cuppe of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we breake a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread one body For we al are partakers of one bread and one cuppe And in the eleuenth he speaketh on this manner That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed toke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cuppe when Supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drinke it in remembrance of me for as oft as you shal eate this bread and drinke this cup you shew forth the Lords death til he come Wherfore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cuppe vnworthely shal be gilty of the body bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine him selfe and so eat of the bread and drinke of the cuppe For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you many doe sleepe By these wordes of Christ rehearsed of the Euangelistes and by the doctrine also of Saint Paule which he confesseth that he receaued of Christ two thinges specially are to be noted First that our Sauiour Christ called the materiall bread which he brake his body the wine which was the fruit of the vine his bloud And yet he spake not this to the intent that men should thinke that the material bread is his very body or that his very body is materiall bread Neither that wine made of grapes is his very bloud or that his very bloud is wine made of grapes But to signifie vnto vs as S. Paul sayth that the cuppe is a communion of Christes bloud that was shed for vs and the bread is a communion of his flesh that was crucified for vs. So that although in the truth of his humain nature Christ be in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father yet whosoeuer eateth of the bread in the Supper of the Lord according to Christes institution and ordinaunce is assured of Christes own promise and testament that he is a member of his body and receaueth the benefites of his passion which he suffered for vs vpon the crosse And likewise he that drinketh of that holy cuppe in the Supper of the Lord according to Christes institution is certified by Christes legacy and testament that he is made partaker of the bloud of Christ which was shed for vs. And this ment S. Paule when he sayth is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the can bread which we breake a cōmunion of the body of Christ so that no man contēne or lightly esteeme this holy cōmuniō except he contēne also Christs body and bloud and passe not whether he haue any felowship with him or no. And of those men S. Paule saith that they eate and drink their own damnation because they esteme not the body of Christ. The second thing which may be learned of the forsaid wordes of Christe and S. Paule is this that although none eateth the body of Christ and drinketh hys bloud but they haue eternall life as apereth by the wordes before recited of S. Iohn yet both the good and the bad doe eate and drynke the bread and wine which be the Sacramentes of the same But beside the Sacramentes the good eate euerlasting life the euill euerlasting death Therfore S. Paule sayth Who soeuer shall eate of the bread or drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Here S. paul saith not that he that eateth the bread or drinketh the cup of the Lord vn worthely eateth drinketh the body bloud of the Lord but is gilty of the body bloud of the Lord. But what he eateth drynketh S. Paul declareth saying he that eateth drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh his own dānatiō thus is declared the sum of al that scripture speketh of the eating drinking both of the body bloud of Christ also of the sacramēt of the same And as these thinges be most certaynly true
because they be spoken by Christ hym selfe the auctor of all truth and by hys holy Apostle S. Paule as he receaued them of Christ so all doctrines contrary to the same be moste certaynly false and vntrue and of al Christen men to be eschued because they be contrary to Gods word And all doctrine concerning this matter that is more then this which is not grounded vpon Gods word is of no necessity neither ought the peoples heads to be busied or their consciences troubled with the same So that thinges spoken and done by Christ and written by the holy Euangelists and S Paule ought to suffice the fayth of Christian people as touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper and holy communion or sacrament of his body and bloud Which thing being well considered and wayed shall be a iust occasion to pacifie and agree both parties as well them that hetherto haue contemned or lightly esteemed it as also them which haue hetherto for lacke of knowledge or otherwise vngodly abused it Christ ordeyned the Sacrament to moue and stirre all men to frendshippe loue and concord and to put away all hatred variance and discord and to testifie a brotherly and vnfained loue between all them that be the members of Christ But the deuil the enemy of Christ and of all his members hath so craftely iugled herein that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy Sacrament God graunt that al contention set aside both the parties may come to this holy communiō with such a liuely faith in Christ and such an vnfained loue to all Christes members that as they carnallye eate with their mouthes this Sacramentall bread and drink the wine so spiritually they may eate and drink the very flesh and bloud of Christ which is in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of his father And that finally by his meanes they may enioy with him the glory and kingdome of heauen Amen Winchester Now let vs consider the tertes of the Euangelistes and S. Paul which be brought in by the Author as followeth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cuppe and when he had geuen thanks he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and said Take eate this is my body And taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruite of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingedome of God When the houre was come he sate downe and the twelue Apostles with him and he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer for I say vnto you henceforth I wil not eate of it any more vntill it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you for I say vnto you I wil not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntil the kingdome of God come And he tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body whith is geuen for you this doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he tooke the cup saying This cuppe is the new testament in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup. That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cup when supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherefore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cup vnworthely shall be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine himselfe and so eate of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you and many doe sléepe After these tertes brought in the author doth in the 4. chap. begin to trauers Christes intent that he intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receaue that worthely be members of Christes body The catholick church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man hath from the beginning of these textes of scripture confessed truely Christes intent and effectuall miraculous worke to make the bread his body and the wine his bloud to be verely meate and verely drinke vsing therin his humanitie wherewith to féede vs as he vsed the same wherewith to redéeme vs and as he doth sanctifie vs by his holy spirite so to sanctifie vs by his holy diuine flesh and bloud and as life is renued in vs by the gift of Christes holy spirite so life to be increased in vs by the gift of his holy flesh So as he that beléeueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beliefe which is Baptisme receaueth really Christes spirite And likewise he that hauing Christes spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud Doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes very body and bloud And therfore Christ in the institution of this Sacrament sayd deliuering that he consecrated This is my body c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud c. And although to mannes reason it séemeth straunge that Christ standing or sitting at the table should deliuer them his body to be eaten Yet when we remember Christ to be very God we must graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in our thoughtes all imaginations how it might be and consider Christes
the faithfull people Thus the Reader may see that I misreport not the Papists nor charge them with any other words then they doe write that is to say that the body of Christ is naturally and sensibly in the Sacrament and broken and torne in peeces with our teeth But saith Smith the meaning of Berengarius in his recantatiō was otherwise that the formes of bread and wine are broaken and torne with our teeth but Christ is receaued wholly without breaking of his body or tearing with our teeth Well what so euer the meaninge of Berengarius was his wordes be as I report so that I make no false report of the Papistes nor vntruely charge them with that they say not But how should men know what the Papists meane when they say one thing and meane another For Berengarius said that not only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth and you say he ment contrary that only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth Berengarius said that also the very flesh and bloud of Christ be broken and torne and you say he ment clean contrary that the flesh and bloud of Christ be not broaken and torne Well then would I faine learne how it may be knowen what the Papists meane if they mean yea when they say nay and mean nay when they say yea And as for S. Iohn Chrisostom and other old authors by whom you would excuse this manner of speech they helpe you herein nothing at all For not one of them speake after this sorte that Berengarius doth For although though they say sometimes that we see Christ touch him and breake him vnderstanding that speech not of Christ him selfe but of the Sacraments which represent him yet they vse no such forme of speech as was prescribed to Berengarius that we see feele and break not only the sacraments but also Christ him selfe And likewise of Loth Abraham Iacob Iosue Mary Magdalen and the Apostles whom you bring forth in this matter there is no such speeche in the scripture as Berengarius vseth So that all these things be brought out in vame hauing no colour to serue for your purpose sauing that same thing you must say to make out your booke And as for al the rest that you say in this proces concerning the presence of Christ visible and inuisible nedeth no answere at all because you prooue nothing of all that you say in that matter which may easely therfore be denied by as good authoritie as you affirme the same And yet all the olde writers that speake of the diuersity of Christes substantiall presence and absence declare this diuersitie to be in the diuersity of his two natures that in the nature of his humanitie he is gone hence and present in the nature of his diuinitie and not that in diuers respectes and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent which I haue proued in my third booke the fifth chapter And for as much as you haue not brought one author for the proofe of your saying but your own bare wordes nor haue aunswered to the authorities alleadged by me in the forsaid place of my third booke reason would that my proofes should stand and haue place vntill such time as you haue proued your sayings or brought some euidēt matter to improue mine And this I trust shall suffice to any indifferent Reader for the defence of my first booke Winchester Wherein I will kéepe this order First to consider the third booke that speaketh against the faith of the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament then against the fourth and so returne to the second speaking of Transubstantiation wherof to talke the reall presence not being discussed were cleerely superfluous And finally I will somewhat say of the fifte booke also Caunterbury BUt now to returne to the conclusion of the Bishops booke As it began with a marueilous sleight and suttlety so doth he conclude the same with a like notable suttlety changing the order of my bookes not answering thē in such order as I wrote them nor as the nature of the thinges requireth For seeing that by all mennes confessions there is bread and wine before the consecration the first thing to be discussed in this matter is whether the same bread and wine remain still after the cōsecratiō as Sacraments of Christs most precious body and bloud And next by order of nature and reason is to be discussed whether the body and bloud of Christ represented by those Sacramentes be present also with the said Sacramentes And what manner of presence Christ hath both in the Sacraments and in thē that receiue the Sacramentes But for what intent the Bishoppe changed this order it is easie to perceiue For he saw the matter of Transubstantiation so flat plain against him that it was hard for him to deuise an answere in that matter that should haue any apparance of truth but all the world should euidētly see him cleerely ouerthrowen at the first onset Wherefore he thought that although the matter of the reall presence hath no truth in it at all yet for as much as it seemed to him to haue some more apparaunce of truth then the matter of Transubstantiatiō hath he thought best to beginne with that first trusting so to iuggle in the matter and to dasell the eyes of them that be simple and ignorant and specially of such as were alredy perswaded in the matter that they should not well see nor perceiue his lieger de main And whē he had won credite with them in that matter by making them to wonder at his crafty iuggeling then thought he it should be a fitte and meete time for him to bring in the matter of Transubstantiation For when men be amased they doe wonder rather then iudge And when they be muffeled and blindfolded they cannot finde the right way though they seek it neuer so fast nor yet follow it if it chaunce them to finde it but geue vp cleerely their own iudgement and follow whom so euer they take to be their guid◠And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of Transubstantiation thought the bishop if I can first perswade them and get their good willes in the reall presence This sleight and suttlety thou maist iudge certainly good Reader to be the cause and none other wherefore the order of my booke is chaunged without ground or reason The ende of the first booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE THIRD BOOKE IN the beginning of the third booke the author hath thought good to note certain differences which I wil also particularly consider It followeth in him thus They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine But we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine Note here Reader euen in the entry of the comparison of these differences how vntruly the true faith of the Church is reported
the iudgement of the liuing childe may discerne the very true mother from the other that is to say who plainly entend the true childe to continue aliue and who could be content to haue it be destroyed by deuision God of his infinite mercy haue pitie on vs and graunt the true faith of this holy mistery vniformely to be conceiued in our vnderstandinges and in one forme of wordes to be vttered and preached which in the booke of common prayer is well tearmed not distant from the Catholick faith in my iudgement Caunterbury YOu haue so perused these differences that you haue made more difference then euer was before for where before there were no more but two partes the true catholick doctrine and the papisticall doctrine now come you in with your new fantasticall inuentions agreeing with neither part but to make a song of three partes you haue deuised a new voluntary descant so farre out of tune that it agreeth neither with the tenor nor mean but maketh such a shamefull iarre that godly eares abhorre to heare it For you haue taught such a doctrine as neuer was written before this time aud vttered therein so many vntruthes and so many strange sayinges that euery indifferent Reader may easely discern that the true christen faith in this matter is not to be sought at your handes And yet in your own writinges appeareth some thing to confirme the truth quite against your own enterprise which maketh me haue some hope that after my answere heard we shall in the principall matter no more striue for the child seeing that your selfe haue confessed that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present with vs. And there is good hope that God shall prosper this child to liue many yeares seeing that now I trust you will help to foster and nourish it vp as well as I. And yet if diuisyon may shew a stepmother then be not you the true mother of the child which in the Sacrament make so many diuisions For you deuide the substances of bread and wine from their proper accidences the substances also of Christes flesh and bloud from their own accidences and Christes very flesh Sacramentally from his very bloud although you ioyne them again per concomitantiam and you deuide the sacrament so that the priest receaueth both the Sacrament of Christs body and of his bloud and the lay people as you call them receiue no more but the sacrament of his body as though the sacrament of his bloud and of our redemption pertayned onely to the priestes And the cause of our eternall life aud saluation you deuide in such sort betweene Christ and the priest that you attribute the beginning therof to the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and the continuance therof you attribute to the sacrifice of the priest in the masse as you doe write plainly in your last booke Oh wicked Stepmothers that so deuide Christ his Sacramentes and his people After the differences followeth the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters of my book which you binde as it were all together in one fardel and cast them quite away by the figure which you call reiection not answering one word to any Scripture or olde wryter which I haue there alleadged for the defence of the truth But because the Reader may see the matter plainly before his eyes I shall heare rehearse my words againe and ioyne thereto your answere My wordes be these Now to returne to the principall matter lest it might be thought a new deuise of vs that Christ as concerning his body and his humaine nature is in heauen and not in earth therefore by Gods grace it shal be euidently proued that this is no new deuised matter but that it was euer the olde fayth of the catholicke Church vntill the Papistes inuented a new fayth that Christ really corporally naturally and sensibly is here still with vs in earth shutte vp in a boxe or within the compasse of bread and wine This needeth no better nor stronger proofe then that which the olde authors bryng for the same that is to say the generall profession of all Christen people in the common creede wherein as concerning Christes humanitye they be taught to beleeue after this sort That he was conceiued by the holy Ghost borne of the virgin Mary That he suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Was crucified dead aud buried that he decended into hel and rose againe the third day That he ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his almighty Father And from thence shal come to iudge the quick and dead This hath beene euer the catholick faith of Christen people that Christ as concerning his body and his manhode is in heauen and shall there continue vntill he come down at the last iudgement And for as much as the Creede maketh so expresse mention of the Article of his ascention and departing hence from vs if it had been an other article of our faith that his body taryeth also here with vs in earth surely in this place of the Creede was so vrgent an occasion geuen to make some mention thereof that doubtlesse it would not haue been passed ouer in our Creede with silence For if Christ as concerning his humanity be both here and gone hence and both those two be articles of our faith when mention was made of the one in the Creede it was necessary to make mention of the other least by professing the one we should be disswaded from beleeuing the other being so contrary the one to the other To this article of our Creed accordeth holy Scripture and all the old auncyent doctors of Christes church for Christ him self sayd I leaue the world and goe to my father And also he sayd you shall euer haue poore folkes with you but you shall not euer haue me with you And he gaue warning of this error before hand saying that the time would come when many deceauers should be in the world and say Here is Christ and there is Christ but beleue them not said Christ. And S. Mark wryteth in the last chapter of his gospell that the Lord Iesus was taken vp into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father And S. Paul exhorteth all men to seeke for thinges that be aboue in heauen where Christ saith he sitteth at the right hand of God his father Also he saith that we haue such a bishoppe that sitteth in heauen at the right hand of the throne of Gods maiesty And that he hauing offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth continually at the right hand of God vntill his enemies be put vnder his feete as a footstoole And hereunto consent all the olde doctors of the church First Origen vpon Mathew reasoneth this matter how Christ may be called a stranger that is departed into another countrey seeing that he is with vs alway vnto the worldes end aud is among all them that be gathered together in his name and
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
in the sacrament I graunt that he is really present after such sort as you expound really in this place that is to say indede and yet but spiritually For you say your selfe that he is but after a spirituall maner there and so is he spiritually honored as S Augustine sayth But as concerning heat of disputation marke well the wordes of S. Augustine good reader cited in my booke and thou shalt see clerely that all this multiplication of wordes is rather a iugling then a direct answer For saynt Augustine writeth not in heate of disputation but temperatly and grauely to a learned Bishop his deare frend who demanded a question of him And if Saynt Augustine had aunswered in heate of disputation or for any other respect otherwise then the truth he had not done the part of a friend nor of a learned and godly Bishop And who so euer iudgeth so of Saynt Augustine hath small estimation of him and sheweth him selfe to haue litle knowledge of Saynt Augustine But in this your answer to saynt Augustine you vtter where you learned a good part of your diuinitie that is of Albertus Pighius who is the father of this shift and with this fleight eludeth Saynt Augustin when he could no otherwise answer As you do now shake of the same Saynt Augustine resembling as it were in that poynt the liuely countenauÌ„ce of your father Pighius Next in my booke foloweth Theodoret And to this purpose it is both pleasaunt comfortable and profitable to read Theodoretus in his Dialogs where he disputeth and sheweth at length how the names of things be chaunged in scripture and yet thinges remayne still And for example he proueth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vayle or coueryng sometime a cloth sometyme a vestment and sometyme a stole the bloud of the grape is called Christes bloud and the names of bread and wine and of his flesh and bloud Christ doth so chaunge that sometyme he calleth his body corne or bread and sometime contrary he calleth bread his body And likewise his bloud sometime he calleth wine and sometime contrary he calleth wine his bloud For the more playne vnderstanding wherof it shall not be amisse to recite his owne sayings in his foresayd dialogs touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud The speakers in these dialogs be Orthodoxus the right beleuer and Eranistes his companyon but not vnderstanding the right fayth Orthodoxus saith to his companion Doost thou not know that god caleth bread his flesh Eran. I know that Orth. And in an other place he calleth his body corne Eran. I know that also for I haue heard him say The houre is come that the sonne of man shal be glorified c. Except the grayne of come that falleth in the ground dye it remayneth sole but if it dye then it bringeth forth much fruite Orth. When he gaue the mysteries of sacraments he called bread his body and that which was mixt in the cup he called bloud Eran. So he called them Orth. But that also which was his naturall body may well be called his body and his very bloud also may be called his bloud Eran. It is playne Orth. But our sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to the body the name of the signe or token and to the token he gaue the name of the body And so wheÌ„ he called himself a vyne he called bloud that which was the token of bloud Eran. Surely thou hast spokeÌ„ the truth But I would know the cause wherfore the names were changed Orth. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments should not set their mindes vpon the nature of the things which they see but by the changing of the names should beleue the things which be wrought in them by grace For he that called that which is his naturall body corne and bred and also called himselfe a vyne he did honor the visible tokeÌ„s and signes with the names of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not Ortho. Seyng then that it is certayne that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell and that now we be entred to speak of godly sacraments tell me truely of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a tokeÌ„ and figure of Christes diuinity or of his body and bloud Eran. It is cleare that it is the figure of those thinges whereof it beareth the name Orth. Meanest thou of his body and bloud Eran. Euen so I meane Orth. Thou hast spoken as one that loueth the truth for the Lord when he tooke the token or signe he sayd not This is my diuinity but This is my body this is my bloud And in an other place The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whiche I will geue for the life of the world Eran. These things be true for they be Gods words All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue ' And in the second he writeth the same in effect yet in some thing more playnly agaynst such heretiques as affirmed that after Christes resurrection ascention his humanity was changed from the very nature of man turned into his diuinity Agaynst whom thus he writeth Orth. Corruption healeth sicknes and death be accedents for they goe come Era. It is meet they be so called Orth. Mens bodies after their resurrection be delyuered from corruption death mortalitie and yet they lose not theyr proper nature Eran. Truth it is ' Orth. The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption death and is impassible immortall glorified with the glory of God is honored of the powers of heauen and it is a body hath the same bignes that it had before Era. Thy saying seeme true according to reason but after he was ascended vp into heauen I thinke thou wilt not say that his body was not tourned into the nature of his godhead Orth. I would not so say for the persuation of mans reason nor I am not so arrogant and presumptious to affirme any thing which scripture passeth ouer in silence But I haue heard S. Paule cry that God hath ordayned a day when he will iudge all the world in iustice by that man which he appoynted before performing his promise to all men and raysing him from death I haue learned also of the holy angels that he will come aâ—ter that fashion as his disciples saw him goe to heauen But they saw a nature of a certayn bignesse not a nature which had no bignes I heard furthermore the lord say You shall see the sonne of man come in the cloudes of heauen And
represented vnto vs his testament confirmed by his bloud And if the Papistes will say as they say in deed that by this cup is neither mēt the cup nor the wine cōtayned in the cup but that thereby is mēt Christs bloud contayned in the cup yet must they nedes graunt that there is a figure For Christes bloud is not in proper speach the new testament but it is the thing that confirmed the new Testament And yet by this strange interpretation the Papistes make a very strange speach more strange then any figuratiue speach is For this they make the sentence this bloud is a new Testament in my bloud Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason that the foolishnes therof is euident to euery man Winchester As for the vse of figuratiue speaches to be accustomed in scripture is not denyed But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to Decolampadius of the sacrament geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speaches in gods ordinances and commaūdementes and otherwise For if in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinaunces and commaundementes figures may be often receiued truth shal by allegories be shortly subuerted and all our religion reduced to significations There is no speach so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speach but such as expresseth the common playne vnderstanding and then the common vse of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speach As these speaches drink vp this cup or eate this dish is in deed a figuratiue speach but by custome make so common that it is reputed the playne speach bicause if hath but one onely vnderstanding commonly receyued And when Christ sayd This cup is the new testament the proper speach therof in letter hath an absurditie in reason and fayth also But whan Christ sayd this is my body although the truth of the lytterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason yet hath it no absurditie in humilitie of fayth nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture And seing it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their proper sence there can no reasoning be made of other figuratiue speaches to make this to be their fellow and like vnto them No man denieth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper but such as be equall with playne proper speach or be expounded by other Euangelestes in playne speach Canterburie I See well you would take a dong forke to fight with rather then you would lack a weapon For how highly you haue estemed Melancthō in tymes past it is not vnknowne But whatsoeuer Melancthon sayeth or how soeuer you vnderstand Melancthon where is so conuenient a place to vse figuratiue speeches as when figures and Sacraments be instituted And S. Augustine giueth a playne rule how we may know when Gods commādemēts be giuen in figuratiue speches yet shal neither the truth be subuerted nor our religion reduced to significations And how can it be but that in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinances commaundements figures must needes be often receaued contrary to Melancthons saying if it be true that you say that there is no spech so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speech But now be all speches figuratiue when it pleaseth you What need I then to trauaile any more to proue that Christ in his supper vsed figuratiue speches seyng that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying And these wordes This is my body spoken of the bread and This is my bloud spoken of the cuppe expresse no playne comon vnderstanding wherby the common vse of these figures should be equall with plain proper speches or cause them to be taken as common proper speches for you say your felf that these speches in letter haue an absurdity in reason And as they haue absurdity in reason so haue they absurdity in fayth For neither is there any reason fayth myracle nor truth to say that materiall bread is Christes body For then it must be true that his body is material bread a conuersa ad conuertentem for of the materiall bread spake Christ those words by your confession And why haue not these words of Christ This is my body an absurdity both in fayth and reason aswell as these words This cup is the new Testament seyng that these wordes were spoken by Christ as well as the other and the credite of him is all one whatsoeuer he sayth But if you will needes vnderstand these wordes of Christ This is my body as the playn wordes signify in their proper sence as in the end you seeme to do repugning therein to your owne former saying you shall see how farre you go not onely from reason but also from the true profession of the christian fayth Christ spake of bread say you This is my body appoynting by this word this the bread whereof followeth as I sayd before If bread be his body that his body is bread And if his body be bread it is a creature without sence and reason hauing neither life nor soule which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken Heare now what followeth further in my booke Now forasmuch as it is playnly declared manifestly proued that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that these sentences be figuratiue speches and that Christ as concerning his humanity bodily presence is ascended into heauen with his whole flesh and bloud and is not here vpon earth and that the substance of bread and wine do remayne still and be receaued in the sacrament and that although they remayne yet they haue changed their names so that the bread is called Christs body and the wine his bloud and that the cause why their names be changed is this that we should list vp our harts minds frō the things which we se vnto the things which we beleue be aboue in heauē wherof the bread wine haue the names although they be not the vey same things in deed these things well considered and wayed all the authorities and arguments which the Papists fayn to serue for their purpose be clean wiped away For whether the authors which they alleadge say that we do eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud or that the bread and wine is conuerted into the substance of his flesh and bloud or that we be turned into his flesh or that in the Lordes supper we do receiue his very flesh and bloud or that in the bread and wine is receiued that which did hang vpon the crosse or that Christ hath left his flesh with vs or that Christ is in vs and we in him or that he is whole here and whole in heauen or that the same thing is in the Chalice which flowed out of his side or that the same thing is receiued with out mouth which is
nourisheth the right beleuers Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier and thou shalt euidently perceiue that either he wil not or can not or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer and in my booke also by the receauing and feding vpon Christ spiritually But it is no maruaile that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ before they be borne a new and forsaking their papisticall leauen haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God then flesh bloud can teach them Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth that Christes body is corporally there where the visible formes of bread wine be of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture which teacheth vs to beleue professe that Christ as concerning his bodily presence hath forsaken the world is ascended into heauen shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud there is no mouth and teeth can serue but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes and speake very little And the cause why is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes Caparnaites that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity spirituall circumcition spirituall honger and thirst and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ but they hang all together so in the letter that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit which knowledge if that you had you should soone perceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made And where you peruert the order of the bookes setting the carte before the horse that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second saying that the naturall order of the matter so requireth here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes which is vnder the pretence coulour of order to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light For when they perceaue a window open wherby the light may shine in and the truth appeare then they busily go about to shut that window and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is and les light can be sene And when besides the darkenes of the matter they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes that he is become blind thē dare they make him iudge be the matter neuer so vntrue And no meruail for he is now becōe so blindfeld subiect vnto them that he must say what so euer they bid him be it neuer so much repugnāt to the euidēt truth In such sort it is in the matter of that sacramēt For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined that plaine wordes of the scripture the consent of aūcient writers the articles of our fayth the nature of a sacrament reason all sences making so euidently agaynst it therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation but they will alwayes beare men in hand that other matters must fyrst be examined as the late Bishop doth here in this place Now in the second place of Chrisostome where you say that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen which shall suffice for answere here also And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre here with vs in our handes truth it is that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment But that we shoud not think that he is corporally here with vs S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum saying Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man that we should therby take away the truth of his body And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body to be in two places at one tyme therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally and also naturally in the sacrament For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule But like as it is not to be thought that Quicquid est in deo est putandum vbique vt dens that whatsoeuer is in god is euery where as God is so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme euery where where his godhead is But Christ is sayth S. Augustine Vbique per id quod est deus in coelo autem per id quod est homo Euery where in that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence and the presence of his diuinitie of his grace of his truth of his maiestie and power is reall and effectuall in many places according to his worde Now as concerning your issue I refuse it not but say that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred and which our sauiour Christ ment and the old fathers speake of is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life Now if you can bring good testimony for you that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud and that it shall lyue for euer which neuer had lyfe and that Gods operation worke is more in domme creatures then in man then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you And when I heare your testimonies I shall make answer but before I here them I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne and beate the wind to no purpose Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alleadge sayth thus Christ geuing thankes dyd breake which also we doe adding thereto prayer And he gaue vnto them saying Take this is my body this that I do now geue and that which ye now do take For the bread is not a
not the flesh appeare He should haue aunswered say you that the flesh is not there in deed but the vertue of the flesh I pray you doth not he aunswer playnly the same effect Is not his aunswer to that question this as you confesse your selfe that the fourmes of bread and wine be chaunged into the vertue of the body of Christ And what would you require more Is not this as much to say as the vertue of the flesh is there but not the substaunce corporally and carnally And yet another third errour is committed in the same sentence because one sentence should not be without three errours at the least in your translation For wheras Theophilact hath but one accusatiue case your put therto other two mo of your owne heade And as you once taught Barnes so now you would make Theophilact your scholer to say what you would haue him But that the truth may appeare what Theophilact sayd I shall reherse his owne wordes in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes translated into latine be these Condescendens nobis benignus Deus speciem quidem panis et vini seruat in potestatem autemcarnis et sanguinis transelementat And in English they be thus much to say The mercifull God condesending to our infermitie conserueth still the kind of bread and wine but turneth them into the vertue of his flesh and bloūd To this sentence you do adde of yonr owne authoritie these wordes the bread wine which wordes Theophilact hath not which is an vntrue parte of him that pretendeth to be a true interpretour And by adding those wordes you alter clearly the authors meaning For wheare the authors meaning was that we should abhore to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud in theyr propre forme and kind yet almighty God hath ordeyned that in his holy supper we should receaue the fourmes and kindes of bread and wine and that those kindes should be tourned vnto them that worthely receaue the same into the vertue and effecte of Christes very flesh and bloud although they remayne still in the same kynd and fourme of bread and wine And so by him the nature and kinde of bread and wine remayne And yet the same be tourned into the vertue of flesh and bloud So that the word fourmes is the accusatiue case aswell to the verbe tourneth as to the verbe conserueth but you to make Theophilact serue your purpose adde of your own head two other accusatiue cases that is to say bread and wine besides Theophilactes words wherin all men may consider how little you regarde the truth that to mayntayne your vntrue doctrine once deuised by your selues care not what vntruth you vse besides to corrupt all doctours making so many faultes in translation of one sentence And if the wordes alleaged vpon marke were not Theophilactes wordes but the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus as you say at the least Theophilact must borow them of Theophilus bycause the wordes be all one xvi lynes together sauing this word Ueritie which Theophilact tourneth into vertue And then it is to be thought that he would not alter that word wherin all the contention standeth without some consideration And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the veritie of Christes body as you say if Theophilact had thought the body had bene there would he haue refused the word and changed veritie into vertue bringing his owne fayth into suspition and geuing occasion of errour vnto other And where to excuse your errour in translation you say that the wordes by you alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophilactes wordes and I deny that they be Theophilus wordes so then be they no bodies wordes which is no detriment to my cause at all bycause I tooke him for none of my witnes but it is in a maner a clere ouerthrow of your cause which take him for your cheif principall witnesse saying that no catholike writer among the Grekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then Theophilactus hath and here vpon you make your issue And yet haue I a good cause to call thē Theophilactes wordes for as much as I finde them in his workes printed abrode sauing one word which you haue vntruly corrupted bycause that worde pleaseth you not And yet am I not bound to admit that your witnesse is named Theophilus except you haue better proofes therof then this that one sayth he hath him in a corner and so alleadgeth him It is your parte to proue your owne witnes and not my parte that stand herein only at defence And yet to euery indiferent man I haue shewed sufficient matter to reiect him Heare now my answer to S. Hierom. Besydes this our aduersaries do alleadge S. Hierom vpō the epistle Ad titū that there is as great difference betwene the Loues called Panis propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene a shadow of a body and the body it self and as there is betwene an image and the thing itselfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them These wordes of S. Hierom truly vnderstand serue nothing for the intent of the Papists For he ment that the Shew bread of the law was but a darke shadow of Christ to come but the sacrament of Christes body is a cleare testimony that Christ is already come and that he hath performed that which was promised and doth presently comfort and feede vs spiritually with his precious body and bloud notwithstanding that corporally he is assended into heauen Winchester This Author trauayleth to aunswer S. Hierom and to make him the easier for him to deale with he cutteth of that followeth in the same S. Hierom which should make the matter open and manifest how effectually S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud There is sayth S. Hierome as greate difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thing it selfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalitie should be chiefly in a Bishop and among all layemen an excellency in them so there should be in him a speciall chastitie and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he should not onely absteyne from vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde free from errour of thought that should make the body of Christ. These be S. Hieroms wordes in this place By the latter parte whreof appeareth playnly how S. Hierome meaneth of Christes body in the Sacrament of which the loaues that were Panes propositionis were a shadow as S. Hierome sayth that bread being the image and this the truth that the
bread shall liue for euer This taught our sauiour Christ as well his disciples as the Iewes at Capernaum that the eating of his flesh and drincking of his bloud was not like to the eating of Manna For both good and bad did eate Manna but none do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud but they haue euerlasting lyfe For as his father dwelleth in him and he in his father and so hath life by his father so he that eateth Christes flesh and drinketh his bloud dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him and by Christ he hath eternall life What neede we any other witnes when Christ himselfe doth testifie the mater so playnly that who so euer eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath euerlasting life and that to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud is to beleue in him And who so euer beleueth in him hath euerlasting lyfe wherof it followeth necessarily that vngodly persons being limmes of the deuill do not eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud except the Papistes would say that such haue euerlasting life But as the diuell is the food of the wicked which he nourisheth in all iniquitie and bringeth vp into euerlasting damnatiō so is Christ the very foode of all them that be the liuely members of his body and them he nourisheth fedeth bringeth vp and cherisheth vnto euerlasting life And euery good and faythfull Christian man seleth in himselfe how he fedeth of Christ eating his flesh and drincking of his bloud For he putteth the whole hope and trust of his redemption and saluation in that onely sacrifice which Christ made vpon the Crosse hauing his body there broken and his bloud there shedde for the remission of his sinnes And this great benefite of Christ the faythfull man earnestly considereth in his mynd chaweth and digesteth it with the stomake of his hart spiritually receauing Christ wholy into him and giuing agayne him selfe wholy vnto Christ. And this is the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud the feeling wherof is to euery man the feling how he eateth and drincketh Christ which none euill man nor member of the deuill can do For as Christ is a spirituall meate so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spirituall part of vs and giueth vs spirituall and eternall lyfe and is not eaten swallowed digested with our teeth tongues throtes bellies Therfore sayth S. Ciprian he that drincketh of the holy cup remembring this benefite of God is more thirsty then he was before And lifting vp his hart vnto the liuing God is taken with such a singular hunger and apetite that he abhorreth all gally and bitter drinkes of sinne and all sauor of carnall pleasure is to him as it were sharp and sowre viniger And the sinner being conuerted receauing the holy misteries of the Lordes supper geueth thankes vnto God and boweth downe his head knowing that his sinnes be forgeuen and that he is made clean and perfect and his soule which God hath sanctified he rendreth to God agayne as a faythfull pledge and then he glorieth with Paule and reioyseth saying Now it is not I that liue but it is Christ that liueth within me These thinges be practised and vsed among faythful people and to pure myndes the eating of his flesh is no horror but honor and the spirit deliteth in the drinking of the holy and sanctifiing bloud And doing this we whet not our teeth to bite but with pure fayth we breake the holy bread These be the wordes of Ciprian And according vnto the same S. Augustine sayth Prepare not thy iawes but thy hart And in an other place he sayth why doest thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten But of this matter is sufficiently spoken before where it is proued that to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud be figuratiue speaches And now to returne to our purpose that onely the liuely members of Christ do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud I shall bring forth many other places of auncient authors before not mentioned Fyrst Origen writeth playnly after this maner The word was made flesh and very meat which who so eateth shall surly liue for euer which no euill man can eate For if it could be that he that continueth euill might eat the word made flesh seing that he is the word and bread of life it should not haue bene written Who so euer eateth this bread shall liue for euer These wordes be so playne that I need say nothing for the more clere declaration of them Wherfore you shall heare how Ciprian agreeth with him Cyprian in his sermon ascribed vnto him of the Lordes supper sayth The author of this tradition sayd that except we eat his flesh drincke his bloud we should haue no life in vs instructing vs with a spirituall lesson opening to vs a way to vnderstand so priuy a thing that we should know that the eating is our dwelling in him and our drincking is as it were an incorporation in him being subiect vnto him in obedience ioyned vnto him in our willes and vnited in our affections The eating therfore of this flesh is a certayne hunger and desire to dwell in him Thus writeth Cyprian of the eating and drinking of Christ ' And a litle after he sayth that none do eate of this lambe but such as be true Israelites that is to say pure christian men without colour or dissimulation And Athanasius speaking of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud sayth that for this cause he made mention of his ascentiō into heauen to plucke them from corporall phantasy that they might lerne hereafter that his flesh was called the celestiall meate that came from aboue and a spirituall food which he would geue For those thinges that I speake to you sayth he be spirit and life Which is as much to say as that thing which you se shal be slayne and giuen for the nourishment of the world that it may be distributed to euery body spiritually and be to all men a conseruation vnto the resurrectiō of eternall life In these wordes Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made mention of his ascension into heauen when he spake of the eating and drincking of his flesh and bloud The cause after Athanasius mynd was this that his hearers should not thinke of any carnal eating of his body with their mouthes for as concerning the presence of his body he should be taken from them and ascend into heauen but that they should vnderstād him to be a spirituall meate spiritually to be eaten and by that refreshing to giue eternall life which he doth to none but to such as be his liuely members And of this eating speaketh also Basilius that we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud being made by his incarnation and sensible lyfe partakers of his word and wisedome For his flesh and bloud he calleth
faythfull people in the blessed Sacrament or supper of the Lord It is a thing worthy to be considered and well wayed what moued the Schoole authors of late yeares to defend the contrary opinion not onely so far from all experience of our sences and so farre from all reason but also cleane contrary to the olde church of Christ and to Godes most holy word Surely nothing moued them therto so much as did the vayne fayth which they had in the church and sea of Rome For Ioannes Scotus otherwise called Duns the subtillest of all the schoole authors intreating of this matter of Transubstantiation sheweth playnly the cause therof For sayth he the wordes of the Scripture might be expounded more easely and more playnly without Transubstantiation but the church did choose this sense which is more hard being moued therto as it seemeth chiefly bicause that of the Sacramentes men ought to hold as the holy churh of Rome holdeth But it holdeth that bread is transubstantiate or turned into the body and wine into the bloud as it is shewed De summa Trinitate fide Catholicae Firmiter credimus And Gabriell also who of all other wrote most largely vpon the Canon of the Masse sayth thus It is to be noted that although it be taught in the scripture that the body of Christ is truely conteined and receaued of christen people vnder the kindes of bread wine yet how the body of Christ is there whether by conuersion of any thing into it or without conuersion the body is there with the bread both the substance and accidence of bread remayning there still it is not found expressed in the Bible Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth as it is written De haereticis Ad abolendum And that church holdeth and hath determined that the bread is trāsubstantiated into the body of Christ and the wine into his bloud Therfore is this opinion receaued of all them that be catholike that the substance of bread remayneth not but really and truely is tourned transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the body of Christ. Thus you haue heard the cause wherfore this opinion of Transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among christen people that is to say bicause the church of Rome hath so determined although the contrary by the Papistes owne confession appeare to be more easy more true and more according to the Scripture But bicause our english papistes who speake more grossely herein then the Pope himselfe affirming that the naturall body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine can not nor dare not ground their fayth concerning transubstantiation vpon the church of Rome which although in name it be called most holy yet in deede it is the most stinking dongehill of all wickednes that is vnder heauen and the very sinagoge of the deuill which whosoeuer followeth can not but stumble and fall into a pit ful of erroures Bicause I say the English papistes dare not now stablish their fayth vpon that foundation of Rome therfore they seeke Figge leaues that is to say vayne reasons gathered of their owne braynes and authorities wrested from the intent and minde of the authors wherwith to couer and hide their shamefull errours Wherfore I thought it good somwhat to trauayle herein to take away those figge leaues that their shamefull errours may playnly to euery man appeare The greatest reason and of most importance and of such strength as they thinke or at the least as they pretend that all the world can not answere therto is this Our sauiour Christ taking the bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body Now say they as sone as Christ had spoken these wordes the bread was straight way altered and changed and the substāce therof was conuerted into the substance of his precious body But what christen eares canne paciently heare this doctrine that Christ is euery day made a new and made of an other substance than he was made of in his mothers wombe For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother now by these papistes opinion he is made euery day of the nature and substance of bread and wine which as they say be turned into the substance of his body and bloud O what a meruaylous Metamorphosis and abhominable heresie is this to say that Christ is dayly made a new and of a new matter wherof it followeth necessarely that they make vs euery day a new Christ and not the same that was borne of the virgine Mary nor that was crucified vpon the crosse and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper which was borne and crucified as it shall be playnly proued by these arguments folowing First thus If Christes body that was crucified was not made of bread but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread as the papistes say than Christes body that was eaten in the supper was not the same that was crucified For if they were all one body than it must needes follow that either Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread or els that his body that was crucified was made of bread And in like manner it followeth If the body of Christ in the Sacrament be made of the substance of bread and wine and the same body was conceaued in the Virgines wombe than the body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was made of bread and wine Or els turne the argument thus The body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was not made of bread and wine but this body of Christ in the Sacrament is made of bread and wine than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceaued in the virgines wombe An other argument Christ that was borne in the Virgines wombe as concerning his body was made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother but Christ in the Sacrament is made of an other substance and so it followeth that he is an other Christ. And so the Antichrist of Rome the chiefe author of all idolatrie would bring faythfull christen people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgine Mary through the operation of the holy ghost and suffered for vs vpon the crosse to worship an other Christ made of bread and wine through the consecration of Popish priestes which make themselues the makers of God For say they the priest by the wordes of consecration maketh that thing which is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper and that say they is Christ himselfe both God and man and so they take vpon them to make both God and man But let all true worshipers worship one God one Christ once corporally made of one onely corporall substance that is to say of the blessed virgin Mary that once dyed and rose once
body simulation and dissimulation wherin when you haue well practised your selfe in all your booke thorow at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue betweene Chrysostome Theodoret and me But Chrysostome Theodoret and I shall agree well enough for they tell not what in no wise may be but what was commonly vsed that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered what I wrote in my booke concerning figuratiue speaches and negatiues by cōparisō which you also haue allowed you should haue well perceiued your labor here spēt all in vaine For in all figures and sacramentes the signes remayning in their owne proper natures chaunge neuertheles their names and be called by the names of the more high and excellent thinges which they signify And both Chrysostome and Theodoret shew a cause thereof which is this that we should not rest in the sight of the sacramentes and figures but lift vp our mindes to the thinges that be thereby represented And yet in the sacramentes is neither simulation nor dissimulation except you will call all figuratiue speaches simulation and say that Christ simuled when he sayd he was a vine a dore a herdman the light of the world and suche like speaches But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit being now so sore trauailed with impugning of the truth to deuise a prety mery dialog of Quoth he and quoth he And if I were disposed to dally and trifle I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation of quoth he and quoth you euen betwene you and Christ. But as I haue declared before all thinges which be exalted to an hier dignity be called by the names of their dignity So muche the many times their former names be forgotten and yet neuertheles they be the same thinges that they were before although they be not vsually so called As the surnames of Kinges and Emperours to how many be they knowen or how many doe call them thereby but euery man calleth them by their royall and imperiall dignities And in like maner is it of fygures and sacramentes sauing that their exaltation is in a figure and the dignities royall and imperiall be reall and indeed And yet he should not offend that should call the princes by their original names so that he did it not in contempt of their estates And no more should he offend that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified And therefore Theodoret sayth not that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread and that he offendeth that so calleth it for he calleth it bread himselfe but with this addition of dignity calling it the bread of life which it signifieth As the cap of maintenāce is not called barely and simply a cap but with addition of maintenaunce And in like manner we vse not in common speach to call bread wine and water in the sacraments simple and common water bread and wine but according to that they represent vnto vs we call them the water of baptisme the water of life sacramentall water sacramentall and celestiall bread and wine the bread of lyfe the drinke that quencheth our thirst for euer And the cause Theodoret sheweth why they be so called that we hearing those names should lift vp our mindes vnto the thinges that they bee called and comfort our selues therewithall And yet neither in the sacraments iu the cap of maintenaunce nor in the imperiall or royall maiesties is any simulation or dissimulation but all be playn speaches in common vsage which euery man vnderstandeth But there was neuer man that vnderstood any author further from his meaning then you do Theodoret and Chrysostome in this place For they ment not of any reall calling by chaungyng of substances but of a sacramentall chaunge of the names remaining the substaunces For Theodoret sayth in playne wordes that as Christ called bread his body so he called his body corne and called himselfe a vine Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corne or he into a vine And yet this must needes follow of your saying if Christes calling were a putting away of the former substance according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation But that Theodoret ment not of any such chaunging of substances but of chaunging of names he declareth so playnely that no man can doubt of his meaning These be Theodorets owne wordes Our Sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body and yet sayth he they kept their former substaunce fashion and figure And the cause wherfore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of hys body to dignify so earthly a thing by so heauenly a name Theodoret sheweth to be this that the godly receiuers of the Sacrament when they heare the heauenly names should lift vp their mindes from earth vnto heauen and not to haue respect vnto the bread outwardly only but principally to looke vpon Christ who with his heauenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly But there was neuer such vntrueth vsed as you vse in this author to hide the trueth and to set forth your vntrueth For you alter Theodoretes wordes and yet that suffiseth not but you geue such new and straunge significations to wordes as before was neuer inuented For where Theodoret sayth that the sacramentes remayne you turne that into the visible matter and then that visible matter as you take it must signify accidents And where Theodoret sayth in playne termes that the substaunce remayneth there must substaunce also by your saying signify accidentes which you call here outward nature cōtrary to your own doctrine which haue taught hetherto that substaunce is an inward nature inuisible and insensible And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the trueth nor with your selfe in other places And all these cantelless and false interpretations altering of the words and corrupting of the sence both of all authors and also of scripture is nothing els but shameles shiftes to deceiue simple people and to draw them from the olde Catholicke fayth of Christes Churche vnto your newe Romish errors deuised by Antichrist not aboue foure or fiue hundred yeares passed And where you say that in the sacrament in euery part both in the heauenly earthly part is an whole perfect truth Now is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament if there be no bread there at all but the color and accidents of bread For if there be none other truth in the heauēly part of the sacrament then is not Christ there at all but onely his qualities and accidentes And as concerning your vniust gathering of mine owne wordes vpon S. Augustine I haue aunswered
sacrificium oblationem quia memoria est representatio veri sacrificy sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipso quotidie auteÌ„ immolatur in sacrameÌ„to quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel vnde Augustin Certum habemus quia Christus resurgens ex mortus iam non moritur c. tamen ne obliniscamur quod semel factum est in memoria nostra omn 〈◊〉 fit sclicet quaÌ„do pascha celebratur Nunquid totiens Christus occiditur sed tantuÌ„ aniu◠〈◊〉 â—ecordatio representat quod olim factuÌ„ est sic nos facit moueri taÌ„quaÌ„ videamus Domin◠〈◊〉 â—uce IteÌ„ semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso tameÌ„ quotidie immolatur in sacramâ—â—â—â— Quod sic intilligenduÌ„ est quia in manifestatione corporis distinctione membroruÌ„ semel tanti in cruce pependit offereÌ„s se Deo patri hostiaÌ„ redeÌ„ptionis efficacem eoruÌ„ scilicet quos praedestinauit Item Ambrosius In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad saluteÌ„ potes quid ergo nos Nonne per singulos dies offerimus Fae si quotidie offeramus ad recordationem eius mortis fit vna est hostia non multae quomodo vna noÌ„ multae quia semel immolatus est Christus Hoc auteÌ„ sacrificium exemplum est illius idipsum semper idipsum offertur proinde hoc idem est sacrificium alioquin dicetur quoniam in multis locis offertur multi sunt Christi non sed vnus vbique est Christus hic plenus existens illic plenus sicut quod vbique offertur vnum est corpus ita vnum sacrificium Christus hostiam obtulit ipsam offerimus nuÌ„c sed quod nos agimus recordatio est sacrificij Nec causa suae infirmitatis reperitur quia per ficit hominem sed nostrae quia quotidie peccamus Ex his colligitur esse sacrificium dici quod agitur in altari Christum semel oblatuÌ„ quotidie offerri sed aliter tunc aliter muncâ—et etiam quae sit virtus huius sacramenti ostenditur remissio scilicet peccatorum venalium perfectio virtutis The English hereof is this After this it is asked whether that the Priest doth may be sayd properly a sacrifice or immolation and whether Christ be dayly immolate or onely once Whereunto it may be shortlye aunswered that which is offered and consecrate of the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memory and representation of the true sacrifice and holye immolation done in the aultar of the crosse And Christ was once dead on the crosse and there was offered in himselfe but he is dayly immolate in the sacrament because in the sacrament there is made a memory of that is once done Whereupon S. Augustine We are assured that christ rising from death dieth not now c. Yet least we should forget that is once done in our memory euery yere is done videl as often as the pascha is celebrate is Christ as often killed onely a yerely remembraunce representeth that was once done and so causeth vs to be moued as though we saw our Lord on the crosse Also Christ was once offered in himselfe and is offered dayly in the sacrament which is thus to be vnderstaÌ„ded that in open shewyng of his body and distinction of his meÌ„bers he did hang onely once vpon the crosse offering himselfe to God the father an host of redemption effectuall for them whome he hath predestinate Also S. Ambrose In Christ the host was once offred being of power to helth what do we then doe we not offer euery day and if we offer euery day it is done to the remembraunce of the death of him and the host is one not many How one and not many because Christ is once offered this sacrifice is the example of that the same and alwayes the same is offered therfore this is the same sacrifice Or els it may be sayd because offering is in many places there be many Christes which is not so but one Christ is ech where and here ful and there full so as that which is offered euery where is one body and so also one sacrifice Christ hath offered the host we do offer the same also now But what we do is a remembraunce of the sacrifice Nor there is no cause found of the owne inualidity because it perfiteth the man but of vs because we dayly sinne Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called that is done in the alter and Christ to be once offered and dayly offered but otherwise then and otherwise now and also it is shewed what is the vertue of this Sacrament that is to say remission of veniall sinne and perfection of vertue Thus writeth Petrus Lombardus whose iudgement because this author alloweth he must graunt that the visible church hath Priestes in ministery that offer dayly Christes most precious body and bloud in mistery and then must it be graunted that Christ so offered himselfe in his supper For otherwise then he did cannot now be done And by the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus the same most precious body and bloud is offered dayly that once suffered and was once shed And also by the same Petrus iudgement which he confirmeth with the saying of other this dayly offering by the priest is daylye offered for sin not for any imperfection in the first offering but because wee daylye fall And by Petrus iudgement appeareth also how the priest hath a speciall functioÌ„ to make this offering by whose mouth god is prayed vnto as Hesychius sayth to make this sacrifice which Emissene noteth to be wrought by the great power of the inuisible priest By Petrus Lombardus also if his iudgement be true as it is in deed and the author coÌ„fesseth it so to be that is done in the aultar is not onely called a sacrifice but also is so the same that is offered once and dayly to be the same but otherwise then and otherwise now But to the purpose if the author will stand to the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus all his fift booke of this treaty is clerely defaced And if he will now call backe that agayne he might more compendeously do the same in the whole treatise being so far ouerseene as he is therein Caunterbury HOw is it possible to set out more playnely the diuersity of the true sacrifice of Christ made vpon the aulter of the crosse which was the propitiation of sinne from the sacrifice made in the sacrament then Lombardus hath done in this place For the one he calleth the true sacrifice the other he calleth but a memoriall or representation thereof likening the sacrifice made in the lordes supper to a yeares mind or anniuersary wherat is made a memoriall of the death of a person and yet it is not
but to be often remeÌ„bred The body and bloud of Christ is the onely sacrifice propritiatory for all the sinnes of the world Christes body is the christen mans sacrifice An issue De sacrificio lege Roffen Oecol lib. 3. cap. 2. 3. The sacrifice propitiatory not christes very body but hys death in that same body Chap. 1. The sacrifice of the Masse Chap. 2. Heb. 9. The difference betwene the sacrifice of Christ of the priestes of the old lawe Heb. 10. Heb. 7. Chap. 3. Two kindes of sacrifices The sacrifice of Christ. The sacrifices of the Church Psal. 50. 1. Pet. 2. Heb. 13. Chap. 4. A more playne declaration of the sacrifice of Christ. Heb. 8. Chap. 5. The sacrifice of the old law Heb. 9. Chap. 6. The Masse is not a sacrifice propitiatory Heb. 7. Heb. 8. Chap. 7. A confutatioÌ„ of the Papistes cauillation Chap. 8. The true sacrifice of all Christen people Galath 5. Chap. 5. The Popish Masse is detestable idolatry vtterly to be vanished from all christen congregations Cap. 10. Euery manne ought to receiue the sacrament himself and not one for an other Acc. 2. Math. 26. Cap. 11. The difference betwene the priest the lay man Chap. 12. The aunswere to the Papists Heb. 5. Malac. 1. Chap. 13. An aunswere to the Authours Augustinus ad Bonifa De Ciuita Lib. 10. cap. 5. Lombardus Lib. 4. Dist. 12. Chrisostom ad Heb. Hom. 17. Chap. 14. The lay persons make a sacrifice as well as the Priest Chap. 15. The Papisticall Masse is neither a sacrifice propitiatory nor of thaÌ„ks geuyng Luke 16. Chap. 16. There was no Papisticall Masses in the Primitiue Church Consilium Nicenum cap. 14. Canones Apostolorum cap. 8. Chap. 17. The caused meanes howe Papisticall Masses entred into the church The abuses of the Papisticall Masses Chap. 18 which Church is to be folowed A short instruction to the holy CommunioÌ„ Myne Issue Nicene counsell Priestes sacrificers An issue Iohn 1. De conse dist 2. cap. Semel est prosperj Semel Immolatus c. christus in semetipso tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento glosa ibidem id est eius immolatio representatur fit memoria passionis Gal. 3. Petrus Lombardus Immolatur 71 ante The diuersity of Christes sacrifice and ours The sacrifice of Christ. Heb. 7.8 Heb. 7.8 The sacrifice of the church Actes 1. Ephe. 4. Penaunce The Masse is a sacrifice propitiatory Good woorkes sacrifices propitiatory The Masse is a sacrifice satisfactory Rome 3. 1. Iohn 2. The difference betwene a sacrifice propitiatory gratificatory Psal. 49. Heb. 13. Rom. 3. 5. Actes 4. Satisfactory Masses Priestes in the Mas offer that is shewed forth Christes death Heb. 7. Christ is offred really not his sacrifice remembred or represented onely The effect of Christes sacrifice is both to geue life and to continue the same Ihon. 10. Gala. 2. Cyril in Ephesine counsell What is and wherin staÌ„deth the sacrifice of the church The sacrifice of the church geueth life Cyrill Mala. 1. Inconstancy Falshood feareth the light but light desireth to be tryed Fayth ought to be grounded vp on Gods word but the Papists ground their faith vpon them selues Ephesine couÌ„cell Cyrill the author of the words in the counsell Smith beleueth the counsell Smith belieth me twise in one place The first lye The second ly Smith sayth that Christ called not bread his body Luke 12. 1. Cor. 10. Setting of the cart before the Horses Math. 26. 1. Cor. 11. Of the woÌ„derfull workes of God Iohn 6. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. The place of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. Master Peter Martyr 1. Cor. 13. The ArgumeÌ„t of the doore and Sepulchre Math. 28. Mar. 16. Iohn 20. Actes 5. The appearyng of Christ in his Ascention Actes 13. S. Augustine Math. 3. 17. Actes 7. The Church The true fayth was in the Church froÌ„ the begynnyng and was not taught first by Berengarius What Churche it is that caÌ„ not erre Sâ—p 5. Psal. 7. 2. Ti. 2. â— Tim. 3. Luke 12. Gene. 7. Gene. 12. Eccle. 49. 3. Reg. 19. Iere. 25. and. 29 Act. 14. Math. 13. Math. 26. Mar. 24. 3. Reg. 19. Contrary in this deuils sophistry 27. 70. Contrary in the deuils sophistry 5. Falsa Falsum Falsum Falsum Nota. Concessum Concessum Concessum Sacramenta in signis fuerunt diuersa si in re paria Nota. Concessum etiaÌ„ Concessum Concessum ConcessuÌ„ etiam Concessum Concessum The kyng and Queene make themselues no better then subiectes in complaining of their owne subiect to an outwarde iudge as thogh they had no power to punishe him The first cause why hee would not make aunswere to the Popes Commissary is to auoyde periury The second cause is for that the Popes lawes are contrary to the crowne and lawes of England The Othe of the Kyng and Iustices and the duety of subiectes The Popes lawes and the lawes of England are contrary The Papistes to set vp a kingdome of their owne dissemble the knowne truth and are false to the crowne The third cause why he could not allow the Pope The Popes Religion is against Christes Religion Why Latin seruice ought not to be restored in English 1. Cor. 14. The Pope coÌ„maundeth both agaynst God naturall reason The Sacrament ought to be receaued in both kyndes of all Christians The deuill and the Pope are like The Pope is Antichrist that is Christs enemy Wherfore the Pope is Antichrist Luke 12. Math. 10. The Sacraments haue the names of those thinges wherof they are Samentes The Papistes make Christ two bodyes They put to hym three questions but they suffred him not to aunswere fully in one Behold SathaÌ„ sleepeth not Their cruell desire to reueÌ„ge could abide no delay This was D. Thornton afterward a cruell murderer of Gods Saints of whose horrible end read in the booke of Martyrs in the last Edition Fol. 1990. Col. 1. This ConstaÌ„tius was Stephen Gardiner as constant in deede as a wethercocke who thus named him selfe writyng agaynst this good Father Math. 3. Iohn 4. Math. 5. 1. Cor. 2.