agayne once assended into heauen and there sitteth and shall sit at the right hand of his father euermore although spiritually he be euery day amongst vs and who so euer come togither in his name he is in the middest among them And he is the spirituall pasture and food of our soules as meat and drincke is of our bodyes which he signifieth vnto vs by the institution of his most holy supper in the bread and wine declaring that as the bread and wine corporally comfort and feed our bodyes so doth he with his flesh and bloud spiritually comfort and feed our soules And now may be easely answered the Papistes argument wherof they do so much boast For bragge they neuer so much of their conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet that conuersion is spirituall and putteth not away the corporall presence of the materiall bread and wine But for as much as the same is a most holy sacrament of our spirituall norishment which we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ there must needes remayne the sensible element that is to say bread and wine without the which there can be no sacrament As in our spirituall regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme if there be no water For as baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spirituall regeneration without there be aswell the element of water as the holy ghost spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised which is signified by the sayd water euen so the supper of the Lord can be no perfect Sacrament of spirituall food except there be as well bread and wine as the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spiritually feeding vs which by the sayd bread and wine is signified And how so euer the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ be there present they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine as with the accidents of the same as the scholeauthors do confesse them selues and it shall be well proued if the aduersaries will deny it Thus you see the strongest argument of the Papistes answered vnto and the chiefe foundation wherupon they buyld their errour of Transubstantiation vtterly subuerted and ouerthrowen Winchester Wherein this author not seeing how little he hath done concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him entending to shew that the doctrine of Transubstantiation dependeth onely of authority which is not so using the sayinges of Duns and Gabriell as he reporteth them for his purpose bicause they as he sayth boast themselues what they could doe if the determination of the counsaile were not and thus euery idle speach may haue estimation with this author agaynst the receaued truth And from this poynt of the matter the author of this booke maketh a passage with a litle sport at them he fanâ—â—eth or liketh to call so English Papistes by the way to enterprise to answere all such as he supposeth reasons for Transubstantiation and authorities also First he findeth himselfe mirth in divissing as he calleth them the Papistes to say that Christ is made a new which fansie if it were so is agaynst the reall presence as well as transubstantiation In which wordes bicause euery wise reader may see how this author playeth I will say no more but this Christ is not made a new nor made of the substance of bread as of a matter and that to be the Catholique doctrine this author if he be right named knoweth well enough and yet spendeth two leaues in it Caunterbury WHen I haue proued most euidently as well by the testimony of the scripture as by the consent of the olde authors of Christes church both greekes and Latines from the beginning continually from tyme to tyme that transubstantiation is agaynst gods most holy word agaynst the olde church of Christ agaynst all experience of our sences agaynst all reason and agaynst the doctrine of all ages vntill the Bishops of Rome deuised the contrary therfore I conclude that the sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation may iustely be called the Romish or papisticall doctrine And where I haue shewed further that the chiefe pillers of the papisticall doctrine as Duns Gabriell Durand with other do acknowledge that if it had not bene for the determination of the church of Rome they would haue thought otherwise which is a most certayne argument that this doctrine of Transubstantiation came from Rome and therfore is worthely called a papisticall doctrine all this must be answered with these wordes as this author reporteth and Duns and Gabriell boast what they could do wheras neither Duns nor any of the other eyther bragge or bost but playnly and franckely declare what they thinke And if I report then otherwise then they say reproue me therfore and tell me wherin But these be but shiftes to shake of the matter that you cannot answer vnto Therfore vntill you haue made me a more full and direct answer I am more confirmed in my assertion to call transubstantiation a papisticall doctrine then I was before But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader whose scholler I was in Cambridge almost forty yeares passed who when he came to any hard chapiter which he well vnderstoode not he would find some preaty toy to shift it of and to scip ouer vnto an other chapiter which he could better skill of The same is a common practise of you through out your whole booke that when any thing in my booke presseth you so sore that you cannot answere it then finely with some mery iest or vnsemely taunt you passe it ouer and go to some other thing that you perswade yourselfe you can better answere which sleight you vse here in ii matters togither the one is where I proue the doctrine of Transubstantiation to come from Rome the other is that of your sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation it followeth that Christ euery day is made a new and of a new matter In which ii matters you craftely slide away from myne arguments and answere not to one of them Wherfore I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader whither you ought not to be taken for conuinced in these ii poyntes vntill such tyme as you haue made a full answere to my profes and arguments For where you say that Christ is not made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter this is but a slippery euasion For if Christ be made of bread eyther he is made of the matter of bread or of the forme therof But the fourme say you remayneth and is not turned into Christes body Therfore if Christ be made of bread you must needes graunt that he is made of the matter of bread Now for the the answere to the second reason of the Papistes my booke hath thus An other reason haue they of like strength If the bread should remayne say they than should follow many absurdities and chiefly that Christ hath taken the
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the
and manifest vntruth and that I vntruely charge you with the enuious name of a papisticall faith But in your issue you terme the wordes at your pleasure and reporte mee otherwise then I doe say for I doe not say that the doctrine of the reall presence is the papistes faith onely but that it was the papists faith for it was their deuise And herein will I ioyne with you an issue that the papisticall church is the mother of transubstantiation and of all the foure principall errors which I impugne in my booke Winchester It shal be now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the Sacrament which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the maiesty therof requireth in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of S. Iohn he beginneth a litle to low and passeth ouer that pertaineth to the matter and therfore should haue begun a litle higher at this clause and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde The Iewes therfore striued between themselues saying How can this man geue his flesh to be eaten Iesus therfore sayd vnto theÌ„ Uerely verely I say vnto you except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man drink his bloud ye haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life I will rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meat and my bloud very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the lyuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father Euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here is also a faulte in the translation of the text which should be thus in one place For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke In which speach the verbe that coupeleth the words flesh and meate together knitteth them together in their proper signification so as the flesh of Christ is verely meate and not figuratiuely meate as the author would perswade And in these wordes of Christ may appeare plainly how Christ taught the mistery of the food of his humanity which he promised to geue for food euen the same flesh that he sayd he would geue for the life of the world and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholy brought forth that is to say and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I shall geue for the life of the world and so is it plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sence that S. Iohn speaketh in saying The word was made flesh signifying by flesh the whol humanity And so did Cyril agrée to Nestorius when he vpon these textes reasoned how this eating is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitye to which nature in Christes person is properly attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man dispenced and geuen in the Sacrament And betwéene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstanding the misterye that Nestorius estéeming of ech nature in Christ a seuerall person as it was obiected to him and so dissoluinge the ineffable Unitie did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man seperate Cyrill maintayned the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseperable vnited to the Godhead and for the ineffable mistery of that Union the same to be a flesh that geueth life And then as Christ sayth If we eate not the fleshe of the Sonne of man we haue not life in vs because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and bloud to nourish such as be by his holy Spirite regenerate And as in Baptisme we receaue the Spirite of Christe for the renuinge of our lyfe so doe wer in this Sacrament of Christes most precious body and bloud receaue Christes very flesh and drinke his very bloud to continue and preserue increase and augment the life receaued And therefore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme that he speaketh here of the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud and in both Sacramentes geueth dispenseth and exhibiteth in déede those celestiall giftes in sensible elementes as Chrisostome sayth And because the true faithfull beléeuing men doe only by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnity of person the sonne of God so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ in one person the flesh of the Sonne of man is the proper flesh of the sonne of God Saint Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ Uerely verely vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. to be a figuratiue speach because after the bare letter it séemeth vnprofitable considering that flesh profiteth nothing in it self estemed in the own nature alone but as the same flesh in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature so is it as Christ sayd after Cyrilles exposition spirite and life not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therunto It is viuificatrix as Cyrill sayde and as the holy Ephcâ—ine Councell decreed A flesh geuing life according to Christes wordes Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the later day And then to declare vnto vs how in géeuinge this life to vs Christe vseth the instrument of his very humayne body it followeth For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly spirite so doth he sanctifie vs by his godly flesh and therefore repeteth agayn to inculcate the celestiall thing of this mistery and saieth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth to me and I in him which is the naturall and corporall vnion betwéene vs and Christ. Whereupon followeth that as Christ is naturally in his Father and his Father in him so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ he is by nature in Christ and Christ is naturally in him and the worthy receauer hath life increase augmented and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ. And because of the ineffable vnion of the two natures Christ sayd This is the food that came downe from heauen because God whose proper flesh it is came downe from heauen and hath an other vertue then Manna had because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it which Manna being but a figure thereof did not but being in this foode Christes very flesh inseparably vnited to the Godhead the same is of such efficacye as he that worthely eateth of it shall liue for euer And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the
presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament so I trust to shew this author ouerseene in the article of transubstantiation For enter wherunto first I say this that albeit the word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall counsaile where the Bishop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstanding of Christes wordes and was in that counsayle confessed not for the authority of the Bishop of Rome but for the authority of truth being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome but the true doctrine of Christes mistery and therfore in this realme the authority of Rome cessing was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realme in an open counsayle specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath bene repelled yet that doctriue was neuer hitherto by any publique counsayle or any thing set forth by authority empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this author should not improue it by the name of the Bishop of Rome seing we read how truth was vttered by Balsaam and Caiphas also and S. Paule teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or enuy so Christ be preached the person should not empayre the opening of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alow for truth impugning the article of Transubstantiation not meaning therby as this author doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament of the aniter as is afore sayd in the discussion of which truth of Transubstantiation I for my part should be speciall defended by two meanes wherwith to auoyd the enuious name of Papist One is that Zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knowen nor good christen man as some sayd neither sayth playnly writing to Luther in the matter of the Sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament there is of necessity Transubstantiation also Wherfore seing by Luthers trauayle who fauored not the Byshops of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth most certayne and manifest it appeareth that according to the true catholqiue sayth Christ is really present in the sacrament it is now by Zuinglius iudgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is TransubstantiatioÌ„ also which shal be one meane of purgation that I defend not Transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necessity of the truth howsoeuer it liketh Duns or Gabriell to write in it whose sayinges this author vseth for his pleasure An other defence is that this author himselfe sayth that it is ouer great an absurdity to say that bread insensible with many other termes that he addeth should be the body of Christ and therfore I thinke that the is that is to say the inward nature and essence of that Christ deliuered in his supper to be eaten and dronken was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine and therfore can well agree with this author that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christ nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter which considerations will enforce him that beleueth the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body as the true catholique â—ayth teacheth to assent to Transubstantiation not as determined by the church of Rome but as a consequent of truth beleued in the mistery of the Sacrament which Transubstantiation how this author would impugne I will without quarell of enuious wordes consider and with true opening of his handeling the matter doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth agaynst the truth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I heard this Author if he be the same that is named once reherse more seriously in a solemne and open audience to the conuiction and condemnation as followed of one that erroniously mayntayned agaynst the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholique fayth Caunterbury IN this booke which answereth to my second booke rather with taunting wordes then with matter I will answere the chief poyntes of your intent and not contend with you in scolding but will geue you place therin First I charge none with the name of papistes but that be well worthy therof For I charge not the hearers but the teachers not the learners but the inuenters of the vntrue doctrine of Transubstantiation not the kinges faythfull subiects but the Popes darlinges whose fayth and belefe hangeth of his onely mouth And I call it their doctrine not onely bycause they teach it but bycause they made it and were the first fynders of it And as in the third booke concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament you haue not shewed myne ignorance or wilfulnes but your owne so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation Which word say you albeit the same was fyrst spoken of in the generall counsell where the Byshop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older Here at the first brunt you confesse that the name of Transubstantiation was giuen at the counsell So that either the matter was not before as it was not in deed or at the least it was before a namelesse child as you do graunt vntill the holy father Innocent the thyrd which begat it assembled a company of his frendes as godfathers to name the child And by what authority the counsayle defined the matter of Transubstantiation it may easely appeare For authority of scripture haue they none nor none they do alleadge And what the authority of the Pope was there all men may see being present in the same no lesse then .800 Abbottes and Priours who were all the Popes owne chyldren of him created and begotten And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realme in an open counsell the authority of Rome ceasing you speake here a manifest vntruth wittingly agaynst your conscience For you know very well and if you will denie it there be enough yet aliue can testify that diuers of the clergy being of most godly liuing learning and iudgement neuer consented to the articles which you speake of And what meruayle was it that those articles notwithstanding diuers learned men repugning passed by the most voyces of the Parliament seing that although the authority of Rome was then newely ceased yet the darkenes and blindnes of errours and ignoraunte that came from Rome still remayned and ouershadowed so this Realme that a great number of the Parliament had not yet theyr eyes opened to see the truth And yet how that matter was enforced
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
Chrisostome declaryng at length that the priestes of the old law offered euer new Sacrifices and chaunged them from tyme to tyme and that Christian people do not so but offer euer one Sacrifice of Christ yet by and by least some might be offended with this speach he maketh as it were a correction of his wordes saying But rather we make a remembraunce of Christes sacrifice As though he should say Although in a certaine kinde of speach we may say that euery day we make a sacrifice of Christ yet in very deede to speake properly we make no sacrifice of him but onely a commemoration and remēbraunce of that sacrifice which he alone made and neuer none but he Nor Christ neuer gaue this honour to any creature that he should make a sacrifice of him nor did not ordaine the Sacrament of his holy Supper to the intent that either the priest or the people should sacrifice Christ agayne or that the priestes should make a sacrifice of him for the people but his holy Supper was ordeined for this purpose that euery man eatyng and drinkyng therof should remember that Christ dyed for him and so should exercise his fayth and comfort him selfe by the remembraunce of Christes benefites and so geue vnto Christ most harty thankes and geue him selfe also clearely vnto him Wherfore the ordinaunce of Christ ought to be folowed the priest to minister the Sacrament to the people and they to vse it to their consolation And in this eatyng drinkyng and vsing of the Lordes Supper we make not of Christ a new sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sinne But the humble confession of all penitent hartes their knowledgyng of Christes benefites their thankes giuyng for the same their fayth and consolation in Christ their humble submission and obedience to Gods will and commaundements is a sacrifice of laude and prayse accepted and allowed of God no lesse then the sacrifice of the priest For almighty God without respect of person accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay person of kyng and subiect of maister and seruaunt of man and woman of young and old yea of English French Scot Greeke Latin Iew and Gentile of euery man accordyng to his faythfull and obedient hart vnto him and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Iesu Christ. And as for the saying or singyng of the Masse by the priest as it was in tyme passed vsed it is neither a sacrifice propitiatory nor yet a sacrifice of laude and prayse nor in any wise alowed before God but abhominable and detestable and therof may well be verified the saying of Christ That thyng which seemeth an high thing before men is an abhomination before God They therfore which gather of the Doctours that the Masse is a sacrifice for remission of sinne and that it is applyed by the priest to them for whom he sayth or singeth they which so gather of the Doctours do to them most greuous iniury and wrong most falsely belyeng them For these monstrous thynges were neuer sene nor knowen of the old and primitiue Church nor there was not then in one Church many Masses euery day but vpon certaine dayes there was a common Table of the Lordes Supper where a number of people did together receaue the body and bloud of the Lord but there were then no dayly priuate Masses where euery priest receiued alone like as vntill this day there is none in the Greeke Churches but one common Masse in a day Nor the holy Fathers of the old Church would not haue suffered such vngodly and wicked abuses of the Lordes Supper But these priuate Masses sprang vp of late yeares partly through the ignoraunce and superstition of vnlearned Monkes and Friers whiche knew not what a sacrifice was but made of the Masse a sacrifice propitiatory to remit both sinne and the payne due for the same but chiefly they sprang of lucre and gayne when priestes founde the meanes to sell Masses to the people whiche caused Masses so much to encrease that euery day was sayd an infinite number and that no priest would receiue the Communion at an other priestes hand but euery one would receiue it alone neither regardyng the godly decree of the most famous and holy Councell of Nice which appointed in what order priestes should be placed aboue Deacons at the Communion nor yet the Canons of the Apostles which commaund that when any Communion is ministred all the priestes togither should receiue the same or els be excommunicate So much the old Fathers mysliked that any priest should receiue the Sacrament alone Therfore when the old fathers called the Masse or Supper of the Lord a sacrifice they ment that it was a sacrifice of laudes and thankes geuyng and so aswell the people as the priest do sacrifice or els that it was a remembraunce of the very true sacrifice propitiatory of Christ but they ment in no wise that it is a very true sacrifice for sinne and applicable by the priest to the quicke and dead For the priest may well minister Christes woordes and Sacramentes to all men both good and bad but he can apply the benefite of Christes passion to no man beyng of age and discretion but onely to such as by their owne fayth do apply the same vnto them selues So that euery man of age and discretion taketh to him selfe the benefites of Christes passion or refuseth them him selfe by his owne fayth quicke or dead That is to say by his true and liuely fayth that worketh by charitie he receiueth them or els by his vngodlynes or fayned fayth reiecteth them And this doctrine of the Scripture clearely condemneth the wicked inuentions of the Papistes in these latter dayes which haue deuised a Purgatory to torment soules after this life and oblations of Masses sayd by the priestes to deliuer them from the sayd tormentes and a great number of other commodities do they promise to the simple ignoraunt people by their Masses Now the nature of man beyng euer prone to Idolatry frō the begynnyng of the world and the Papistes beyng ready by all meanes and police to defend and extoll the Masse for their estimation and profite and the people beyng superstitiously enamoured and doted vpon the Masse bicause they take it for a present remedy agaynst all maner of euils and part of the princes beyng blinded by papisticall doctrine part louyng quietnesse and loth to offend their Clergy and subiectes and all beyng captiue and subiect to the Antichrist of Rome the estate of the world remainyng in that case it is no wonder that abuses grew and encreased in the Church that superstition with Idolatry were taken for godlynesse and true Religion and that many thynges were brought in without the authoritie of Christ. As Purgatory the oblation and sacrificyng of Christ by the priest alone the applicatiō and appointyng of the same to such persons as the priest would sing or say Masse for and to such abuses as they
viii chap. prouing by authority of the oldest authors in Christs church that he called bread his body and wine his bloud And agayne in the ix x. xi and xii chapters I haue so fully intreated of such figuratiue speaches that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speake of any more but I referre the reader to those places And if M. doctor require a further answere herein let him looke vpon the late bishop of Winchesters booke called the detection of the diuels sophistry where he writeth plainly that when Christ spake these wordes This is my body he made demonstration of the bread THan further in this prologue this Papist is not ashamed to say that I set the cart before the horses putting reason first and fayth after which lye is so manifest that it needeth no further proofe but onely to looke vpon my booke wherein it shall euidently appeare that in all my fiue bookes I ground my foūdation vpon gods word And least the Papistes should say that I make the expositions of the scripture my selfe as they commonly vse to do I haue fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs that were in the beginning of the church and many yeares after vntill the Antichrist of Rome rose vp and corrupted altogither And as for naturall reason I make no mention therof in all my v. bookes but in one place onely which is in my second booke speaking of Transubstantiation And in that place I set not reason before fayth but as an handmayden haue appoynted her to do seruice vnto fayth and to wayte vpon her And in that place she hath done such seruice that D. Smith durst not once looke her in the face nor find any fault with her seruice but hath flylye and craftely stolen away by her as though he saw her not But in his owne booke he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christes owne wordes putting the wordes behind that goe before the wordes before that goe behind that except a shameles Papist no man durst be so bolde to attempt any such thing of his owne head For where the Euangelist and S. Paule rehearse Christes wordes thus Take eate this is my body he in the confutation of my second booke turneth the order vpside downe and sayth This is my body take eate After this in his Preface hee rehearseth a great number of the wonderfull workes of God as that God made all the world of nought that he made Adam of the earth and Eue of his side the bush to flame with fire and burne not and many other like which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture And vpon these he concludeth most vainly and vntruly that thing which in the scripture is neyther expressed nor vnderstanded that Christ is corporally in heauen and in earth and in euery place where the sacrament is And yet D. Smith sayth that Gods word doth teach this as playnly as the other vsing herein such a kind of sophisticall argumēt as all Logitiās do reprehend which is called petitio principij whē a mā taketh that thing for a supposition and an approued truth which is in controuersy And so doth he in this place when he sayth Doth not Gods word teach it thee as playnly as the other Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be graunted him as a truth which he ought to proue and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in questiō that is to say whether it be as playnly set out in the scripture that Christes body is corporally in euery place where the sacrament is as that God created all thinges of nothing Adam of the earth and Eue of Adams side c. This is it that I deny and that he should proue But he taketh it for a supposition saying by interrogation doth not the word of God teach this as playnly as the other Which I affirme to be vtterly false as I haue shewed in my third boobe the xi and twelfe chap. where I haue most manifestly proued as well by Gods word as by aūcient authors that these wordes of Christ This is my body and This is my bloud be no playne speaches but figuratiue THen forth goeth this papist vnto the vi chap. of S. Thou saying Christ promised his disciples to geue them such bread as should be his owne very naturall flesh which he would geue to death for the life of the world Can this his promise sayth M. Smith be verified of common bread Was that giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world Wherto I answer by his owne reason Can this his promise be verified of sacramentall bread was that geuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world I meruayle here not a little of M. Smithes eyther dulnes or maliciousnes that cannot or will not see that Christ in this chap. of S. Ihon spake not of Sacramentall bread but of heauenly bread nor of his flesh onely but also of his bloud and of his godhead calling them heauenly bread that giueth euerlasting life So that he spake of him selfe wholy saying I am the bread of life He that cōmeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleueth in me shall not thirst for euer And neyther spake he of common bread nor yet of sacramentall bread For neyther of them was giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world And there can be nothing more manifest then that in this vi chap. of Ihon Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh but of his very flesh And that aswell for that the sacrament was not then instituted as also that Christ sayd not in the future tense the bread which I will giue shal be my flesh but in the present tense the bread which I will geue is my flesh which sacramentall bread was neyther then his flesh nor was then instituted for a Sacrament nor was after giuen to death for the life of the world But as Christ when he sayd vnto the woman of Samaria The water which I will geue shall spring into euerlasting life he ment neyther of materiall water nor of the accidents of water but of the holy ghost which is the heauenly fountayne that springeth vnto eternall life so likewise when he sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world he ment neyther of the materiall bread neither of the accidents of bread but of his owne flesh Which although of it selfe it auayleth nothing yet being in vnity of persō ioyned vnto his diuinity it is the same heauenly bread that he gaue to death vpon the crosse for the life of the world But here M. Smith asketh a question of the tyme saying thus When gaue Christ that bread which was his very flesh that he gaue for vs to death if he did it not at his last supper when he sayd This is my
or contrary to the Scripture or direct not the forme of life accordyng to the same then it is not the piller of truth nor the Church of Christ but the sinagogue of Sathan and the temple of Antichrist which both erreth it selfe and bringeth into errour as many as do folow it And the holy Church of Christ is but a small herd or flocke in comparison to the great multitude of them that folow Sathan and Antichrist as Christ him selfe sayth and the word of God and the course of the world from the begynnyng vntill this day hath declared For from the creation of the world vntill Noes floud what was then the open face of the Church How many godly men were in those thousand and sixe hundred yeares and moe Dyd not iniquitie begyn at Cain to rule the worlde and so encreased more and more that at the length God could no lenger suffer but drowned all the world for sinne except viij persons which onely were left vpon the whole earth And after the world was purged by the floud fell it not by and by to the former iniquitie agayne so that within few yeares after Abraham could find no place where he might be suffered to worshyp the true liuyng God but that God appointed him a straunge countrey almost clearely desolate and vnhabited where hee and a fewe other contrary to the vsage of the world honored one God And after the great benefites of God shewed vnto his people of Israell and the law also geuen vnto them wherby they were taught to know him and honor him yet how many tymes did they fal from him Did they not from tyme to tyme make them new Gods worshyp them Was not the open face of the Church so miserably deformed not onely in the wildernesse and in the tyme of the Iudges but also in tyme of the kynges that after the diuision of the kyngdome amongest all the kyngs of Iuda there was but onely three in whose tymes the true Religion was restored among all the kynges of Israell not somuch as one Were not all that tyme the true Priestes of God a few in number Did not all the rest maintaine Idolatry and all abhominatiōs in groues and mountaines worshippyng Baal and other false Gods And did they not murther and slea all the true Prophetes that taught them to worshyp the true God In so much that Helias the Prophet knowyng no mo of all the whole people that folowed the right trade but him selfe alone made his complaint vnto almightie God saying O Lord they haue slayne thy Prophetes and ouerthrowen thine aultars there is no mo left but I alone and yet they lye in wayte to flea me also So that although almighty God suffered thē in their captiuitie at Babylon no more but lxx yeares yet he suffered them in their Idolatry folowyng their owne wayes and inuentions many hundred yeares the mercy of God beyng so great that their punishment was short and small in respect of their long and greeuous offences And at the tyme of Christes cōmyng the hygh Priests came to their offices by such fraude simony murther and poysonyng that the like hath not bene often read nor heard of except onely at Rome And when Christ was come what godly religion found he What Annasses and Cayphasses what hypocrisie superstition and abhomination before God although to mens eyes thyngs appeared holy and godly Was not then Christ alone his Apostles with other that beleued his doctrine the holy true Church Although they were not so takē but for heretickes seditious persons blasphemers of God were extremely persecuted and put to vilanous death by such as accompted them selues were taken for the Church which fulfilled the measure of their fathers that persecuted the Prophets Upon whō came al the righteous bloud that was shed vpon the earth from the bloud of iust Abell vnto the bloud of Zachary the sonne of Barachie whom they slew betwene the Temple and the aultar And how many persons remayned constantly in the true liuely fayth at the tyme of Christes passion I thinke M. Smith will say but a very fewe seyng that Peter denyed Christ his Maister three tymes and all his Apostles fled away and one for hast without his clothes What wonder is it then that the open church is now of late yeares fallen into many errours and corruption and the holy church of Christ is secret and vnknowne seing that Sathan these 500. yeares hath beene let lose and Antichrist raigneth spoyling and deuouring the simple flocke of Christ. But as almighty God sayd vnto Helias I haue reserued and kept for mine ownne selfe seuen thousand which neuer bowed their knee to Baall so it is at this present For although almighty God hath suffered these foure or fiue hundred yeares the open face of his church to be vggely deformed and shamefullye defiled by the sects of the Papistes which is so manifest that now all the world knoweth it yet hath God of his manifold mercy euer preserued a good number secret to himselfe in his true religion although Antichrist hath bathed himselfe in the bloud of no small number of them And although the Papistes haue ledde innumerable people out of the right way yet the church is to be folowed but the Church of Christ not of Antichrist the church that concerning the fayth contayneth it selfe with in gods word not that deuiseth daily new artcles contrary to gods word The church that by the true interpretation of scripture and good example gathereth people vnto Christ not that by wrasting of the scripture and euill example of corrupt liuing draweth them away from Christ. And now forasmuch as the wicked church of Rome counterfayting the church of Christ hath in this matter of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and bloud of our sauior Christ varied from the pure and holy Church in the Apostles tyme and many hundred yeares after as in my booke I haue plainely declared manifestly proued it is an easy matter to discerne which church is to be folowed And I cannot but maruaile that Smith alleadgeth for for him Vincentius Lirenensis who contrary to D. Smith teacheth playnly that the canon of the Bible is perfect and fufficient of it selfe for the truth of the Catholicke fayth and that the whole church cannot make one article of the fayth although it may be taken as a necessary witnes for the receiuing and establishing of the same with these three conditions that the thing which we would establish thereby hath bene beleued in all places euer and of al men Which the Papistical doctrine in this matter hath not bene but came from Rome sins Beringarius time by Nicolas the ii Innocentius the third and other of their sort where as the doctrine which I haue set forth came from Christ and his Apostles and was of all men euery where with one consent taught and beleued as my book sheweth plainly
serue God and dwell in hym and haue him euer dwellyng in you What can be so heauy a burden as an vnquiet conscience to be in such a place as a man can not be suffered to serue God in Christes true Religion I lye be loth to depart from your kin and frendes remember that Christ calleth them his mother sisters and brethren that do his Fathers will Where we finde therefore God truely honored accordyng to his will there we can lacke neither frend nor kin If you be loth to depart for slaunderyng of Gods word remember that Christ when his houre was not yet come departed out of his countrey into Samaria to auoyde the malice of the Scribes and Phariseis and commaunded his Apostles that if they were pursued in one place they should flye to an other And was not Paule let downe by a basket out at a window to auoyde the persecution of Areta And what wisedome and policie he vsed from tyme to tyme to escape the malice of his enemies the Actes of the Apostles doe declare And after the same sorte did the other Apostles albeit wheÌ„ it came to such a poynt that they could no longer escape daunger of the persecutours of Gods true Religion than they shewed them selues that their flyeng before came not of feare but of godly wisedome to doe more good that they would not rashly without vrgent necessitie offer them selues to death whiche had bene but a temptation of God Yea when they were apprehended and could no longer auoyde then they stoode boldly to the profession of Christ then they shewed how litle they passed of death how much they feared God more then men how much they loued and preferred the eternall life to come aboue this short and miserable lyfe Wherfore I exhort you aswell by Christes commaundement as by the example of him and his Apostles to withdraw your selfe from the malice of your and Gods enemyes into some place where God is most purely serued which is no slauÌ„dering of the truth but a preseruyng of your selfe to God and the truth and to the societie and comfort of Christes litle flocke And that you will doe do it with speede least by your owne follie you fall into the persecutours handes and the Lord send his holy spirite to lead and guide you where soeuer you goe and all that be godly will say Amen T. C. A short Table or Index after the order Alphabeticall notyng the place or page of euery principall matters comprised in this Booke A. ABrahams will is called a sacrifice 85 Accidentes remoued there is no difference of substaunce 275 Adoration confuted .2 238 Aduerbes in lye 161 AEpinus 3â—9 15 Articles sixe not consented vnto by diuerse learned men 252 Authours for doctrine how to be read 127 B. BAptisme iniured by the Papistes 9. 20. 30. why ordayned in water .38 the water how chaunged therein 330 Berengarius 6. 7 Bertram his booke 6.77 Body of Christ whether a beast or byrd may eate it 66. whether ill men eate it .68 215. his eaten three maner of wayes .70 whether it hath proper formes quantities in the Sacrament .72 whether it be made of bread .79 looke Bread is not the sacrifice .87 to eate it is a figuratiue speach .111 looke eatyng how it is carnall .183 whether it be made of the matter of bread .203 what maner of body it is .238 is not the substaunce of the visible Sacrament 260 This is my Body how expounded 104. 121 Looke Sacramentes and the word Christ. Our Bodyes how they shal be spirituall is the resurrection 183 Bonauentura 53 Bread in the SacrameÌ„t is not holy but an holy token .3.186.156 yet is no bare token .4.10.92.207 but is deliuered from his bare name .291 to whoÌ„ it is but a bare token .10 how it is a chaunged in the Sacrament .330 341. the conuersion therof into Christes body is spirituall .325 how it is Christes body .292 and fleshe .20 why called Christes flesh .133 why it is Christes body to the receauer .208 what foode it is to the worthy receauer .333 it remayneth but bread after sanctification .263 it beyng broken how Christ may be sayd to be whole in euery part therof 350 Breakyng signifieth the whole vse of the Supper 260 Bucer 15 C. CAllyng is not makyng 346.107 Chaunge of thynges remoueth not substaunces 345 Christ how present in the Sacrament .4.5.8.49 124. how eaten in the Sacrament .8.10.18.20 22. how he is verely geuen in it .19 what it is to dwell in hym .23 he called the materiall bread his body .24 euill men eate him not .25 he meant not to make the bread his body .25 his ambiguous speaches not alwayes opened in the EuaÌ„gelistes .33 be excelleth all corporall foode .37 he is not corporally on earth .43 but in heauen .49 95. 142. Papistes say hee goeth no further then the stomacke .53 he is not receiued with the mouth .55 how long he taryeth with the receiuer .57 Papistes say he is whole in euery part of bread .63 but once offered .87 the dedication of his will to dye was not a propitiatory sacrifice .85 his intercession is no sacrifice for sinne .89 hee is in his Supper as in his assembly .93 how he is with vs also gone froÌ„ vs .102 his calling is not makyng .246.107 his glorified body hath his forme quaÌ„tities .129 he vseth figuratiue speaches .136 how he is in our handes .456 how he dwelleth in vs naturally .168 169. how vnited vnto vs .166 192. 175. he is verely truely present in the Sacrament .192 how we eate his sensible flesh that was Crucified .234 to be honored in heaueÌ„ not in the SacrameÌ„t .245 239. his humanitie proued by visible conuersatioÌ„ .278 his substauÌ„ce in Baptisme and the Supper how .289 he is ioyned to the bread as the holy Ghost is ioyned to the water .327 his wordes chaunge the kyndes of elementes .341 his sacrifice propitiatory what it is .370.372 and the effect of his sacrifice 391 Looke the word Sacrament and Sacrifice Church of God how it dayly offereth Christ. 89.90 Churche which is to be followed .380 and whiche Church can not erre 405 Church of Rome a stepmother .12 13. the mother of Transubstantiation .15 looke Transubstantiation Clemens Epistles fayned 146 Communion a short introduction thereunto 380 Confusion of Natures what it is 321 Consecration what it is .184 the Papistes vary in it 262. Conuersion two wayes 107 Conuersion of earthly creatures into Christes substaunce how 187 Corporall thynges haue two Natures 363 Cuttill the nature therof 19 D. DOctrine wantyng generall successe is not therfore vntrue 7 E. EAtyng signifieth beleuyng 31 Eatyng spirituall how it is 40.218 Eatyng of Christes body three maner of wayes 70.214 Eatyng of Christes body is a spirituall speach 113. 118 Eatyng of Christes flesh what it is 163.217 Euill men eate not Christes body 68. 215. 216 F. FAyth Catholique what as Winchester sayth .4 how grounded by the
tyme to the entent he may be there quiet to accomplish my request let him lacke neither bookes ne any thing requisite for his study And thus after the kynges departure Doct. Cranmer went with my Lord of Wiltshyre vnto his house where he incontinent wrote his mynde concernyng the kynges question addyng to the same besides the authorities of Scriptures of generall Councels and of auncient writers also his opinion which was this that the Byshop of Rome had no such authoritie as wherby he might dispence with the word of God and the Scriptures When Doct. Cranmer had made this booke and committed it to the kyng the kyng sayd to him will you abide by this that you haue here written before the Bishop of Rome That will I do by Gods grace quoth Doct. Cranmer if your Maiestie do send me thether Mary quoth the kyng I will send you euen to him in a sure Ambassage And thus by meanes of Doct. Cranmers handlyng of this matter with the kyng not onely certaine learned men were sent abroad to the most part of the Uniuersities in Christendome to dispute the question but also the same beyng by Commission disputed by the Diuines in both the Uniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford it was there concluded that no such Matrimony was by the word of God lawfull Wherupon a solēne Ambassage was prepared and sent to the Byshop of Rome then beyng at Bonony wherein went the Earle of Wiltshyre Doct. Cranmer Doct. Stokesly Doct. Carne Doct. Bennet and diuers other learned men and Gentlemen And when the tyme came that they should come before the Bishop of Rome to declare the cause of their Ambassage the Byshop sittyng on high in his cloth of estate and in his rich apparell with his sandales on his féete offeryng as it were his foote to be kissed of the Ambassadours the Earle of Wiltshyre with the rest of the Ambassadours disdainyng thereat stoode still made no coūtenaunce thereunto and so kept them selues from that Idolatry In fine the Pontificall Byshop seyng their constancie without any farther ceremonie gaue eare to the Ambassadours Who entryng there before the Byshop offered on the kynges behalfe to be defended that no man Iure diuine could or ought to mary his brothers wife and that the Byshop of Rome by no meanes ought to dispence to the contrary Diuers promises were made and sundry dayes appointed wherein the question should haue bene disputed and when our part was ready to aunswere no mā there appeared to dispute in that behalfe So in the end the Byshop makyng to our Ambassadours good countenaunce and gratiffyng Doctour Cranmer with the Office of the Penitentiarishyp dismissed them vndisputed withall Wherupon the Earle of Wiltshyre and other Commissioners sauyng Doct. Cranmer returned home agayne into England And forthwith Doct. Cranmer went to the Emperour beyng in his iourney towardes Vienna in expedition agaynst the Turke there to aunswere such learned men of the Emperours Coūsaile as would or could say any thyng to the contrary part Where amongest the rest at the same tyme was Cornelius Agrippa an high Officer in the Emperours Court who hauyng priuate conference with Doct. Cranmer in the question was so fully resolued and satisfied in the matter that afterwardes there was neuer disputation openly offered to Doct. Cranmer in that behalfe For through the perswasion of Agrippa all other learned men there were much discouraged This matter thus prosperyng on D. Cranmers behalfe aswell touchyng the kynges questiō as concernyng the inualiditie of the Byshop of Romes authoritie Byshop Warrham then Archbyshop of Caunterbury departed this transitorie lyfe wherby that dignitie then beyng in the kynges gift and disposition was immediatly giuen to Doct. Crāmer as worthy for his trauaile of such a promotiō Thus much touchyng the prefermēt of Doct. Cranmer vnto his dignitie and by what meanes he atchiued vnto the same not by flattery nor by bribes nor by none other vnlawfull meanes whiche thyng I haue more at large discoursed to stoppe the raylyng mouthes of such who beyng them selues obscure and vnlearned shame not so to detract a learned mā most ignominiously with the surname of an Hostler whom for his godly zeale vnto sincere Religion they ought with much humilitie to haue had in regard and reputation Now as concernyng his behauiour and trade of lyfe towardes God and the world beyng entered into his sayd dignitie True it is that he was so throughly furnished withall properties qualities and conditions belongyng to a true Byshop as that it shal be very hard in these straunge dayes to finde many that so nearely resemble that liuely exemplar described by S. Paule the Apostle in his seueral Epistles to Titus and Timothée So farre he swarued from the common course of common Byshops in his tyme. But bicause the same is very well decipbred in the story at large it shall not be so néedefull to discourse all the partes therof in this place Yet may not this be forgotten That notwithstandyng the great charge now cōmitted vnto him The worthy Prelate gaue him selfe euermore to continuall study not breakyng the order that he vsed commonly in the Uniuersitie To wit by v. of the clocke in the mornyng in his study and so vntill ix continuyng in prayer and study From thence vntill dyner tyme to heare suters if the Princes affaires did not call him away committyng his temporall affaires aswell of houshold as other foreine busines to his officers For the most part hee would occupy him selfe in reformatiō of corrupt Religion and settyng forth true and sincere doctrine wherein he would associate him selfe alwayes with learned men for the siftyng boultyng out one matter or other for the commoditie and profite of the Church of England After dynner if any suters were he would diligently heare them and dispatch them in such sort as euery man commended his lenitie and gentlenes That done to his ordinary study agayne vntill fiue of the clocke whiche houre hee bestowed in hearyng common prayer After Supper he would consume an houre at the least in some godly conference and then agayne vntill it of the clocke at one kynde of study or other So that no houre of the day was spent in vayne but was bestowed as tended to Gods glory the seruice of his Prince or the commoditie of the Church As touching his affabilitie easines to be entreated it was such as that in all honest causes wherin his letter counsell or speach might gratifie either nobleman Gentlemā meane man or poore man no mā could be more tractable or sooner wonne to yeld Onely in causes appertainyng to God and his Prince no man more stoute more constant or more hard to be wonne as in that part his earnest defence in the Parlamēt house aboue thrée dayes together in disputyng agaynst the vi Articles of Gardiners deuise cā testifie And though the kyng would néedes haue them vpon some
corporis Christi est Is not the bread which we breake the communion of Christes body And that euill men do not eate Christe his fleshe nor drinke his bloud for the scripture saith expressely He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him which is not true of ill men And for the corporall absence of Christ what can be more plainly said in the letter then he sayd of himself that he forsoke the world besides other scriptures which I haue alleaged in my 3. booke the 4. chapter And the scripture speaketh plainly in the Epistle to the Hebrues that Christ was neuer more offred then once But here you take such a large scope that you flee from the foure proper matters that be in controuersie vnto a new scope deuised by you that I should absolutely deny the presence of Christ and say That the bread doth only signifie Christes body absent which thing I neuer said nor thought And as Christ sayth not so nor Paule sayth not so euen so like wise I say not so and my booke in diuers places saith cleane contrary that Christ is with vs spiritually present is eaten dronken of vs and dwelleth within vs although corporally he be departed out of this world and is ascended vp into heauen Winchester And to the entent euery notable disagréement from the truth may the more euidently appeare I will here in this place as I will hereafter likewyse when the case occurreth ioyne as it were an issue with this author that is to say to make a stay with him in this point triable as they say by euidence and soone tried For in this point the scriptures bee already by the author brought forth the letter wherof proueth not his fayth And albeit he trauaileth bringeth forth the saying of many approued writers yet is there no one of them that writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the faith catholike And to make the issue playne and to ioyne it directly thus I say No author known and approued that is to say Ignatius Polycarpe Iustine Irene Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome Hilary Gregory Nazianzene Basill Emissen Ambrose Cyrill Hierome Augustine Damascene Theophilast none of these hath this doctrine in playne termes that the bread onely signifieth Christes body absent nor this sentence that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer after consecration nor that Christes body is none otherwyse present in the Sacrament but in a signification nor this sentēce that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped because there is nothyng present but in a signe And herein what the truth is may soone appeare as it shall by their workes neuer appeare to haue ben taught and preached receiued and beleued vniuersally and therfore can be called no catholike faith that is to say allowed in the whole through and in outward teaching preached and beleued Caunterbury IN your issues you make me to say what you list and take your issue where you list and then if xii false varlets passe with you what wonder is it But I will ioyne with you this issue that neither scripture nor aūcient author writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of your faith And to make the issue plaine to ioyne directly with you therin thus I say That no auncient and catholike authour hath your doctrine in playne termes And because I will not take my issue in bye matters as you do I will make if in the foure principall pointes wherin we vary wherupon my booke resteth This therfore shal be mine issue That as no scripture so no auncient author known and approued hath in plaine termes your Transubstantiation nor that the body and bloud of Christ be really corporally naturally and carnally wider the formes of bread and wine nor that euil men do eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ nor that Christ is offered euery day by the priest a sacrifice propiciatorie for sinne Wherfore by your owne description and rule of a catholike faith your doctrine and teaching in these 4. articles cannot be good and catholike except you can finde it in plaine termes in the scripture and old catholike doctors which when you do I will hold vp my hand at the barre and say giltie And if you cannot then it is reason that you do the lyke per legem Talionis Winchester If this author setting apart the worde Catholike would of his owne wil go about to proue howsoeuer scripture hath bene vnderstanded hitherto yet it should be vnderstanded in dede as he now teacheth he hath herein diuers disaduantages and hindrances worthy consideration which I will particularly note First the preiudice and sentence geuen as it were by his own mouth against himself now in the booke called the Catechisme in his name set forth Secondly that about vij C. yere ago one Bertram if the booke set forth in hys name be his enterprised secretly the lyke as appereth by the said booke yet preuayled not Thirdly Berengarius beyng in dede but an Archdeacō about v. C. yeres past after he had openly attempted to set forth such like doctrine recanted so fayled in his purpose Fourthly Wickliffe not much aboue an C. yeares past enterprised the same whose teaching God prospered not Fiftly how Luther in his workes handled them that would haue in our tyme raised vp the same doctrine in Germany it is manifest by his their writings wherby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many ouerthrowes so many rebuts so oftē reproofes to be desperate and such as God hath not prospered and sauoured to be receyued at any tyme openly as his true teaching Herein whether I say true or no let the stories try me and it is matter worthy to bée noted because Gamaliels obseruation written in the Actes of the Apostles in allowed to marke how they prosper and go forward in their doctrine that be authors of any news teaching Caunterbury I Haue not proued in my booke my iiij assertions by mine owne wit but by the collation of holy scripture and the sayings of the old holy catholike authors And as for your v. notes you might haue noted thē against your selfe who by them haue much more disaduauntage and hinderance then I haue As concerning the Catechisme by me set forth I haue answered in my fourth booke the 8. chapter that ignorant men for lack of iudgement and exercise in olde authors mistake my said Catechisme And as for Bertrame he did nothing els but at the request of king Charles set out the true doctrine of the holy catholike church from Christ vnto his tyme concerning the sacrament And I neuer heard nor red any mā that condemned Bertrame before this tyme and therfore I can take no hinderance but a great aduantage at his handes For all men that hitherto haue written of Bertrame haue much commended him And
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
body from his spirite affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite and in the communion but his flesh And that Christes spirit renueth our life but increaseth it not and that his flesh increceth our life but geueth it not And agaynst all nature reasō and truth you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christes body and bloud in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all And against scripture and all comformity of nature you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacrament that you leaue no distinction proportion nor fashion of mannes body at all And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother of the true doctrine of Christ that thus vnnaturally speaketh deuydeth and confoundeth Christes body If Salomon were aliue he would surely geue iudgement that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh so vnnaturally and so vnlike his mother and be geuen to the true church of the faithful that neuer digressed from the truth of Gods word nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body but speake according to the same that Christes body although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body occupying one place and being of a certayne height and measure hauing all members distinct and set in good order and proportion And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye is not only the beginning but also the contynuance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life By him we be regenerated by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature as Christ doth in his without mixtion or confusion This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother and like a true and right beleeuing christian man Marye of that doctrine which you teach I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof which in scripture is called Babilō because of commixtion or confusion Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth superstition with religiō godlines with hipocrisie scripture with traditions that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant to confound all the doctrine of Christ yea Christ him selfe shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother and the true naturall mother of Antichrist And for the conclusion of your matter here I doubt not but the indifferent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts sleightes shiftes obliquities manifest vntruthes it may be easely iudged that what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet nothing is lesse intended then that truth should ether haue victory or appeare and be seene at all Winchester And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes which this author is not afraid to vtter a matter wonderfull considering his dignity if he that is named be the author in déede which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth First I will note vnto the reader how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament to be the faith of the papistes which saying what foundacion it hath thou mayest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish defended stoutly the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in England in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gospels professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany where Hosiander is chiefe preacher in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the word truly is there and as Buter saith that is substancially Which Catechisme was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from the beginning alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene Ciprian Chrisostome Hillary Cirill Ambrose and Theophilacte which authors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to idle wittes with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estéemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is published abroad in printe wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse and that in it is dispensed the true body true bloud of Christ which is plainly the same in essence that is to say substāce and the same bloud in essence signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye taken for no papist among vs to much estéemed as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Ciprian Hilary Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basill Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iudgement he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words this is my body rehearsed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what
call the faith of the Church which teacheth not say you that Christ is in the bread and wine but vnder the formes of bread and wine But to aunswere you I say that the Papists do teach that Christ is in the visible signes and whether they list to call them bread and wine or the formes of bread and wine all is one to me for the truth is that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine nor in or vnder the formes figures of them but is corporally in heauen and spiritually in his liuelye members which be his tēples where he inhabiteth And what vntrue reporte is this when I speake of bread and wine to the Papistes to speak of them in the fame sence that the Papistes meane taking bread and wine for the formes and accidences of bread and wine And your selfe also doe teach to vnderstand by the bread and wine not their substances but accidentes And what haue I offended then in speaking to you after your own māner of speach which your self doth approue and allow by and by after saying these wordes As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name If a Catholick man forbeareth not that name and Catholick men be true men then true men forbeare not that name And why then charge you me with an vntruth for vsing that name which you vse your selfe and affirme Catholicke men to vse But that you be geuen altogether to finde faultes rather in other then to amend your own and to reprehend that in me which you allow in your selfe and other and purposely will not vnderstand my meaning because ye would seeke occasion to carpe and controll For els what man is so simple that readeth my booke but he may know well that I meane not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine For I know that you say ther is nether bread nor wine although you say vntruely therein but yet for as much as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine and say that in them is Christ therfore I reporte of you that you say Christ is in the bread and wine meaning as you take bread and wine the accidentes thereof Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent Reader of my booke then you in this place who vnderstoode my wordes as I meante and as the Papistes vse and therefore would not purposely calūniate and reprehend that was well spoaken But there is no man so dull as he that will not vnderstand For men know that your witte is of as good capacitie as D. Smithes is if your will agreed to the same But as for any vntrue reporte made by me herein willingly against my conscience as you vntruely report of me by that time I haue ioyned with you throughout your booke you shall right well perceiue I trust that I haue sayd nothing wittingly but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day in the sight of the euerliuing God and that I am able before any learned and indifferent iudges to iustifie by holy Scriptures and the auncient Doctors of Christes church as I will appeale the consciences of all godly men that be any thing indifferent ready to yealde to the truth when they reade and consider my booke And as concerning the forme of doctrine vsed in this church of Englād in the holy Communiō that the body and bloud of Christ be vnder the formes of bread and wine whē you shall shew the place where this forme of words is expressed then shall you purge your selfe of that which in the meane time I take to be a plain vntruth Now for the second parte of the difference you graunt that our doctrine is true that Christ is in them that worthely eate and drunke the bread and wine and if it differ not from youres then let it passe as a thing agreed vpon by both partes And yet if I would captiously gather of your wordes I could as well prooue by this second parte that very bread and wine be eatē and drunken after consecration as you could prooue by the first that Christ is in the very bread and wine And if a Catholick man call the bread wine as you say in the second parte of the difference what ment you then in the first parte of this difference to charge me with so hainous a crime with a note to the Reader as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost because I said that the Papistes doe teach that Christ is in the bread and wine doe not you affirme here yourselfe the same that I reporte that the Papistes which you call the Catholickes doe not forbeare to call the Sacrament wherein they put the reall and corporall presence bread and wine Let the Reader now iudge whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the successe of them that study to wrangle in wordes without any respecte of opening the truth But letting that matter passe yet we vary from you in this difference For we say not as you doe that the body of Christ is corporally naturally and carnally either in the bread and wine or formes of bread and wine or in them that eate and drinke thereof But we say that he is corporally in heauen onely and spiritually in them that worthely eate and drink the bread and wine But you make an article of the faith which the olde Church neuer beleeued nor heard of And where you note in this second parte of the difference a sleight and crafte as you note an vntruth in the first euen as much crafte is in the one as vntruth in the other being neither sleight nor vntruth in either of both But this sleight say you I vse putting that for a difference wherein is no difference at all but euery Catholick man must needes confesse Yet once againe there is no man so deafe as he that will not heare nor so blinde as he that will not see nor so dul as he that wil not vnderstand But if you had indifferent eares indifferent eyes and indifferent iudgement you might well gather of my wordes a plain and manifest difference although it be not in such tearmes as contenteth your mind But because you shall see that I meane no sleight nor crafte but goe plainly to worke I shall set out the difference truely as I ment and in such your own tearmes as I trust shall content you if it be possible Let this therfore be the difference They say that Christ is corporally vnder or in the formes of bread and wine We say that Christ is not there neither corporally nor spiritually but in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine he is spiritually and corporally in heauen Here I trust I haue satisfied as well the vntrue report wittingly made as you say in the first parte of the difference against my conscience as the crafte and sleight vsed
the armes be there be the legges so that in euery part of the bread and wine is altogether whole head whole feet whole flesh whole bloud whole hart whole lunges whole breast whole backe and altogyther whole confused and mixt without distinction or diuersity O what a foolish and an abhominable inuention is this to make of the most pure and perfect bodye of Christ such a confuse and monstrous body And yet can the Papistes imagine nothing so foolish but all Christian people must receiue the same as an oracle of God and as a most certayne article of their fayth without whisperyng to the contrary Winchester This is a maruaylous Rhetorique and such as the author hath ouerséene himselfe in the vtterance of it and confesseth himself pretely abused to the latter end of his yeares to haue beleued that he now calleth so foolish But to the purpose In the book of common prayer now at this time set foorth in this Realme It is ordered to teach the people that in ech part of the bread consecrate brokeÌ„ is the whole body of our Sauiour Christ which is agreable to the Catholicke doctrine Upon occasion hereof it liketh this author to multiply language by enumeration of partes and because reason without fayth directeth the bodily eye to so little a visible quantity in the host this Author beareth in hand the Catholicke Church to say and teach all that fond reason deuiseth where as the Church in yâ— doctrine of this mistery denieth all that reasoÌ„ without fayth diuiseth and therefore when we acknowledge by fayth Christs body present although we say it is present truly Really Substantially yet we say our senses be not priuy to that presence â—e the maner of it but by instruction of fayth and therefore we say Christes body to be not locally present not by manner of quantity but inuisible and in no sensible manner but maruailously in a Sacrament and mistery truely and in such a spirituall maner as we can not define and determyne and yet by fayth we knowe his bodye present the partes of which be in them selfe distinct one from an other in their owne substaunce but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of our capacitie which partes we can by no demonstration place nor by imagination displace diminish alter or confound as this author for his pleasure reporteth who writeth monstrously in so high a mistery and impudently beareth in hand the Catholicke Church to teach that he listeth to beare in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of the teaching where as al true Christian men beleue symply Christes wordes and trouble not their heades with such consequences as séeme to striue with reason This is in the Author no whisperyng but playnely rayling wherein if he had remembred himselfe well he would not haue spoken of all Christian men in the receypt of that he entendeth to disproue And if he would say he spake it by an Irony or skorne yet it implyeth that all had receyued that he thus mocketh which after the sort he writeth was neuer deuised by Papist or other to be so taught otherwyse then as this Author might read it as an ydle argument to shew absurditie in reason For in Gods workes as the sacramentes hée we must think all semelynesse in déed without deformity euen as we beleue al Gods iudgements iust and true although reason conclude in them euident iniquitie Mans reason when it séemeth most gallant is full of spottes and folly Gods workes be all séemelynesse without confusion monsier or any such absurditée as this Author supposeth Although I can not in the Sacrament with the eye of my reason locally distinct Christs head from his foote his legs from his arme And where in the booke of common prayer it is truely said in ech part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christes whole body if one of curiositee would question with me and I of folly would aunswere him first where is Christes head I should say here poynting with my finger he would thinke it first a little head Then he would aske where is his foote and I should say there and poynt in the same place againe for there is none other left If he replyed that I poynted before the same for the head might not the third a catholicke man that stood by trow you wisely call vs both madde to go about to discusse that wée must grant we se not wheÌ„ by faith we know only the being preset of Christs most precious body then by blynd reason to discusse the manner of being in the situation of such partes as we do not see Now if there came among vs a fourth man as a mediatour and would do as king Alexander dyd when he could not open the knot of Gordius he did cut it with his sworde if this man should say I will reléeue this matter You beleue Christes body is preseÌ„t in déed really and substaÌ„tially Leaue out really and subtaÌ„tially and say his body is present in signification and then it may be easily conceaued by reason that Christs body being neuer so great may be as well signified by a little péece of bread as by a great péece of bread euen as a man may write a great mans name as wel in smal letters short as in great letters at length And to commend further his deuise vnto vs would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconueniences might be auoyded by it This fourth man I speak of making himselfe a mediatour but in déede vnmete therfore because he hath no participation with sayth yet if our religion and fayth were mans inuention as that of Numa Pompilius was he should not vtter this his conceit all ydelly For he speaketh of a ioly easy way without any mistery or maruaile at all But our faith is of hearing as hath bene preached continually from the beginning grounded vpon the most sure trueth of the word of God and therefore can not be attempered as man would deuise it to exclude trauayle in carnall reason For then the Sabellians were to be harkned vnto who by their heresy toke away all the hard and difficile questions in the mistery of the Trinitie The Arrians also releued much mans reason in consideration of Christs death denying him to be of the same substance with his father which â—as a pestilent heresy Now in the SacrameÌ„t to say Christs body is present onely by signification as it releueth in some mens iudgementes the absurdities in reason which ought not to be releued so it condemneth all the true publike faith testified in the Church from the beginning hetherto and sheweth the learned holy men to haue wondred in their writynges at that which hath no wonder at all to ordeyn one thing to be the signification of an other which is practised daily among men But from the beginning the mistery of the Sacrament hath béen with wonder marueyled at how
Christ made bread his body and wyne his bloud and vnder the figure of those visible creatures gaue inuisibly his precious body any bloud presently there And as he gaue sayth S. Barnarde his life for vs so he gaue his flesh to vs in that mistery to redéeme vs in this to féede vs. Which doings of Christ we must vnderstand to haue béene perfited not in an imagination in a figure and signification but really in very déede truely and vnfaynedly not because we beléeue it so but because he wrought it so whose works we must beleue to be most perfitly true according to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in scripture driueth vs from it howsoeuer it seme repugnant to our reason be we neuer so wise and wittie which mans reason now a dayes enflamed with fury of language is the only aduersary against the most blessed Sacrament as it may appeare by these comparysons of differences throughly considered Caunterbury DId not you beleue I pray you many yeares together that the bishop of Rome was Christs vicar and the head of his church If you did not you wittingly and willingly defended a false errour in the open Parliament But sithens that tyme you haue called that beléefe as it is in deede very folish And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter be no more abashed to confesse it in this if you haue respect more vnto Gods trueth then to your owne estimation It is lawfull and commendable for a man to learn from time to tyme and to go from his ignorance that he may receaue and embrace the trueth And as for me I am not I graunt of that nature that the Papists for the most part be who study to deuise all shamefull shiftes rather then they will forsake any errour wherewith they were infected in youth I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance as S. Paul S. Ciprian S. Augustine and many other holy men did who now be with Christ to bring other to the knowledge of the trueth of whose ignoraunce I haue much ruth and pitie I am content to geue place to Gods word that the victory may be Christs What a member had the church of God lost if Paule would haue been as froward as some Papistes be that will sticke to their errour tooth and nayle though the Scripture and auncient writers be neuer so plain and fâ—at against them Although S. Paule erred yet because his errour was not wilfull but of ignoraunce so that he gaue place to the trueth when it was opened vnto him he became of a most cruell persecutor a most seruent setter forth of the trueth and Apostle of Christ. And would God I were as sure that you be chaunged in déede in those matters of religion wherein with the alteration of this realme you preteÌ„d a change as I am glad euen from the bottom of my hart that it hath pleased almighty God in this latter end of my yeares to giue me knowledge of my former errour and a will to embrace the truth setting a part all maner of worldly respectes which be speciall hinderances that hold backe many from the free profession of Christ and his word And as for the booke of common prayer although it say that in ech part of the bread broken is receaued the whole body of Christ yet it sayth not so of the partes vnbroken nor yet of the partes or whole reserued as the Papistes teach But as in baptisme we receaue the holy ghost and put Christ vpon vs as well if wee be Christened in one dysh full of water taken out of the fonte as if we were chistned in the whole fonte or riuer so we be as truely fed refreshed and comforted by Christ receauing a peece of bread at the Lords holy table as if we dyd eat an whole loafe For as in euery part of the water in baptisme is wholl Christ and the holy spirit sacramentally so be they in euery part of the bread broken but not corporally and naturally as the Papists teach And I beare not the catholick church in hand as you report of me that it sayth and teacheth that whole Christ is in euery part of the bread consecrated but I say that the Papistes so teach And because you deny it read the chiefe pillers of the Papistes Duns and Thomas de Aquino which the Papists call S. Thomas who say that Christ is whole vnder euery part of the formes of bread and wine not only when the host is broken but wheÌ„ it is wholl also And there is no distance sayth he of partes one from an other as of one eie from another or of the eye from the eare or the head from the feet These be Thomas wrds Christus totus est sub qualibit parte specicruÌ„ panis vini non soluÌ„ cuÌ„ frangitur hostia sed etiaÌ„ cuÌ„ integra manet Nec est distaÌ„tia partiuÌ„ ab inniceÌ„ vt oculi ab oculo aut oculi ab aure eut capitis à pedibus sicut est in alijs corporibus orgameis Talis enim distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero sed non prout est in hoc Sacraâ—eÌ„to And not only the Papists do thus write and teach but the Pope himself Innocentius the third And so beare I in haÌ„d or report of the Papisies nothing but that which they say indeed And yet you say the church sayth not so which I affirme also and then it must needs follow that the doctrine of the Papistes is not the doctrine of the church Which Papists not by reason with out faith but agaynst aswell reason as fayth would direct our mindes to seeke in euery little crum of bread whole Christ and to find him in so many places there as be small crums in the bread And where you trauesse the matter of the iudgement of our senses herein it is quite and cleane from the matter and but a crafty shift to conuey the matter to an other thing that is not in question lyke vnto crafty male-factours whych perceauing them selues to be sore pursued with a hound make a new trayn to draw the hound to an other fresh suit For I speake not of the iudgement of our senses in this matter whether they perceaue any distinction of partes and members or no but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no which the Papistes do deny And therefore I say not vntruely of them that in the sacrament they say There is no distance of partes one from another And if the parts in theyr substance be distinct one from an other as you say and be not so distinct in the SacrameÌ„t as Thomas sayth theÌ„ must it follow that the partes in their owne substaunce be not in the sacrament And if this distinction of partes be in the true body of Christ and not in the sacrament as Thomas saith then followeth it again that the true body of Christ
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
them by Manna was geuen the same thing that now is geuen to vs in the sacramentall bread And if I would graunt for your pleasure that in theyr sacrameÌ„ts Christ was promised and that in ours he is really geuen doth it not then followe aswell that Christ is geuen in the sacrament of Baptisme as that he is geuen in the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud And S. Augustin contra Faustum esteemeth them madde that think diuersity betweene the things signified in the old and new testament because the signes be diuers And expressing the matter playnely sayth that the flesh and bloud of our sacryfice before Christs comming was promised â— y sacryfices of similitudes in his passion was geuen indeed after his asâ—â—ntion is solemnly put in our memory by the Sacrament And the thing which you say S. Augustine noteth to be geuen in the sacraments of the new testament and to be promised in the sacramentes of the olde S. Augustine expresseth the thing which he ment that is to say saluation and eternall lyfe by Christ. And yet in thys mortall lyfe we haue not eternall lyfe in possession but in promise as the prophets had But S. Augustine sayth that we haue the promise because we haue Christ all ready come which by the Prophets was promised before that he should come therefore S. Iohn the Baptist was called more then a Prophet because he said Here is the lamb of God already preset which the Prophets taught vs to looke for vntill he came The effect therfore of S. Augustins words plainly to be expressed was this that the prophets in the old testament Promised a sauiour to come redeem the world which the sacraments of that tyme testified vntill hys comming but now he is already come and hath by his death performed that was promised which our sacramentes testifie vnto vs as S. Augustine declareth more playnely in his booke De fide ad Petrum the xix chapter So that S. Augustine speaketh of the geuing of Christ to death which the sacraments of the old testament testified to come and ours testify to be done and not of the geuing of him in the sacraments And forasmuch as S. Augustine spake generally of all the sacraments therefore if you will by his words proue that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy communion you may aswell proue that he is corporally in baptisme For saint Augustine speaketh no more of the one then of the other But where saint Augustin speaketh generally of al the sacraments you restrayne the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lords supper onely that the ignoraunt reader should thinke that saynt Augustine spake of the corporall presence of Christ in the sacramentes and that onely in the sacraments of bread and wine where as saynt Augustine himself speaketh onely of our saluation by Christ and of the sacraments in generall And neuerthelesse as the fathers had the same Christ and mediator that we haue as you here confesse so did they spiritually eat his fâ—esh and drinke his bloud as we doe and spiritually feed of him and by faith he was present with theÌ„ as he is with vs although carnally and corporally he was yet to come vnto theÌ„ and from vs is gon vp to his father into heauen This besides saynt Augustine is plainely set out by Bertrame aboue 6. hundreth yeares passed whose iudgement in this matter of the sacrament although you allow not because it vtterly coÌ„demneth your doctrine therein yet forasmuch as hytherto his teaching was neuer reproued by none but by you alone and that he is commeÌ„ded of other as an excellent learned man in holy scripture and a notable famous man aswell in liuing as learning and that among his excellent works this one is specially praised which he wrot of the matter of the SacrameÌ„t of the body and bloud of our Lord therfore I shall reherse his teaching in this point how the holy fathers and Prophets before the comming of Christ did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud So that although Bertrams saying be not estemed with you yet the indifferent reader may see what was written in this matter before your doctrine was inuented And although his authority be not receiued of you yet his words may serue against Smyth who herein more learnedly and with more iudgement then you approueth this author This is Bertrams doctrine S. Paule saith that all the old fathers did eat the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spiritual drink But peraduenture thou wilt ask Which the same Euen the very same that christen people do daily eat and drinke in the church For we may not vnderstand diuers things when it is one and the self same Christ which in times past did feed with his flesh and made to drink of his bloud the people that were baptised in the cloude and sea in the wildernes and which doth now in the church feed christen people with the bread of his body and giueth theÌ„ to drink the floud of his bloud When he had not yet taken mans nature vpon him wheÌ„ he had not yet tasted death for the saluation of the world not redemed vs with his bloud neuertheles euen then our forefathers by spiritual meat and inuisible drink did eat his body in the wildernes and drink his bloud as the Apostle beareth witnesse saying The same spiritual meat the same spiritual drink For he that now in the church by his omnipotent power doth spiritually conuert bread wine into the flesh of his body and into the floud of his owne bloud he did theÌ„ inuisibly so worke that Manna which came from heauen was his body and the water his bloud Now by the thinges here by me alledged it euidently appereth that this is no nouelty of speech to say that the holy fathers and Prophets did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud For both the scripture and old authors vse so to speake how much soeuer the spech mislike them that like no fashion but their own And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of Ione of Kent Is this a good argument The fathers did eat Christes flesh and drinke his bloud spiritually before he was borne ergo after he was not corporally borne of his mother Or because he was corporally borne is he not therefore dayly eaten spiritually of his faithfull people Because he dwelt in the world corporally from his incarnation vnto his ascention did he not therfore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that tyme and hath so done euer sithens and will do to the worldes end Or if he be eaten in a figure can you induce thereof that he was not borne without a figure Do not such kynde of argumentes fauour the errour of Ione of Kent Yea do they not manifestly approue her pestiferous heresy if they were to be alowed What man that meaneth the trueth would bring in such manner of resoning to deface the truth
these wordes Let vs marke that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his disciples was the body of our Sauiour Christ as he sayd vnto them Take and eate this is my body And S. Augustine also sayth that although we may set forth Christ by mouth by writing and by the sacrament of his body and bloud yet we call neither our toung nor words nor inke letters nor paper the body and bloud of christ but that we call the body and bloud of Christ which is taken of the fruite of the earth and consecrated by misticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meat his body and drynke his bloud Moreouer Cyrill vpon S. Iohn saith that Christ gaue to his disciples peces of bread saying Take eate this is my body Likewise Theoderetus saith When Christ gaue the holy misteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wine and water he called his bloud By all these foresayd authours and places whith many mo it is playnly proued that when our sauiour Christ gaue bread vnto his Disciples saying Take and eate this is my body And likewise when he gaue them the cuppe saying Diuide this among you and drinke you all of this for this is my bloud he called then the very materiall bread his body and the very wine his bloud That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth among vs and that groweth out of the earth and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower and mixed with water and so baken aud made into bread of such sort as other our bread is that hath neither sence nor reason and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies such bread Christ called his body when he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togither and thereof is made drinke whiche nourishe the body such wine he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by the holy scripture as by all auncient authours of Christes Church both Greekes and Latines that is to say that whē our Sauiour Christ gaue bread and wine to his disciples spake these words This is my body This is my bloud it is very bread wine which he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shew some authority for their opinion either of scripture or of some aunciant author And let them not constrayne all men to follow their fond deuises only because they say It is so without any other groūd or authoritie but their owne bare wordes For in such wise credite is to be geuen to Gods word only and not to the word of any man As many of them as I haue red the byshop of Winchester onely excepted do say that Christ called not bread his body nor wine his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud And yet in expoūding these wordes they vary among them selues which is a token that they be vncertaine of their own doctrine For some of them say that by this pronoune demonstratiue this Christe vnderstoode not the bread and wine but his body and bloud And other some say that by the pronoune this he ment neither the bread nor wine not his body nor bloud but that he ment a particuler thyng vncertain which they call Indiuiduum vagum or Indiuiduum in genere I trowe some Mathematicall quiditee they can not tell what But let all these Papistes togyther shew any one authoritie eyther of scripture or of auncient author either Greke or Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall gyue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely theyr own bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the trueth confirmed by so many authorities bothe of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloude Winchester After this the author occupieth a great number of leaues that is to say from the lvii leafe vnto the lxxiiii to proue Christs words This is my body to be a figuratiue spech Sleight and shift is vsed in the matter without any offectuall consecution to him that is learned First the author sayth Christ called bread his body Confessed bread his body To this is aunswered Christes calling is a making as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non sunt tanque ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his calling as Chrisostome and the greke commentaries say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth trnslated by Iustus Ionas in Germany and after by this author in english Tertullian saith Christ made bread his body it is all one spech in Christ being god declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the word call or make for in his mouth to call is to make Cypryan saith according hereunto how 's bread is by Gods omnipotency made fleshe whereupon also this spech bread is flesh is as much to say as made flesh not that bread beyng bread is flesh but that was bread is flesh by Gods omnipotency and so this author entreating this matter as he doth hath partly opened the fayth of transubstantiaon For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is nowe Christes body because bread is made Christes body and because Christ called bread his body which was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wine the spech is very proper to say water is made wine For after like manner of spech we say Christ iustifieth a wicked man Christ saueth sinners the phisitiō hath made the sicke man whole suche dyet will make an whole man sicke Al these speches be proper and playn so as the construction be not made captious and Sophisticall to ioin that was to that now is forgetting the meane worke When Christ said This is my body there is necessitie that the demonstration this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the spech of God the father vpō Christ in Baptisme This is my son And here whē this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the fainyng of the papists I shal ioyn this Issue in this place that he vnderstandeth not what he saith and if his knowledge be no better then is vttered herein the penne to be in this point clerly cōdēned of ignoraunce Caunterbury HEre is an other sleight such as the like hath not lightly bene sene For where I wrote that when Christ sayd This is my body it was bread that he called his body you turne the matter to make a descant vpon these 2. wordes calling and making that the nundes of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these 2. wordes that in
significations and sacraments of that holines which almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holines which almighty god by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holynes as the water in baptisme is called aqua sanctificans Vnda regenerans Halowing or regenerating water because it is the sacrament of regeneration and sanctification Now as concerning Chrisostomes saying that Christ is in our hands Chrisostome saith as I haue rehearsed in my book not onely that he is in our hands but also that we se him with our eyes touch him him feele him and grope him fixe our teeth in his flesh tast it breake it eat it and digest it make red our tongues and dye them with his bloud c. which thinges cannot be vnderstand of the body and bloud of Christ but by a figuratiue speech as I haue more at large declared in my iiii book the viii Chapter And therfore S. Augustine De verbis Domini sermone xxxiij saith cleane cōtrary to Chrisostome that we touch not Christ with our hands Non tangi mus Dominum saith he This speech therfore of Chrisostome declareth not the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible sacrament but signifieth what God worketh inwardly in true beleuers And whereas you say that my notes be Descant voluntary without the Tenour part I haue named both the booke and chapter where S. Dyonyse telleth how the priest when he commeth to the receauing of the sacraments he deuideth the bread in peeces and distributeth the same to all that be present which one sentence contayneth sufficiently all my three notes So that if you be disposed to call my notes Descant there you may finde the playne song or tenor part of them And it is no maruel that you cannot iudge well of my Descant when you see not or will not see the Plain song wherupon the descant was made Now followeth Tertullian of whom I write thus Furthermore they do alledge Tertullian that he constantly affirmeth that in the sacrament of the alter we do eat the body and drinke the bloud of our sauiour Christ. To whom we graūt that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread wine which be called the body bloud of Christ because as Tertullian saith they do represent his body and bloud although they be not really the same in very deed And we graunt also that our soules by fayth do eat his very body drink his bloud but that is spiritually sucking out of the same euerlasting life But we deny that vnto this spirituall feeding is requiring any reall and corporall presence And therfore this Tertullian speaketh nothing against the truth of our catholick doctrine but he speaketh many things most playnly for vs and agaynst the Papists and specially in three poynts First in that he sayth that Christ called bread his body The second that Christ called it so because it representeth his body The third in that he sayth that by these wordes of Christ This is my body is ment This is a figure of my body Winchester Of Tertullian I haue spoken before and so hath this author also forgottē here one notable thing in Tertullian where Tertullian sayth that Christ made the bread his body not only called it so as appeare by Tertullians words reported by this author before This note that I make now of Tertullian maketh agaynst this authors purpose but yet it maketh with the truth which this author should not impugne The second note gathered of Tertullian by this author is not true for Christ called it his body and made it his body as Tertullian sayth Aud the third note of this author is in controuersy of reading and must be so vnderstanded as may agrée with the rest of Tertullians sayings which after my reading doth euidētly proue and at the least doth not improue the catholick doctrine of Christes church vniuersally receiued although it improueth yet which this author calleth here our catholique doctrine most imprudently and vntruely reporting the same Canterbury I Desire no more but that the reader will looke vpon the place of Tertullian before mentioned and see what you speak there what is mine answere therto and so confer them togither and iudge And that the reader will note also that here couertly you haue granted my first note that Christ called bread his body but so slyely that the reader should not by your will perceaue it And where you deny my second note vpon Tertullian that Christ called it his body because it represented his body the words of Tertulliā be these that Christ reproueth not bread wherin he representeth his owne body As for my third note yet once agayne reader I beseech thee turne back and looke vpon the place how this lawyer hath expounded Tertulliā if thou canst with patience abide to here of so foolish a glose And where he sayth that this author Tertullian must be so vnderstād as may agrée with the rest of his sayings would to God you would so do not onely in Tertullian but also in all other authors for then our controuersy should be soone at a poynt And it is a most shameles impudency of you to affirme that the catholick church vniuersally teacheth that Christ is really sensibly corporally naturally carnally and substantially present in the visible formes of bread and wine seing that you cannot proue any one of these your sayings either by scripture or by the consent of the catholick church but onely by the Papisticall church which now many yeres hath borne the whole swinge Now followeth Origen to whom I aunswere thus Moreouer they alleage for them Origen because they would seme to haue many auncient authors fauorers of their erronius doctrine which Origen is most clearely agaynst them For although he do say as they alleage that those things which before were signifyed by obscure figures be now truely indeede and in their very nature and kind accōplished fulfilled And for the declaratiō therof he bringeth forth three exāples One of the stone that floweth water an other of the sea and cloud and the third of Manna which in the olde testament did signify Christ to come who is now come indeed and is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly in his word in the sacrament of regeneration and the sacraments of bread and wine Yet Origen ment not that Christ is corporally either in his word or in the water of baptisme or in the bread and wine nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne agayne or eat Christes flesh and bloud For our regeneration in Christ is spirituall and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding which kind of regeneration and feeding requireth no reall and corporall presence of Christ but onely his presence in spirit grace and effectuall operation And that Origen thus ment
you say that he is corporally in all them that receaue the sacrament whether it be worthely or vnworthely Now foloweth thus in my booke And here may be well enough passed ouer Basilius Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Nazianzenus partely bicause they speake little of this matter partly bicause they may be easely āswered vnto by that which is before declared oftē repeted which is that a figure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure therfore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spokē of the thing it selfe And as cōcerning the eating of Christs flesh drincking of his bloud they spake of the spirituall eating drincking therof by fayth not of corporal eating and drincking with the mouth and teeth Winchester As for Basill Gregory Nissen and Gregory Nazianzen this author sayth they speake little of this matter and indeede they spake not so much as other doe but that they speake is not discrepant nor contrarieth not that other afore them had written For in the olde church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned openly and directly that we reade of before Berengarius v. C. yeares past and secretly by one Bertrame before that but onely by the Messalians who sayd the corporall eating did neither good nor hurt The Antropomorphites also who sayd the vertue of the misticall benediction endured not to the next day of whome Cirill speaketh and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning that deuided Christes flesh from the deity And where this author would haue taken for a true supposall that Basill Gregory Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue onely that is to be denyed And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it selfe And that I will declare thus Of the thing it selfe that is Christes very body being present indeede it may be sayd Adore it worship it there which may not besayd of the figure It may be sayd of the very thing being present there that it is a highe miracle to be there it is aboue nature to be there it is an high secret mistery to be there But none of these speaches can be conueniently sayd of the onely figure that it is such a miracle so aboue nature so high a mistery to be a figure And therfore it is no true doctrine to teach that we may say the same of the figure that may be sayd of the thing it selfe And where this author speaketh of the spiritual eating corporal eating he remayneth in his ignorāce what the word corporal meaneth which I haue opened in discussing of his answere to Cirill Fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually and the corporall eating institute in Christes supper requireth the reuerent vse of mans mouth to receiue our Lords meat drinke his owne very flesh and bloud by his omnipotency prepared in that supper which not spiritually that is to say not innocently as S. Angustine in one place expoūdeth spiritually receiued bringeth iudgement and condempnation according to S Paules wordes Caunterbury WHere you say that in the old church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned opēly you say herin very truly for the truth which I haue set forth was openly receiued and taught of al that were catholick without coutradiction vntil the papists diuised a contrary doctrine And I say further that the vntruth which you teach was not at that time improued of no man neither openly nor priuily For how could your doctrine be impugned in the olde church which was then neither taught nor knowen And as concerning Bertrame he did not write secretly for he was required by king Charles to write in this matter and wrot therin as the doctrine of the Church was at that tyme or els some man would haue reprehended him which neuer none did before you but make mention of his workes vnto his great prayse and commendation And the Massalians were not reproued for saying that corporall eating doth neither good nor hurt neither Epiphanius nor of S. Augustine nor Theodoret nor of any other auntient author that I haue red Mary that the sacraments do neither good nor hurt namely Baptisme is layd vnto the Massaliās charge and yet the corporall receiuing without the spirituall auaileth nothing but rather hurteth very much as appeared in Iudas and Simon Magus And as for the three heresies of the Massalians Anthropomorphites and Nestorians I allow none of them although you report thē otherwise thē either Epiphanius or S. Augustine doth And wherē you say that I would haue taken for a supposall that Basil Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue only still you charge me vntruly with that I nether say nor think For I knowledge as al good christen mē do that almighty God worketh effectually with his sacraments And where you report me to say an other vntruth that of a figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it self that I say true therin witnesseth plainly S. Augustin and Cyprian And yet I speake not vniuersally nor these examples that you bring make anything agaynst my sayings For the first example may be sayd of the figure if D. Smith say true And because you .ii. write both agaynst my book and a gree so euil one with an other as it is hard fo vntrue sayers to agree in one tale therfore in this poynt I commit you togither to see which of you is most valiant champion And as for your other iii. examples it is not true of the thing it selfe that Christes body is present in the sacrament by miracle or aboue nature although by miracle and aboue nature he is in the ministration of his holy supper amōg them that godly be fed therat And thus be your friuolous cauillations aunswered And where you say that I am ignorant what this word corporal meaneth surely then I haue a very grosse wit that am ignorant in that thing which euery plough man knoweth But you make so fine a cōstruction of this word corporall that neither you can tell what you meane your self nor no man can vnderstand you as I haue opened before in the discussing of Cyrils mind And as for the reuerent vse of mans mouth in the Lordes holy supper the bread and wine outwardly must be reuerently receaued with the mouth because of the things therby represented which by fayth be receaued inwardly in our hartes mindes not eatē with our mouthes as you vntruely allege S. Paule to say whose wordes be of the eating of the sacramentall bread and not of the body of Christ. Now followeth next mine aunswer to Eusebius Emissenus who is as it were your chefe trust and shot ancre Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly aunswered vnto for he speaketh not of
water And when the rodde was tourned into a serpent and water into bloud the earth into a man and his ribbe into a woman Were not the woman man bloud and serpent made of the matter of the ribbe the earth the water and the rodde And is not euery thing made of that which is tourned into it As bread is made of Corne wine of grapes beare of water hoppes and mault and so of all thinges like And when you haue confessed your selues so many yeares passed that Christ is made of bread in the sacrament what moueth you now to say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread except that eyther you will say that the priest doth it and not Christ which were an intollerable blaspheme or that the truth is of such a nature that euen the very aduersaries therof sometime vnwares acknowledge it or els that force of argumentes constrayneth you to confesse the truth agaynst your will whē you see none other shift to escape But if you take vpon you to defend the receaued doctrine of the Papistes you must affirme that doctrine which they affirme and say that bread in the Sacrament is the matter wherof Christes body is made wherof must than nedes follow ex consequenti that he hath from tyme to tyme a new body made of new bread besides the body which was incarnated and neuer but once made nor of none other substaunce but of his mother So that it is but a vayne cauilation onely to elude simple people or to shift of the matter to say as you do that Christ is not made of the breade but is made to be present there For than should he haue sayd There is my body and not This is my body And to be present requireth no new making but to be present by conuersion requireth a new making As the wine that was bought at the mariage in the Cane of Galilee if there were any such was present without conuertion and so without new making but the wine that was made of water was present by conuertion which could not be without new making And so must Christes body be newly made if it be present by corporall conuertion of the substaunce of bread into the substaunce of it And now I referre to euery indifferent reader to iudge betwene vs both which of vs is most snarled Now let vs examine the other authors following in my booke And the same is to be aunswered vnto all that the aduersaries bring of S. Augustine Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus Gregorius and other concerning the eating of Christ in the Sacrament Which thing can not be vnderstanded playnly as the wordes sound but figuratiuely and spiritually as before is sufficiently proued and hereafter shal be more fully declared in the fourth parte of this booke Winchester Bicause this author who hitherto hath answered none substancially would neuerthelesse be seene to aunswer all he windeth vp sixe of them in one fardell S. Augustine Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus and Gregorius and dispatcheth them all with an ut supra and among them I think he would haue knitte vp all the rest of the learned men of all ages amonges whome I know none that write as this Author doth of the Sacrament or impugneth the Catholique fayth as this author doth by the enuious name of Papistes Sence Christes time there is no memory more than of sixe that haue affirmed that doctrine which this author would haue called now the Catholike doctrine and yet not writtē by them of one sorte neither receiued in beleefe in publique profession But secretly when it hapned begunne by conspiration and in the ende euer hitherto extincte and quenched First was Bertrame then Berengarius then Wicleffe and in our time Decolampadius Zwinglius and Ioachimus Uadianus I will not recken Peter Martir bicause such as know him sayth he is not learned nor this author bycause he doth but as it were translate Peter Martir sauing he roueth at solutions as liketh his phantasie as I haue before declared Whyche mater being thus it is a strange title of this Booke to call it the trewe Catholique doctrine Caunterbury ALl that you haue these many yeres gathered togither for your purpose or that can be gathered may be well trussed vp in a very small fardell and very easely borne and caried away For any weight that is therin For your doinges bee like to him that would fayne seme to haue some thing and hauing nothing els filleth a great male full of strawe that men should thynke he caried some thing where indeed a litle bouget had ben sufficient for so much in value And as for your owne doctrine it is so straunge that neither it agreeth with the scripture nor with the old catholike churche nor yet with the later church or congregation of the Papistes but you stand poste alone after the fall of the Papisticall doctrine as sometime an old poste standeth when the building is ouerthrowen And where you say that since Christes tyme there is no mo but syxe that haue affirmed the doctrine that I haue taught all that haue been learned and haue redde the olde authors of the catholike church may euidently see the contrary That sithens Christes tyme the doctrine of my booke was euer the catholike and publike receaued fayth of the church vntill Nicholas the secondes tyme who cōpelled Berengarius to make such a deuilish recantation that the papistes thē selues be now ashamed of it And since that tyme haue many thousandes been cruelly persecuted onely for the profession of the true fayth For no maune myght speake one worde agaynst the byshope of Romes determination herein but he was taken for an heretike and so condemned as Wiclieffe Husse and an infinite numbre mo And as for Bertram he was neuer before this tyme detected of any errour that euer I redde but onely now by you For all other that haue written of him haue spoken much to his commendation and prayse But I know what the matter is he hath written against your mynde which is a fault and errour great inough As for Doctour Peter Martyr he is of age to aunswer for him selfe but concerning him that told you that he was not learned I would wish you to leaue this olde rooted fault in you to be light of credite For I suppose that if his lernyng that tolde you that lye and yours also wer set both togither you should be farre behind Master Peter Martyr Marye in wordes I think that you alone would ouerlay two Peter Martyrs he is so sobre a man and delighteth not in wasting of wordes in vayne And none do say that he is not lerned but such as know hym not or be not lerned themselues or els be so malicious or enuious that they wittingly speake agaynst theyr owne consciēce And no doubt that man bringeth hym selfe out of the estimation of a learned man which hath heard him reason and reade and sayth that he is
as touching the belefe of S. Thomas although he beleued certaynly that Christ was a man yet he beleued not that Christ was risen and appeared to the Apostles but thought rather that the Apostles were deceaued by some vision or spirit which appeared to them in likenes of Christ which he thought was not he indede And so thought the Apostles themselues vntill Christ sayd Videte manus meas pedes quia ego ipse sum Palpate videte quia spiritus carnem ossa non habent sicut me videtis habere See my handes and my feete for I am euen he Grope and see for a spirite hath no flesh and bones as you see that I haue And so thought also S. Thomas vntill such tyme as he put his handes into Christes side and felt his woundes and by his sense of feeling perceaued that it was Christes very body and no spirite nor phantasy as before he beleued And so in S. Thomas the truth of feeling depended not vpon the true belefe of Christes resurrection but the feeling of his senses brought him from misbelefe vnto the right and true fayth of that matter And as for S. Gregory he speaketh no such thinges as you report that the glorified body of Christ was of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable but he sayth cleane contrary that Christ shewed his glorified body to S. Thomas palpable to declare that it was of the same nature that it was of before his resurrection whereby it is playne after S. Gregories minde that if it were not palpable it were not of the same nature And S. Gregory sayth further in the same homely Egit miro modo superna clementia vt discipulus ille dubitans dum in magistro suo vulnera palparet carnis in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis Plus enim nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem quam fides credentium discipulcrum profuit quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita in fide solidatur The supernall clemency wrought meruaylously that the disciple which doubted by groping the woundes of flesh in his master should heale in vs the woundes of infidelity For the lacke of fayth in Thomas profited more to our fayth then did the fayth of the disciples that beleued For when he is brought to fayth by groping our minde is stablished in fayth without all doubting And why should S. Gregory write thus if our sences auayled nothing vnto our fayth nor could nothing iudge of substances And do not all the olde catholike authors proue the true humanity of Christ by his visible conuersation with vs here in earth that he was heard preach seene eating and drincking labouring and sweatting Do they not also proue his resurrection by seing hearing and groping of him which if it were no proofe those arguments were made in vayne agaynst such Heretikes that denied his true incarnation And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments to the maintenance of those olde condemned heresies by your subtill sophistications The touching and feeling of Christes handes feete and wounds was a proofe of his resurrection not as you say to them that beleued but as S Gregory sayth to them that doubted And if all thinges that Christ did and spake to our outward senses proue not that he was a naturall man as you say with Martion Menander Ualentinus Apolinaris withother like sort thē I would know how you should confute the sayd heresies Marty will you say peraduenture by the scripture which sayth playnly Verbum caro factumest But if they would say agayne that he was called a man and flesh bicause he tooke vpon him the forme of a man and flesh and would say that S. Paule so declareth it saying Forinam serui accipiens and would then say further that forme is the accidence of a thing and yet hath the name of substance but is not the substance indeede what would you then say vnto them if you deny that the formes and accidences be called substances then go you from your owne saying And if you graunt it then will they auoyde all the scriptures that you can bring to proue Christ a man by this cauilation that the apparances formes and accidences of a man may be called a man aswell as you say that the formes and accidences of bread be called bread And so prepare you certayne propositions and groundes for heretikes to build their errours vpon which after when you would you shall neuer be able to ouerthrowe And where you say that Thomas touched truely Christes body glorified how could that be whē touching as you say is not of y◠substance but of the accidents only and also Christes body glorified as you say is neyther visible nor palpable And where as indeede you make Christs actes illusiōs and yet in wordes you pretend the contrary call you not this illusiō of our sēses whē a thing apeareth to our sēces which is not the same thing indeede When Iupiter Mercury as the comedy telleth apeared to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitrio Sosia was not Alcumena deceaued therby And Poticaries that sell Ieniper buries for pepper being no pepper indeede deceaue they not the biers by illusion of their sences Why then is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeede Finally where as I required earnestly all the Papistes to lay their heades togither and to shew one article of our fayth so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thing to be and yet our fayth shall teach vs the contrary therunto where I say I required this so earnestly of you and with such circumstances and you haue yet shewed none I may boldly conclude that you can shew none For sure I am if you could being so earnestly prouoked therunto you would not haue fayled to shew it in this place As for the article of our resurrection and of the feeding of angels serue nothing for this purpose For my saying is of the dayly experience of our senses and when they affirme a thing to be but the resurrection of our flesh and the feeding of angels be neither in dayly experience of our senses nor our senses affirme them not so to be Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my booke the authorities of ancient writers in this wise Now for as much as it is declared how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is agaynst the word of God agaynst nature agaynst reason and agaynst all our senses we shall shew furthermore that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the olde authors of Christes church beginning at those authors which were nearest vnto Christes time and therfore might best know the truth herein First Iustinus a great learned man and an holy martyr the oldest author
remayne still in the nature and also how besides the outward receauing of bread and wine Christ is inwardly by fayth receaued in our heartes all this I say he doth so playnly set out that more playnnesse can not be reasonably desired in this matter For he sayth that the conuersion of the visible creatures of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ is like vnto our conuersion in baptisme where outwardly nothing is chaunged but remayneth the same that was before but all the alteration is inwardly and spiritually If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vpon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme when thou wast farre from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast deade yet sodenly thou beganst an other life in Christ wast made new by holsome misteries wast turned into the body of the church not by seeing but by beleuing and of the child of damnation by a secret purenes thou wast made the chosen sonne of God Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body Thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the increase of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was man made the sonne of Christ and Christ fourmed in the mind of man Therfore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receaue a new dignite not feeling any change in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not sene with thine eyes but are beleued in thy mind so likewise when thou doest go vp to the reuerend altar to feede vpon spirituall meate in thy fayth looke vpon the body and bloud of him that is thy God honor him touch him with thy mind take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drincke him with the draught of thy inward man Hitherto haue I rehersed the sayinges of Eusebius which be so playne that no man can wish more playnly to be declared that this mutation of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ is a sacramentall mutation and that outwardly nothing is changed But as outwardly we eate the bread and drincke the wine with our mouthes so inwardly by fayth we spiritually eate the very flesh and drincke the very bloud of Christ. Winchester As touching Emissene by whose wordes is expressely testified the truth of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and also the sence of the doctrine of Transubstantiation this author maketh himselfe bold ouer him and so bold that he dare corrupt him which Emissene writeth not that man is turned into the body of the church And here I make an issue with this author that Emissene hath not that word of turning in that place and man to be turned into the body of the church is no conuenient speach to signifie a change in him that is regenerat by baptisme He in dede that is thrust out of the chauncell for his misdemeanour in seruise tyme may be sayd turned into the body of the church But Emissene speaketh not so here but bicause the same Emissene declaring the mistery of the Sacramēt sayth the visible creatures be turned into the substance of the body of Christ this author thought it would sound gayly well to the confusion of that true doctrine of turning to speake in Baptisme of the turning of a man into the body of the church And it may be commonly obserued in this author when he alleadgeth any authority of others he bringeth forth the same in such forme of wordes as he would haue them and not as they be for the most part or very often and once of purpose were ouer often in so high a matter as this is And yet in this Emissens authority after all the payne taken to reforge him Emissens doctrine playnly confoundeth this Authors teaching This author maketh a note that there is in man baptised nothing changed outwardly and therfore in the Sacrament neyther and it must be graunted For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outward change For the substance of the bread and wine is an inward nature and so is substance of one defined And to speake of the thing changed then as in man the change is in the soule which is the substance of man So for the thing changed in the visible creatures should be also changed and is changed the substance of the bread and wine to answere therein to the other And we must consider how this comparison of the two changes is made as it were by proportion wherein ech change hath his speciall end and terme whereunto and therfore according to the terme and end hath his worke of change speciall and seuerall both by gods worke Thus I meane The visible creatures hath there ende and terme wherunto the change is made the very body and bloud of Christ which body being a true body we must say is a corporall substance The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration incorporall to be regenerate the sonne of God And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this that each changers is of like truth and then it followeth that if the change of mans soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure the change likewise in the sacrament is also true and not in a figure And if mans soule by the change in Baptisme be in deede that is to say really made the sonne of God then is the substance of the bread which is as it were the soule of the bread I am bolde here in speach to vse the word soule to expresse proportion of the comparison but euen so is the inward nature of the bread which is substance turned and changed in to the body of Christ being the terme and ende of that change And here I say so not to declare the manner but the truth of the ende that is to say as really and in deede the change is in the substance of bread as in the soule of man both these changes be meruaylous and both be in the truth of there change wherunto they be changed of like truth and realty to be done indeede they resemble one an other in the secrecie of the mistery and the ignorance of our senses for in neither is any outward change at all and therfore there was neuer man tripped himselfe more handsomly to take a fall then this author doeth in this place not onely in corrupting euidently and notably the words of Emissene without purpose wherby neuerthelesse he shewed his good will but also by setting forth such matter as ouerturneth all his teaching at once For now the author must
say the change in mans soule by Baptisme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in deede or els graunt the true catholique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures into the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise not in figure and signification but truly really and indeede And for the thing changed as the soule of man mans inward nature is chaunged so the inward nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken away which this author vseth in an other place of Sacramentall change which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth the age of Emissene and I note with all how playnly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teaching who indeede bicause of his auncient and playne writing for declaration of the matter in forme of teaching without contention is one whose authority the church hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in the truth of the presence of Christes very body or Transubstantiation for the speaking of the inward change doth poynt as it were the change of the substance of bread with resembling therunto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one author not being of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in the allegation after this manner corrupt might suffice for to conclude all brabling agaynst the Sacrament Caunterbury WHere I haue corrupted Emissene let the reader be iudge But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration change and turning of a man from the congregation of the wicked vnto the congregation of Christ which he calleth the body of the church and from the childe of death vnto the child of God this must be made a matter of scoffing to turne light fellowes out of the chancell into the body of the church Such trifling now a dayes becometh gayly well godly Bishoppes what if in the steede of turning I had sayd skipt ouer as the word transilisti signifieth which although peraduenture the bookes be false and should be transisti I haue translated turning should I haue so escaped a mocke trow you You would then haue sayd he that so doth goeth not out at the chancell dore into the body of the church but skippeth ouer the stalles But that Emissene ment of turning is cleare aswell by the wordes that go before as those which go after which I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader But forasmuch as you would perswade men that this author maketh so much for your purpose I shall set forth his minde playnly that it may appeare how much you be deceaued Emissenes mynd is this that although our sauiour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodely sight Yet we see him by fayth and by grace he is here present with vs so that by him we be made new creatures regenerated by him and fedde and nourished by him which generation and nutrition in vs is spirituall without any mutation appearing outwardly but wrought within vs inuisibly by the omnipotent power of God And this alteration in vs is so wonderfull that we be made new creatures in Christ grafted into his body and of the same receaue our nourishment and encreasing And yet visibly with our bodely eyes we see not these thinges but they be manifest vnto our fayth by gods worde and sacraments And Emissene declareth none other reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and bloud then in the Sacrament of baptisme but spiritually by fayth to be present in both And where Emissene speaketh of the conuersion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ he speaketh that aswell of baptisme as of the lordes supper as his owne wordes playnly declare If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vppon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme And yet he ment not that the water of baptisme in it selfe is really turned into the substance of Christ nor likewise bread and wine in the Lordes supper but that in the action water wine and bread as sacraments be sacramentally conuerted vnto him that duely receaueth them into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramentall conuersion is in the Sacraments and the reall conuertion is in him that receaueth the sacraments which reall conuertion is inward inuisible and spirituall For the outward corporall substances aswell of the name as of the water remayne the same that they were before And therfore sayth Emissene Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly In these wordes hath Emissene playnly declared that the conuersion in the sacraments wherof he spake when he sayd that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ is to be vnderstand in the receauours by their fayth and that in the sayd conuersion the outward substance remayneth the selfe same that was before And that Emissene ment this as well in the sacrament of the lordes supper as in the sacrament of baptisme his own wordes playnly declare So that the substance of Christ as well in baptisme as the Lordes supper is seene not with our eyes but with our fayth and touched not with our bodies but with our mindes and receaued not with our hands but with our hartes eaten and drunken not with our outward mouthes but with our inward man And where Emissene sayth that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heauen and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through fayth he doth vs to vnderstand that he is not present in the formes of bread and wine out of the ministration except you will say that fayth and grace be in the bread when it is kept and hanged vp but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christes institution then to them that so eate and drincke the bread and wine is the body and bloud of Christ according to Christes wordes Edite hoc est corpus meum Bibite hic est calix senguinis mei And therfore in the booke of the holy communion we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and bloud of Christ but that they may be to vs the body and bloud of Christ that is to say that we may so eate them and drincke them that we may be partakers of his body crucified and of his bloud shed for our redemption Thus haue I declared the truth of Emissenes mynd which is agreable to Gods word and the olde
that the two natures in Christ his diuinity and his humanity be not confounded And for ignorance of confusion you confounde all togither Gelasius and Theodorete proue that the two natures in Christ be not confounded bicause they remayne both in their owne substances and properties so that the remayning declareth no confusion which should be confounded if they remayned not If a droppe of milke be put into a pot of wine by and by it looseth the first nature and substance and is confounded with the nature and substance of wine And if wine and milke be put togither in equale quantity then both be confounded bicause neyther remayneth neyther perfect wine with his substāce natural proprieties nor perfect milke with the substance proprieties of milke but a cōfusion an humble iomble or hotch potch a posset or sillabub is made of thē both togither like as in mans body the foure elemēts be cōfoūded to the cōstitutiō of the same not one of the elemēts remayning in his proper substāce forme pure naturall qualities So that if one nature remayne not the same is confounded And if there be more natures that lose their substance they be all confounded except there be an vtter consumption or adnihilation of the thing that looseth his substance and therfore the argument which all the old ecclesiasticall authors vse to saue the confusion of the two natures in Christ is to proue that they both remayne And if we may learne that by the similitude of the sacrament as Gelasius and Theodoret teach and you here confesse the same then must needes the substance of bread and wine remayne or els is there none example nor similitude of the remayning of two natures in Christ but of their confusion as by youre fayned doctrine the substance of bread is confounded with the body of Christ neyther being adnihilate nor remayning but transubstantiated confounded and conuerted into the substance of Christes body And thus with your well vnderstanding of the matter you confound all togither where as I with my ignorance not blaspheming that holy vnion and mistery of Christes incarnation doe saue all the natures whole without mixtion confusion or Transubstantiation either of the diuine humayne nature in Christ or of the soule and body in man or of the bread wine in the Sacramēt but all the substāce natures be saued remayne cleerly with their natural properties conditions that the proportiō in that poynt may be like and one to be the true Image and similitude of the other But surely more grosse ignoraunce or wilfull impiety then you haue shewed in this matter hath not lightly bene seene or red of And where you say that I by ouersight or the Printer by negligence haue left out a not if I should haue put in that not of myne owne head contrarye to the originall in Greeke and to all the translatours in Latine and the translation of Master Peter Martyr also I should haue bene as farre ouerseene as you bee whiche as it seemeth of purpose confound and corrupt you care not whether any Authors wordes or their meanyng And as for my forked dilemma you shall neuer be able to aunswer ther to but the more you trauayle therein the more you shall entangle your selfe For eyther you must graunt as vnwilling as you be that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne after the consecration or els that the nature and substance of Christes humanity and diuinitie remayne not after his incarnation wherein erred not onely Eutiches whome you say I should haue put for Nestorius but also Martion Ebion Ualentinus Nestorius and other as in my booke I haue declared And one thing is principally to be noted in your answere to Theodoret how you can sophisticate and falsefy all mens sayinges be they neuer so playne For where betweene me and the Papistes the matter here in contention is this Whether the bread and wine remayne in their proper nature and substauce or no. I saying that they remayne and the Papistes saying that they remayne not the Issue being in this poynt whether they remayne or remayne not I bring for me Chrisostome who sayth the nature of bread remayneth I bring Gelasius who sayth that there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine I bring this Theodoret whose wordes be these The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substances forme and figure Now how can any man deuise to speake the truth in more playne wordes than these be For they say the very same wordes that I say And yet bicause the truth is not liked here must be deuised a crafty Lawyers glose of them that neuer sought other but to calumniate the truth and must be sayd agaynst all learning reason and speach that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents well yet then you confesse that those olde auncient Authors agree with me in wordes and say as I do that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated but remayne in their former substance And then the issue playnly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses vntill such tyme as you can proue that these authors spake one thing and ment an other and that qualities and accidents be substances And if you vnderstoode whereunto the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth you would not say that they spake agaynst the Eutiches any more then they do agaynst the Nestorians For if the bread and wine remayne not as you say but be swallowed vp of the body and bloud of Christ then likewise in the principall mistery eyther the deity must be swallowed vp of the humanity or the humanity of the deity The contrary wherof is not onely agaynst the Eutichians but also agaynst the Nestorians Martionistes and all other that denied any of his two natures to remayne perfectly in Christ. And where as you with all the route of the Papistes both priuately and openly report me to be vnlearned and ignorant bycause you would therby impayre my credite in this weighty matter of our fayth my knowledge is not any whit the lesse bicause the Papistes say it is nothing nor yours any deale the more bicause the Papistes do say that you onely be learned whome for any thing that euer I could perceaue in you I haue found more full of wordes and talke then of learning And yet the note of ignorance I nothing passe of if therby the truth and Gods glory should not be hindered Now after the reproofe of your doctrine of Transubstantiation by all the old writers of Christes church I write in my booke after this māner Now forasmuch as it is proued sufficiently as well by the holy Scripture as by naturall operation by naturall reason by all our sences and by the most olde and best learned authors and holy martirs of Christes church that the substance of bread and wine do remayne and be receaued of
and principally in the persons and in the sacramentall signes it is none otherwise but sacramentally and in significatiō And whether this be matter of trueth or a thing deuised onely for a shift let the reader iudge And where you say in your further aunswere here to S. Ambrose that the visible matter of the bread outwardly remayneth it seemeth you haue not well marked the wordes of S. Ambrose who sayth that the words of Christ chaungeth species elementorum And then if species as you haue sayd before in many places signify the visible matter then the visible matter remayneth not as you say but is changed as S. Ambrose sayth And so S. Ambrose wordes that species elementorum mutantur be cleane contrary to your wordes that the visible matter remayneth I will passe ouer here how you call accidents of bread the matter of bread agaynst all order of speach bicause I haue touched that matter sufficiently before And yet this is not to be passed ouer but to be noted by the way how playnly S. Ambrose speaketh agaynst the Papistes which say that the body and bloud of Christ remayne sub speciebus panis vini vnder the formes of bread and wine And S. Ambrose sayth that species elementorum mut antur the formes of bread and wine be changed Aud where you say that in the examples of mutation brought in by S. Ambrose although the substance remayne still the same yet that skilleth not your answer here seemeth very strange to say that that thing skilleth not which skilleth all togither and maketh the whole matter For if in the examples the substances remayne notwithstanding the mutation of the natures by benediction then do not these examples proue that the substance of bread and wine remayne not And if this were singuler from the examples as you say it is then were not the other examples of this For if the substances remayne in them how can they be brought for examples to proue that the substances of bread and wine remayne not when they be brought for examples and thinges that be like and not that the one should be singular and vnlike from the other And where you alleadge this place of S. Ambrose for you nothing can be spoken more directly agaynst you For the natures sayth S. Ambrose of bread and wine be changed And the nature say you is the outward visible formes and that that is changed remayneth not say you also and so followeth then that the substances of bread and wine remayne and not the outward visible formes which is directly agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation and agaynst all that you sayd hitherto cōcerning that matter And wher a sacramentall mutatiō is to you a new tearme it declareth nothing els but your ignorance in the matter And although you seeme to be ignorant in other authors yet if you had expended diligently but one chapter of S. Ambrose you should haue found three examples of this sacramentall mutation wherin the substances remayne entier and whole one is in the sacrament of Christes incarnation an other is in a person that is baptised and the third in the water of baptisme which three examples I alleadged in my booke but you thought it better slightly to passe them ouer then to trouble your brayne with answering to them And where you say that calling bread the body of Christ is making it in deed the body of Christ as Christ was called Iesus bicause he is the sauiour of all men in deed here it appeareth that you consider not the nature of a sacrament For when sacraments be named or called by the names of the thinges which they signifie yet they be not the same thinges indeed but be so called as S. Augustine sayth bicause they haue some similitude or likenes to the thinges which they be called But Christ was called Iesus our Sauiour as the very true Sauiour in deed not as a sacrament or figure of saluation as the bread is the sacrament of Christes flesh and wine the sacrament of his bloud by which names they be called and yet be not the very thinges in deed Thus haue I answered to the chiefe authors which you alleadge for Transubstantiation making your owne authors not onely to ouerthrow your building but to digge vp your foundation cleane from the botome and nothing is left yon but arrogancy of mynd and bosting of words as men say that you still phansye with your selfe and bragge that you be bishop of Winchester euen as a captayne that glorieth in his folly when he hath lost his castle with ordinaunce and all that he had And at length you be driuen to your church which you call the consent of christendome vniuersall when it is no more but the Papisticall church that defendeth your transubstantiation Now declareth my booke the absurdities that follow the errour of Transubstantiation And now I will reherse diuers difficulties absurdities and inconueniences which must needes follow vpon this errour of Transubstantiation wherof not one doth follow of the true right fayth which is according to Gods word First if the Papists be demaunded what thing it is that is broken what is eaten what is dronken and what is chawed with the teeth lippes and mouth in this sacrament they haue nothing to answere but the accidentes For as they say bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament but onely their accidents And so they be forced to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawen and swallowed without any substance at all which is not onely agaynst all reason but also agaynst the doctrine of all auncient authors Winchester In the second volume of the 43. leafe the author goeth about to note 6. absurdities in the doctrine of Transubstantiation which I entend also to peruse The first is this First if the Papistes be demaunded c. This is accompted by this author the first absurditie and inconuenience which is by him rhetorically set forth with lippes and mouth and chawing not substanciall termes to the matter but accidentall For opening of which matter I will repeate some part agayne of that I haue written before when I made the scholler answer the rude man in declaration of substance which is that albeit that sensible thing which in speach vttered after the capacity of common vnderstanding is called substance be comprehended of our sences yet the inward nature of euery thing which is in learning properly called substance is not so distinctly knowen of vs as we be able to shew it to the sences or by wordes of difference to distinct in diuers kindes of thinges one substance from an other And herin as Basill sayth if we should goe about by separation of all the accidents to discerne the substance by it selfe alone we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothing indeede There is a naturall consideration of the abstract that can not be practised in experience And to me if it were
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
conclusion but do reasonably auoyd it And yet by the way in moulding and sowring it should me séemeth be properly sayd that the accidentes mould and the accidents sower because we call mould bread bread sower wine wine and in wine as I sayd before made vineger the former substaunce hath bene in learning accounted in maner to remayne so as this author ouershooteth himself when he matcheth generatiō of worms with moulding and sowring which differ so farre in the speculation But euen as this authors wit is ouerturned in consideration of the true fayth so doth it appeare peruerted in consideration of naturall thinges Caunterbury I know not to what purpose you haue written all this fond matter except it be that you would the world should know how ignorant you be in philosophy which haue not learned so much as to know the diuersity betwene the vi kindes of mornings generation corruption augmentation diminution alteration and mouing from place to place Wherof the iiii last be from accidents to accidents and the two first from substance to substance So that all mutation is not in accidents and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents as you vnlearnedly imagine both of that and of materia prima which neuer was no such thing in deede but by imagination But bicause you beare me in hand that I beare the papistes wrong in hand that they affirme wormes to be ingendred of accidents I shall reherse their owne wordes that the readers may know your ignorance herein or els how loud a lye you make willingly Ex speciebus sacramentalibus say they generantur vermes siputre fiant Of the sacramentall formes if they be rotten be gendred wormes But it is no poynt of true meaning men now to deny that euer they sayd any such things as they haue taught in their scholes these foure or fiue hundred yeares as their owne books do playnly testefy And be these Papistes to be credited which haue taught vntruely so many yeares and now when they be pressed with all goe cleane from it and say they neuer sayd so but he wrong borne in hand And bicause Smith denieth here the same that you doe that wormes be ingendred of the accidents in the sacrament let him helpe you to aunswere this matter And for as much as he sayth that when the host reserued beginneth to moule and to putrify and should ingender wormes then an other substance succeedeth it of which such thinges are made let him tell what substaunce that is which succedeth and whereof that substance is made But to returne to you agayne such philosophy as you make here learned I neuer in Aristotle Plato nor Pliny nor I trow none such to bee found in any that euer wrote But as you delight all in singularity and haue made strange diuinity so must you inuēt as strange philosophy For who euer heard the Terminus a quo is chaunged or Terminus ad quem And whatsoeuer semeth to you as commonly it seemeth to you that seemeth to no man els yet it seemeth to no man els that euer was learned that accidēts be properly changed but that the substaunces or subiectes be chaunged from accidence to accidence And it is the simplest reason that euer was made that the accidentes moule and sower because the substaunce remayneth so as mouled bread is called bread and sower wine is called wine For so is colde water and hoat water both called water And yet it is the water that is now hoate now colde and not the accidentes For neyther can hote be colde nor colde be hoat nor heat go into coldnes nor coldnes into heat but the subiect that receiueth them is now hoat now cold by alteration as yron that is now colde is soone made hoat but coldnes can neuer be hotenes by no arte nor science forasmuch as they be contrary qualities And likewise purenes cānot moul nor sweetnes cannot be sower but wine that is sweet may turn into sower wine bread that is pure may be chaunged into mouly bread But the more you striue in the matters of philosophy the more appeareth your ignoraunce therein euen as it did before in the matters of our fayth And who can condemne your doctrine more clearely then your owne Vlpian doth as you do here alleadge him that in vineger remayneth in manner the same substaunce that was in the wine wherof it must folow that when the sacramentall wine is turned into vineger there must be a substaunce remaining which is in manner the same with the substaunce of the vineger The sixt absurdity Sixtly that substaunce is norished without substance by accidents onely if it chaunce any Catte Mouse Dogge or other thing to eate the Sacramentall bread These inconueniences and absurdities do follow of the fond papistical transubstantiation with a number of other errours as euill or worsse then these whereunto they be neuer able to aunswere as many of them haue confessed themselues And it is wonder to see how in many of the foresayd thinges they vary among themselues Where as the other doctrine of the scripture and of the old catholick church but not of the lately corrupted Romish church is plaine and easy as well to be vnderstanded as to aunswere to all the aforesayd questions without any absurdity or inconuenience folowing thereof so that euerye aunswere shall agree with gods word with the olde church and also with all reason and true philosophy For as touching the first poynt what is broken what is eaten what drunkē and what chawen in this sacrament it is easy to aunswere The bread and wine as S. Paule sayth The bread which we breake And as concerning the second and third poyntes neither is the substaunce of bread and wine without their proper accidents nor their accidentes hange alone in the ayre without any substance but according to all learning the substaunce of the bread and wine reserue their owne accidents and the accidents do rest in their owne substaunces And also as concerning the fourth poynt there is no place left voyd after consecration as the Papistes dreame but bread and wine fulfill their place as they did before And as touching the fift poynt whereof the wormes or mouling is ingendred and wherof the vineger commeth the aunswere is easy to make according to all learning and experience that they come according to the course of nature of the substance of the bread and wine to long kept and not of the accidentes alone as the Papistes do fondly phantasy And likewise the substances of bread and wine do feed and nourish the body of them that eat the same and not onely the accidents In these answeres is no absurdity nor inconuenience nothing spoken either contrary to holy scripture or to naturall reason Philosophy or experience or agaynst any old auncient author or the primitiue or catholicke church but onely agaynst the malignant and Papisticall church of Rome Where as on the other side that cursed synagog of Antichrist
and sacramentes And where but a little before you had truely taught that the onely Immolation of Christ by himselfe vpon the alter of the crosse is the very satisfactory sacrifice for our reconciliation to God now in the end like a Cow that casteth downe her milke with her owne feete you ouerthrow all agayne in few wordes saying that priests make dayly the selfe same sacrifice that Christ made which is so foul an errour and blasphemy that as I sayd in mine other book if the priests daily make the selfe same sacrifice that Christ did himselfe and the sacrifice that he made was his death and the effusion of his most precious bloud vpon the crosse then followeth of necessity that euery day the priestes slea Christ and shed his bloud and be worse then the Iewes that did it but once Now followeth in your confutation thus Winchester And where the author would auoyd all the testimony of the fathers by pretence it should be but a manner of speach the Canon of the Councell of Nice before rehersed and the wordes of it where misteries be spoken of in proper termes for doctrine auoydeth all that shift and it hath no absurdity to confesse that Christ in his supper did institute for a remembraunce of the onely sacrifice the presence of the same most precious substaunce to be as the Canon of the Counsell in proper teacheth sacrificed by the Priestes to bée the pure sacrifice of the Church there offered for the effect of increase of life in vs as it was offered on the Crosse to atcheue life vnto vs. And S. Cyril who for his doctrine was in great authority with the counsell Ephesine writeth the very body and bloud of christ to be the liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice of the church as like wise in the old church other commōly termed the same and among other Chrisostome whom the author would now haue semed to vse it but for a manner of speach which in déed Chrysostome doth not but doth truly open the vnderstāding of that is done in the church wherin by this sacrifice done after the order of Melchisedech Christes death is not iterate but a memory dayly renewed of that death so as Christes offering on the Crosse once done and consummate to fynish all sacrifyces after the order of Aaron is now onely remembred according to Christes institution but in such wise as the same body is offered dayly on the alter that was once offered on the alter of the Cros but the same manner of offering is not dayly that was on the aulter of the Cros for the dayly offering is without bloudshed and is termed so to signify that bloudshedding once done to be sufficient And as Chrisostome openeth it by declaration of what manner our sacrifice is that is to say this dayly offering to be a remembraunce of the other manner of sacrifice once done and therefore sayth rather we make a remembraunce of it This saying of Chrisostome doth not empayre his former wordes where he sayth the host is the same offered on the cros and on the aulter and therefore by him the body of Christ that died but once is dayly present in déed and as the councell of Nice sayth sacrificed not after the manner of other sacrifices and as chrisostome sayth offered but the death of that precious body onely dayly remembred and not agayne iterate Caunterbury FOr aunswere hereto reade the xiij chapter of my fifte booke and that which I haue written here a little before of Nicene councel And where you say that the effect of the sacrifice of Christes body made by the Priestes is to increase life in vs as the effecte of the sacrifice of the same bodye made by himselfe vpon the crosse is to geue life vnto vs this is not onely an absurdity but also an intollerable blasphemy agaynst Christ. For the sacrifice made vpon the crosse doth both geue vs life and also encrease and continue the same and the priestes oblation doth neither of both For our redemption and eternall saluation standeth not onely in geuing vs life but in continuing the same for euer As Christ sayd that he came not onely to geue vs life but also to make vs increase and abound therein And S. Paule sayd The life which I now liue in flesh I liue by the fayth of the sonne of God who loued me and gaue himselfe for me And therefore if we haue the one by the oblation of Christ and the other by the oblation of the priest then deuide we our saluation betwene Christ and the priest And because it is no lesse gift to continue life for euer then to geue it vs by thys your mad and furious blasphemy we haue our saluation and redemption asmuch by the sacrifice made by the priest as wee haue by sacrifice made by Christ himselfe And thus you make Christ to be like an vnkind and vnnatural mother who whē she hath brought forth her child putteth it to an other to nurse and maketh her self but half the mother of it And thus you teach christen people to halte on both sides partly worshipping God and partly Baall partly attributing our saluation to Christ the true perfect eternall priest and partly to Antichrist and his priestes And concerning Cyril he speaketh not of a sacrifice propitiatory in that place as I haue more playnely declared in mine aunswere to Doctour Smithes prologue And whereas you call the dayly sacrifice of the church an vnbloudy sacrifice here it were necessary if you would not deceiue simple people but teach them such doctrine as they may vnderstand that you should in playne termes set forth and declare what the dayly offering of the priest without bloud shedding is in what wordes deedes crosses signes or gestures it standeth and whether it be made before the consecration or after before the distribution of the sacrament or after and wherein chiefly resteth the very pith and substaunce of it And when you haue thus done I will say you meane franckly and walke not colourably in cloaked words not vnderstanded and then also shall you be more fully aunswered when I know better what you meane And to Chrysostome needeth no further aunswere then I haue made already in the xiij chapter of my fifte book But let vs heare the rest of your booke Winchester And where the author sayth the old fathers calling the supper of our Lord a sacrifice ment a Sacrifice of laud and thanksgeuing Hippinus of Hamborugh no Papist in hys booke dedicate to the kinges Maiesty that now is fayth otherwise and noteth how the old fathers called it a Sacrifice propitiatory for the very presence of Christes most precious body there thus sayth he which presence all Christen men must say requireth on our part lauds and thanksgeuing which may be and is called in Scripture by the name of Sacrifice but that Sacrifice of our laudes and thankes cannot be a Sacrifice geuing life as it
is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do when he sayth it is vinificum which can be onely sayd of the very body and bloud of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of laudes and thankesgeuing cannot be sayd a pure and cleane Sacrifice whereby to fulfill the prophecy of Malachy and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church vnderstanded to be spoken of the dayly offering of the body and bloud of Christ for the memory of Christes death according to Christes ordinaunce in his supper as may at more length be opened and declared Thinking to the effect of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chiefe poyntes of the authors doctrine with such contradiction to thē as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessity require the more particuler confutation of that is vntrue on the aduersary part and confirmation of that is true in the Catholique doctrine requiring more tyme and leysure then I haue now and therefore offering my selfe ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shal be required I shall here end for this time with prayer to almighty God to graunt his truth to be acknowledged and confessed and vniformely to be preached and beleued of al so as all contention for vnderstanding of religion auoyded which hindereth Charity we may geue suche light abroad as men may see our good workes and glorify our father who is in heauen with the sonne and holy ghost in one vnity of godhead reigning without end Amen Caunterbury HIpinus sayth that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not beleue that Hipinus so sayd vntill you appoint me both the booke and place where he so sayth For the effect of his booke is cleane contrary which he wrote to reproue the propitiatory sacrifice which the Papistes fayne to be in the Masse Thus in deede Hipinus writeth in one place Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis sanguinis Christipraesentiam primo vocauerunt sacrificium deinde propter oblationes munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur conferebantur ad sacraministeria ad necessitatem credentium In which wordes Hipinus declareth that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two consideratiōs one was for the present of Christes flesh and bloud the other was for the offerynges which the people gaue there of their deuotion to the holy ministratiō and reliefe of the poore But Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporall presence nor of propitiatory Sacrifice but generally of presence and sacrifice which maketh nothyng for your purpose nor agaynst me that graunt both a presence and a sacrifice But when you shall shew me the place where Hipinus sayth that the old Fathers called the Lordes Supper a propitiatory sacrifice I shall trust you the better and him the worse And as for Cyrill if you will say of his head that the Sacrifice of the Church giueth life how agreeth this with your late saying that the sacrifice of the Church increaseth lyfe as the sacrifice on the Crosse giueth lyfe And if the Sacrifice made by the Priest both geue lyfe and encrease lyfe then is the Priest both the mother and nurse and Christ hath nothyng to do with vs at all but as a straunger And the sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is the sacrifice laud and thankes which all deuoute Christian people geue vnto God whether it be in the Lordes Supper in their priuate Prayers or in any worke they do at any tyme or place to the glory of God all which Sacrifices not of the Priestes onely but of all faythfull people be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ by whose bloud all their filthy and vnpurenes is cleane sponged away But in this last booke it seemeth you were so astonied and amased that you were at your wits end wist not where to become For now the Priest maketh a Sacrifice propitiatory now he doth not now he giueth lyfe now he giueth none now is Christ the full Sauiour and satisfaction now the Priest hath halfe part with him now the Priest doth all And thus you are so inconstant in your selfe as one that had bene netteled and could rest in no place or rather as one that had receaued such a stroke vpon his head that hee staggered with all and reeled here and there and could not tell where to become And your doctrine hath such ambiguities such perplexities such absurdities and such impieties in it and is so vncertaine so vncomfortable so contrary to Gods word and the old Catholicke Church so contrary to it selfe that it declareth from whose spirite it commeth which can be none other but Antichrist him selfe Where as on the other side the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure Church from the begynnyng is playne certaine without wrynkels without any inconuenience or absurditie so chearefull and comfortable to all Christen people that it must needes come from the spirite of God the spirite of truth and all consolation For what ought to be more certaine and knowen to all Christen people then that Christ dyed once and but once for the redemption of the world And what can be more true then that his onely death is our lyfe And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner that is sory for his sinne and returneth to God in his hart and whole mynde then to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heauy lode of his sinne and taketh the burden vpon his owne backe And if we shall ioyne the Priest herein to Christ in any part and giue a portion hereof to his sacrifice as you in your doctrine giue to the priest the one halfe at the least what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner that he may not hang wholly vpon Christ what perplexities and doubtes rise hereof in the sinners conscience And what an obscuryng and darkenyng is this of the benefite of Christ Yea what iniury and contumely is it to him And furthermore when we heare Christ speake vnto vs with his own mouth and shew him selfe to be seen with our eyes in such sorte as is conuenient for him of vs in this mortall lyfe to be heard and sene what comfort can we haue more The Minister of the Churche speaketh vnto vs Gods owne wordes whiche we must take as spoken from Gods owne mouth because that from his mouth it came and his word it is and not the Ministers Likewise when he ministreth to our sightes Christes holy Sacramentes we must thinke Christ crucified and presented before our eyes because the Sacraments so represent him and be his Sacraments and not the Priestes As in Baptisme we must thinke that as the Priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly and washeth him with water so must we thinke that God putteth to his hand inwardly and washeth the infant with his holy spirite and
may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar I am not so ignorant but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paule and sayd to him Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes that euer he speake vpon earth And yet we finde that Christ speaketh sayth he but in heauen and from heauen and not vpon earth For he spake to Paule from aboue saying Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me The head was in heauen and yet he sayd why doest thou persecute me bycause he persecuted his members vpon earth And if this please not Maister Smith let him blame S. Augustin and not me for I fayne not this my selfe but onely alledge S. Augustin And as the father spake from heauen whan he sayd This is my beloued sonne in whom I am pleased and also S. Stephen saw Christ sittyng in heauen at his fathers right hand euen so ment S. Augustin that S. Paule and all other that haue sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention haue sene and heard him from heauen NOw when this Papist goyng forward with his woorkes seeth his building so feeble weake that it is not able to stand he returneth to his chief foūdation the Church and Councels generall willyng all men to stay thereupon to leaue disputyng reasonyng And chiefly he shoareth vp his house with the Councell Lateranence whereat sayth he were xiij hundred Fathers xv But he telleth not that viij hundred of them were Monkes Friers and Chanons the Byshop of Romes owne deare deare-lynges chief champions called together in his name not in Christes From which broode of vypers Serpentes what thyng can be thought to come but that dyd proceede frō the spirite of their most holy father that first begat them that is to say from the spirite of Antichrist And yet I know this to bee true that Christ is present with his holy Churche whiche is his holy elected people and shall be with them to the worldes end leadyng gouernyng them with his holy spirite teachyng them all truth necessary for their saluation And when so euer any such be gathered together in his name there is he among them he shall not suffer the gates of hell to preuaile agaynst them For although he may suffer them by their owne frailenes for a tyme to erre fall and to dye yet finally neither sathan hell sinne nor eternall death shall preuaile agaynst them But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome whiche accompteth it selfe to be the holy Catholicke Churche and the Byshop therof to be most holy of all other For many yeares ago Sathan hath so preuailed agaynst that stinkyng whore of Babylon that her abhominations be knowen to the whole world the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her dronkennes and poyson haue all nations tasted AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius Almericus Carolostadius Oecolampadius Zuinglius affirmyng that the Church euer sithens Christes tymes a thousand fiue hūdreth yeares and moe hath beleued that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament and neuer taught otherwise vntill Berengarius came about a thousand yeares after Christ whom the other folowed But in my booke I haue proued by Gods word the old auncient Authors that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally but is bodily corporally ascended into heauen there shall remaine vnto the worldes end And so the true Church of Christ euer beleued from the beginnyng with out repugnaunce vntill Sathan was let louse and Antichrist came with his Papistes which fayned a new and false doctrine contrary to Gods word and the true Catholicke doctrine And this true fayth God preserueth in his holy church still and will doe vnto the worldes end maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell And almighty God from time to time hath strēgthened many holy Martirs for this fayth to suffer death by Antichrist and the great harlot Babilon who hath embrewed her handes and is made drunken with the bloud of Martyrs Whose bloud God will reuēge at length although in the meane time he suffer the patiēce and fayth of his holy Saynts to be tried ALl the rest of his Preface contayneth nothing els but the authority of the Church which Smith sayth cannot wholy erre and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same that he preferreth it aboue Gods word affirming not onely that it is the piller of truth and no lesse to bee beleued then holy scripture but also that we should not beleue holy scripture but for it So that he maketh the word of men equall or aboue the word of God And truth it is in deed that the church doth neuer wholy erre for euer in most darcknes God shineth vnto his elect and in the midst of all iniquity he gouerneth them so with his holy word and spirite that the gates of hell preuayle not agaynst them And these be knowne to him although the world many times know them not but hath them in derision and hatred as it had Christ and his Apostles Neuerthelesse at the last day they shal be knowen to all the whole world when the wicked shal wonder at their felicity and say These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked We fooles thought their liues very madnes and their end to be without honour But now loe how they be accounted among the children of God and theyr portion is among the sayntes Therfore we haue erred frō the way of truth the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vnto vs we haue wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world that no mā can discerne it but God alone who onely searcheth the hartes of all men knoweth his true children from other that be but bastardes This church is the piller of trueth because it resteth vpon Gods word which is the true and sure foundation wil not suffer it to erre fall But as for the opē knowne church the outward face therof it is not the piller of truth otherwise thē that it is as it were a register or treasory to keepe the bookes of Gods holy will testament to rest onely thereupon as S. Augustine and Tertullian meane in the place by M. Smith alleadged And as the register keepeth all mens wils and yet hath none authority to adde change or take away any thing nor yet to expound the wils further then the very words of the will extend vnto so that he hath no power ouer the will but by the will euen so hath the church no further power ouer the holy scripture which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god but onely to keepe it and to see it obserued and kept For if the Church proceede further to make any new Articles of the fayth besides the Scripture
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
Theodoretus Hieronimus Hieroni. in Esaiam cap. 66. Hieron in Malachiam cap. 1. Chap. 8. Figures be called by the names of the thinges which they signify Eusebius Emissenus in sermo de Eucharistia Emissenus The Catechisme Emesserie Corporall Reuerend aultar Hieronimus in MalachiaÌ„ ca. 1. Chap 9. The adoration in the sacrameÌ„t De adoratione lege Rossen Occol lib. 3. ca. 4. 5. The simple people be deceaued Adoration What true adoration is August in psal 98. Augustinus August in psal 98. Iohn 6. August de doctri christiana li. 3. cap. 4. Hieroni. ad Ephesios 1. Cor. 16. Spirituall body Mat. 17. Luc. 14. Ioh. 20. Ioh. 20. 1. Cor. 10. Luc. 22. .1 Cor. 10 Truely Really Corporally â—heâ—â— Genes 28 Math. 6. 1. Cor 11. Luc. 22. Humiliation Phil. 2. Saynt Augustines doctrine is necessary Psal. 99. Heb. 10. Heb. 6. Ambrosius de spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. Math. 28. Luc. 2. Math. 2. Math. 24. Math. 24. Chap. 10. They be the papistes that haue deceaued the people Innocentius tertius Honorius tertius Cap. 11. An exhortation to the â—rew honoring of Christ in the Sacrament Zuinglius Papistes were the Authors of Transubstantiation The counsayle in England Iohn 6. Reall presence proueth no Transubstantiation I erred once in this matter Act â— Chap. 1. The confutation of the errour of TransubstaÌ„tiation Chap. 2. The papistiente doctrine is contrary to Gods word Math. 16. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10. Math 16. Math. 16. Marc. 14. Luc. 11. Math. 16. Marc. 14. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 10. Augustine lib. 3 cap. 36. The creatioÌ„ of the world This is no bread Iohn 19. 1. Cor. 10. 11. Yea and nay 2. Re. 17. Hilary 1. Cor. 10. Breaking signifieth the whole vse of the supper Rom. 4. Whether all the Euangelists told the history of the supper out of order August de consensu Euangelistarum lib. 3. Luc. 22. Math. 26. Marc. 14. The variance of the papists in consecration Smith Christes body made of bread 1. Cor. 10. Chrisostome Theodorete Alteration of names vnto dignity Psal. 81. Bread after the sanctification 1. Cor. 10. 2. Cor. 11. Chap. 3. The papisticall doctrine is agaynst reason Conclusions of reason Reode Smith fol. 64. Act. 10. Iohn 20. Luc. 24. Iohn 20. Luc. 24. The worde Forme Philip. 2. Impanation Ulpian Emissen 1. Pet. 3. Tit. 1. Luc. 1. Miracles Chap. 4. The papisticall doctrine is also agaynst all our sences Ihon. 20. Contrarium habetur in libro vocato The deuiles sophistry fol. 6.10.11 12.15.21 Coena Calcidensi hospitis Liuâ—us in 5. de bello Macedonico Homel 26. The rude man learned scholler Absurdityes Luc. vit Substance 1. Cor. 15. Accidents A Lapidarie Theodoretus Origene Gelasius Thomas Luc. vit Ioh. 20. Gregorius homel 16. Phil. 2. Plautus in Amphitrione Chap. 5. The Papisticall doctrine is contrary to the fayth of the olde authors of christes church Iustinus martyr Iustinus An issue Myne Issue Myne Issue Irenaeus contra Valentinum li. 4. cap. 34. Origenes in Math. Cap. 15. Origene Origene Ciprian ad Cecili li. 2. epist. 3. Math. â—â— Ciprian Eusebus Emissenus De conscer Distinction 2. quia Emissene An Issue Turning Emissenus minde Conuersion The booke of common prayer Absurdities Hilarius Hilarius Epiphanius coÌ„tra haereses lib. 3. to 2. et in Anacephaleosi Chrisosto in Math. ca. 27. Ho. 83. Ad Cesarium Monachum Chrisostâ—m The word Nature hath two significations Changing of names Ciprian The word Nature Ambrosius De ijs `qui misterijs initiantur cap. vlt. de sacramentis li. 4. cap. 4. Ambrosius Psalm 50. Augustinus in sermone ad infantes In lib. sententiarum Prosperi Augustinus Out of the master of the sentenses and decrees The booke of S. Augustine de suis prosperi is not coÌ„monly had The master of the sentences hath these wordes of S. Augustine How bread is Christes body Ciprianus de vnctione chrismatis De consecrat di 2. Hoc est Similitudes may not be pressed in at poynts but in the purpose wherfore they be brought Luc. 16. The fayth of the reall preseÌ„ce in the formes is vnprofitable vncomfortable Iohn 6. The profit and comfort of the true doctrine Two examples of the two natures in Christ one in a maÌ„ the other in the Sacrament Spirituall flesh Iraeneus contra ValeÌ„tinia lib. 5. A sleight Chrisostom ad Caesarium Monachum Chrisostomus A figure requireth not the presence of the thing that is signified Rom. 6. Lactantius institu lib. 2. Capi. 1. Ihon. 1. 1. Iohn 4. Gelasius contra Eutichen Nestorium Gelasius Nature Personne Subsistence Substaunce August contra hereses Gelasius aduersus Eutychen Nestorium Gelasius writeth as well agaynst Nestorius as Eutiches Alius Aliud A comparison of Nestorius Cyrill Presence by fayth requireth no corporal presence Gala. 3. Ihon. 8. 1. Cor. 10 Lactantius institut lib. 2. c. 1. Substaunce or nature Nature for propertie Theodoretus in dialogis Theodorete Confusion of natures Not. Chap. 6. Transubstantiation came from Rome Scotus super 4. sen. distinct 11. Gabriel super Canonè missae lect 40. Chap. 7. Chap. 8. The first reasoÌ„ of the Papists to proue their Transubtantiation Math. 26. Mar. 14. Lue. 22. The answere The aunswere more directly Read Smith fol 91. c. Chap. 9. The second argument for traÌ„substantiation The aunswer Math. 3. Mark 1. Luc. 3. Ihon. 1. Ihon. 19. Ihon. 1. Adnihilation Math. 26. Chap. 10. The third reason Iohn 6. The aunswere Iohn 6. Iohn 6. Cyrill Ihon. 6. Cap 11. Authors wrested by the Papistes for their transubstantiation Cyprianns de coena nomini The aunswerr Cyprianus Infudir Smyth vseth the word powring Pouring Infusion Ciprians meaning Spirituall Chap. 22. Chrisostomus The answer Negatiues by comparison 1. Reg. â— 1. Cor. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 1. Cor. 3. Gala. 2. Gala. 6. Ephe. 6. 1. Cor. 1. Rom. 15. 1. Cor. 11. 2. Cor. 11. 12. Gal. 5. 1. Pet. 3. Math. 6. Math. 10. Math. 10. Math. 23. a. Math. 23. b. Math. 10. c. Math. 10. d. Math. 10. e. Iohn 4. f. Iohn 5. g. Iohn 7. h. Iohn 8. Iohn 5. Gala. 3. Chrysostomus Chrisostomus Chap. 13. Ambros. de ijs qui misterijs initiantur Exod. 7. Exod. 7. Exo. 14. Exo. 17. Exo. 15. 4. Reg. 6. Psal. 148â— The aunswere Lib. 4. de sacramentis cap. 4. Ambrosius Chaunges of things the substances remayning Holy bread Uisible matter Formes Calling Making Chap. 14. Absurdities that follow of Transubstantiation Basilius hom 1. exhameron The booke of CommoÌ„ praier SubstaÌ„ces can not be without accidentes 1. Cor. 10. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. The booke of common prayer Distin. 40. Si Papa Schoole authors Simple and playne doctrine Really corporally naturally Smyth Smith Bread and no bread Theodoretus Chrisostomus Why the names of the sacraments be chaunged Our thing one substaunce Irenaeus The meaning of Irene and other Iohn 6. Ephe. 5. The wonder in the Sacramentes Gal. â— The sacrifice of our sauior christ was neuer taught to be reiterate