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
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
in the second parte But what be you eased now by this We say as the scripture teacheth that Christ is corporally ascended in to heauen and neuerthelesse he is so in them that worthely eate the bread drinke the wine geuen and distributed at his holy Supper that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and bloud vnto eternal life But we say not as you doe cleerely without ground of Scripture that he is corporally vnder the formes of bread and wine where his presence should be without any profite or commoditie either to vs or to the bread and wine And here in this difference it seemeth that you haue either cleerely forgotten or negligently ouershotte yourselfe vttering that thing vnwares which is contrary is your wholl booke For the first parte which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramentall bread and wine is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued say you where it is true Christ to be present God and man the second part say you which is of the being of Christ in them that worthely eat and drink the bread and wine is of Christs spiritual presence Of your which words I se nothing to be gathered but that as concerning his substancial presence Christ is receaued into the Sacramental bread and wine and as for them that worthely receaue the Sacrament he is in them none otherwise then after a Spirituall presence For els why should ye say that the second parte is of Christes spirituall presence if it be as well of his corporall as of his spirituall presence Wherefore by your own words this difference should be vnderstanded of two different beings of Christ that in the Sacrament he is by his substance and in the worthy receauers spiritually and not by his substance for els the differences repugne not as you obiect against me Wherfore either you write one thing mean another or els as you write of other God so blindeth the aduersaries of the truth that in one place or other they confesse the truth vnwares Now follow my wordes in the second comparison They say that when any man eateth the bread and drinketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomacke with the bread and wine and no further But we say that Christ is in the wholl man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread drinketh the cup not in his mouth or stomack only Winchester In this comparison the Author termeth the true Catholick teaching at his pleasure to bring it in contempte Which doing in rude speach would be called otherwise then I will tearme it Truth it is as S. Augustine saith we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth and such speach other vse as a booke set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name called a Catechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ which I alleadge because it shall appeare it is a teaching set forth among vs of late as hath béene also and is by the booke of common prayer being the most true catholicke doctrine of the substance of the sacrament in that it is there so catholickly spoken of which booke this Author doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teaching doth improue it in that pointe So much is he contrary to him self in this worke and here in this place not caring what he saith reporteth such a teaching in the first parte of this difference as I haue not heard of before There wes neuer man of learning that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomack of the man that receaued and no further For that is written contra Stercoranistas is nothing to this teaching nor the speach of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholicke doctrine is that by the holy communion in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body which is a flesh geuing life And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in vs and attēpereth by heauēly nuriture our body and soule beyng partakers of his passion to be conformable to hys will and by such spirituall foode to be many more spirituall In the receauing of which foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duely communicate worke together in due order without other discussion of the mistery then God hath appointed that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to doe as God hath ordered knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer but to be most profitable vnto such as doe accustome worthely to receaue the same But to say that the church teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomacke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgement of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Now where this Author in the second parte by an aduersatiue with a But to make the comparison felleth what he and his say he telleth in effecte that which euery catholicke man must néedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christs most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthely they haue Christ dwelling in them who comforteth both body and soule which the church hath euer taught most plainly So as this comparison of difference in his two parties is made of one open vntruth and a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this Author and his which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is vsed in the matter Caunterbury IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to tearm the true catholicke faith for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papisticall faith which I haue tearmed none otherwise then I learned of their own tearming and therfore if my tearming please you not as in deede it ought to please no man yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inuentoures of that tearming and not in me that against them do vse their owne tearmes tearming the matter as they doe them selfe because they should not finde faulte with me as you doe that I tearme their teaching at my pleasure And as for receauing of the body of Christ with our mouthes truth it is that S. Augustine Ambros Chrysostome and other vse such speaches that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes see hym with our eyes feele hym with our handes breake hym teare hym with our teeth eate him and dygest him which speach I haue also vsed in my catechisme but yet these speeches must be vnderstand figuratiuely as I haue declared in my fourth booke the eyght chapiter and shall more fully declare hereafter for we doe not these thinges to
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
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
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
hath defyned and determined in this matter many thinges contrary to Christes words contrary to the old catholick church and the holy martirs and doctors of the same and contrary to all naturall reason learning and philosophy And the final end of al this Antichristes doctrine is none other but by subtilty and craft to bring christen people from the true honoring of Christ vnto the greatest idolatry that euer was in this world deuise as by Gods grace shal be plainly set forth hereafter Winchester It hath vene heard without fables of certaine men that haue liued and bene norished with sauors onely And in gold and certayne precious stones that they geue a kinde of nurriture to an other substance without diminution of their substance experience hath shewed it so and therefore the principle or maxime that this author gathereth hath no such absurdity in it as he noteth to say that substaunce is nourished without substance But when vermin by chaunce happen to deuour any host as I am sure they cannot violate Christes most precious body so what effect foloweth of the rest what néedeth it to be discussed If it nourisheth then doth that effect remaine although the substaunce be not there If euery nurriture must néedes bee of substaunce then would those that discusse those chances say the substaunce to returne but hell gates shall not make me speake agaynst my fayth And if I be asked the question whether the visible matter of the sacrament nourish I will answere yea Ergo sayth he there is substaunce I deny it He shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physicke I shall disproue the conclusion by the authority of faith who is it most méet should yeld to other And if in nature many things be in experience contrary to the generall rules why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the sacrament that the onely substaunce being chaunged all other partes properties and effectes may remayne Is it an absurdity for a mayde to haue a child because it is against the rules of nature Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing because the philosopher sayth Of nothing commeth nothing The principle of nature is that whatsoeuer hath a beginning hath an end and yet it is no absurditye to beléeue our soules to haue a beginning without end and to be immortall Wherefore to conclude this matter it is a great absurdity in this author to note that for an absurdity in our fayth which repugneth onely to the principles of phylosophy or reasō when that is onely to be accounted for an absurdity that should repugne to the scripture and gods will which is the standerd to try the rule of our fayth Howsoeuer reason or Phylosophy be offended it forceth not so gods teaching be embraced and persuaded in fayth which néedeth no such plaisters and salues as this author hath deuised to make a sore where none is and to corrupt that is whole Caunterbury MEn may here see what fayned fables be sought out to defend your errors and ignorance which is how so manifest that it appeareth you neuer read or els haue forgotten the very principles and diffinitions of Philosophy Of which this is one that nutrition is a conuertion of substance into substance that is to say of the meate into the substance of the thing that is fedde An other is thus Ex eisdem sunt nutriuntur omnia All thinges be nourished of thinges like themselues And so I graunt you that a man made of sauoures and a man made of the vertue of gold and precious stones may be nourished by the same bicause he is made of the same And yet it may be that some certayne sauor or the vertue of some precious stone may increase or continue some humor wherof a man may be nourished as we read of some men or certayne people that haue liued no small time by the sauonr of apples But still in your booke you crye fayth fayth and catholike fayth when you teach but your owne inuentions cleane contrary to the true catholike fayth and expresse worde of God And in all your arguments here you commit the greatest vice that can be in reasoning called Petitio principij taking that thing which is chiefly in controuersy to be a principle to induce your conclusion Fayth fayth say you where is no fayth but your bare faining I haue disproued your fayth by gods word by the vniuersall consent of all Christendome a M. yeares togither and you crye out still fayth fayth which is not the fayth of Christ but of Antichrist Let christen men now iudge who should yeld to other If you had proued your doctrine by fayth founded vpon Gods word I would condescend vnto you that it is no absurdity that accidents remayne when the substance is gone But gods word is clearly agaynst you not onely in your doctrine of transubstantiation but also in the doctrine of the reall presence of the eating and drinking and of the sacrifices of Christes flesh and bloud Winchester The best plaster and medicine that could now be deuised were to leaue a part questions and idle talke and meekly to submit our capacities to the true fayth and not to ouerwhelme our vnderstandinges with search and inquiry wherof we shall neuer finde an ende entring the bottomles secresy of Gods misteries Let vs not seeke that is aboue our reach but that God hath commaunded vs let vs do Each man impugneth an others learning with wordes none controleth in others liuing with better dedes Let all endeuour themselues to do that God commaundeth and the good occupation therof shall exclude al such idlenes as is cause and occasion of this vayne and noysome curiosity And now to returne to this author whiles he seeth a mate in an other mans iye he feeleth not a beame in his owne Who recommendeth vnto vs specially Theodoret whome he calleth an holy Bishop and with him doth bring forth a pece of an Epistle of S. Chrisostome The doctrine of which two ioyned with the doctrine of this author in such sence as this author would haue all vnderstanded to be called catholike touching the fayth of the sacrament hath such an absurdity in it as was neuer hard of in religion For this author teacheth for his part that the body of Christ is onely really in heauen and not indeed in the sacrament according wherunto this author teacheth also the bread to be very bread still which doctrine if it be true as this author will needes haue it then ioyne vnto it the doctrine of the secret Epistle of Chrisostome and Theodoret whose doctrine is that after the consecration that is consecrate shal be called no more bread but the body of Christ. By these two doctrines ioyned togither it shall apeare that we must call that is consecrate by a name that we be learned by this author it is not and may not by the doctrine of Theodoret call it by the name of the
accepted and pleasaunt in the sight of God And this maner of shewyng Christes death and kèepyng the memorie of it is grounded vpon the Scriptures written by the Euangelistes and S. Paule and accordyng thereunto Preached beleued vsed and frequented in the Church of Christ vniuersally and from the beginnyng This authour vtteryng many wordes at large besides Scripture and agaynst Scripture to depraue the Catholike doctrine doth in a few wordes which be in déede good wordes and true confounde and ouerthrow all his enterprise and that issue will I ioyne with him which shall suffise for the confutation of this booke The fewe good wordes of the authour which wordes I say confounde the rest consist in these two pointes One in that the authour alloweth the Iudgement of Petrus Lombardus touchyng the oblation and sacrifice of the Church An other in that the authour confesseth the Councell of Nice to be holy Councell as it hath bene in déede confessed of all good Christen men Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fift booke to be ouerthrowen Caunterbury MY fift booke hath so fully so playnly set out this matter of the sacrifice that for aūswere to all that you haue here brought to the cōfutation therof the reader neede to do no more but to looke ouer my booke agayne and he shall see you fully aunswered before hand Yet wyll I here and there adde some notes that your ignoraūce and craft may the better appeare This farre you agree to the truth that the sacrifice of Christ was a ful and a perfect sacrifice which needed not to be done no more but once and yet it is remembred and shewed forth dayly And this is the true doctrine accordyng to Gods word But as concernyng the reall presence in the accidents of bread and wine is an vntrue doctrine fayned onely by the Papistes as I haue most playnly declared and this is one of your errours here vttered An other is that you cast the most precious body and bloud of Christ the sacrifice Propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world which of it selfe was not the sacrifice but the thyng whereof the sacrifice was made and the death of him vpon the Crosse was the true sacrifice propiciatorie that purchased the remission of sinne which sacrifice continued not long nor was made neuer but once where as his flesh and bloud continued euer in substaunce from his incarnation as well before the sayd sacrifice as euer sithens And that sacrifice propitiatorie made by him onely vpon the Crosse is of that effect to reconcile vs to Gods fauour that by it be accepted all our sacrifices of landes and thankes geuyng Now before I ioyne with you in your issue I shall rehearse the wordes of my booke which when the indifferent Reader seeth he shal be the more able to iudge truely betwene vs. My booke conteineth thus The fift Booke THe greatest blasphemy and iniurie that can be agaynst Christ and yet vniuersally vsed through the Popishe kyngdome is thys that the Priestes make their Masse a sacrifice propitiatorie to remit the sinnes as well of them selues as of other both quicke and dead to whom they list to apply the same Thus vnder pretence of holynes the Papistical priests haue taken vpon them to be Christes successours and to make such an oblation and sacrifice as neuer creature made but Christ alone neither he made the same any more tymes then once and that was by his death vpon the Crosse. For as S. Paule in his Epistle to the Hebrues witnesseth Although the high priestes of the old law offered many tymes at the least euery yeare once yet Christ offered not him selfe many tymes for then he should many tymes haue dyed But now he offered him selfe but once to take away sinne by that offering of him selfe And as men must dye once so was Christ offered once to take away the sinnes of many And furthermore S. Paul sayth That the sacrifices of the old law although they were continually offered from yeare to yeare yet could they not take away sinne nor make men perfect For if they could once haue quieted mens consciēces by taking away sinne they should haue ceassed and no more haue bene offered But Christ with once offering hath made perfect for euer them that be sanctified puttyng their sinnes cleane out of Gods remembraūce And where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne And yet further he sayth concernyng the old Testament that it was disanulled and taken away bicause of the feeblenesse and vnprofitablenesse therof for it brought nothyng to perfection And the priestes of that law were many bycause they liued not long and so the priesthode went from one to an other but Christ liueth euer and hath an euerlastyng priesthode that passeth not from him to any man els Wherfore he is able perfectly to saue them that come to God by him for asmuch as he liueth euer to make intercession for vs. For it was meete for vs to haue such an high priest that is holy innocent with out spot separated from sinners and exalted vp aboue heauen who needeth not dayly to offer vp sacrifice as Aarons priestes did first for his owne sinnes and then for the people For that he did once when he offered vp him selfe Here in his Epistle to the Hebrues S. Paule hath playnly and fully described vnto vs the difference betwene the priesthode and sacrifices of the old Testament and the most high and worthy priesthode of Christ his most perfect and necessary sacrifice and the benefite that commeth to vs thereby For Christ offered not the bloud of calues sheepe and goates as the priests of the old law haue vsed to do but he offered his own bloud vpon the Crosse. And he went not into an holy place made by mans hand as Aaron did but he ascended vp into heauen where his eternall Father dwelleth and before him he maketh continuall supplication for the sinnes of the whole world presentyng his owne body which was torne for vs and his precious bloud which of his most gracious and liberall charitie he shed for vs vpon the Crosse. And that sacrifice was of such force that it was no neede to renew it euery yeare as the Byshops did of the old Testament whose sacrifices were many tymes offered and yet were of no great effect or profite bycause they were sinners them selues that offered them and offered not their owne bloud but the bloud of brute beastes but Christes sacrifice ones offered was sufficient for euermore And that all men may the better vnderstand this sacrifice of Christ which he made for the great benefite of all men it is necessary to know the distinctiō and diuersitie of sacrifices One kynde of sacrifice there is which is called a Propitiatory or mercyfull sacrifice that is to say such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods wrath and indignatiō and obteineth mercy and forgiuenes
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
from the begynnyng hee tooke occasion by and by to turne his tale to Cranmer and with many hoâ—e wordes reproued him that once he beyng endued with the fauour and féelyng of holesome and Catholicke doctrine fell into the contrary opinioÌ„ of pernitious errour which he had onely defended by writynges and all his power but also allured other men to the like with great liberalitie of giftes as it were appointyng rewardes for errour and after he had allured them by all meanes did cherish them It were to long to repeate all thyngs that in long order were then pronounced The summe of this tripartite declamation was that hee sayd Gods mercy was so tempered with his Iustice that he did not altogether require punishment according to the merites of offenders nor yet sometymes suffered the same altogether to goe vnpunished yea though they had repeÌ„ted As in Dauid who wheÌ„ he was bidden chuse of thrée kyndes of punishments which he would he had chosen Pestilence for thrée dayes the Lord forgaue gaue him halfe the tyme but didnt release all And that the same thyng came to passe in hym also to whom although pardon and reconciliation was due accordyng to the Canons seyng hee repented from his errours yet there were causes why the Quéene and the Counsell at this tyme iudged hym to death of whiche lest hee should maruell to much he should heare some First that beyng a traytour he had dissolued the lawfull Matrimonie betwene the kyng her father and mother besides the driuyng out of the Popes authoritie while he was Metropolitane Secondly that he had bene an hereticke from whom as from an Authour and onely fountaine all hereticall doctrine and schismaticall opinions that so many yeares haue preuailed in England did first rise and spryng of which he had not bene a secret fauourer onely but also a most earnest defender euen to the end of his life sowyng them abroad by writynges and Argumentes priuately and openly not without great ruine and decay of the Catholicke Church And further it séemed méete accordyng to the law of equalitie that as the death of the Duke of Northumberland of late made euen with Thomas More Chauncellour that dyed for the Churche so there should be one that should make euen with Fisher of Rochester and because that Ridley Hoper Farrar were not able to make euen with that man it séemed méete that Cranmer should be ioyned to them to fill vp this part of equalitie Beside these there were other iust weightie causes which séemed to the Quéene the Counsell whiche was not méete at that tyme to be opened to the common people After this turnyng his tale to the hearers he bad all men beware by this mans example that among men nothyng is so high that can promise it selfe safetie on the earth and that Gods vengeauÌ„ce is equally stretched agaynst all men spareth none therfore they should beware and learne to feare their Prince And seyng the Quéenes Maiestie would not spare so notable a man as this much lesse in the like cause she would spare other men that no man should thinke to make thereby any defence of his errour either in riches or any kynde of authoritie They had now an example to teach them all by whose calamitie euery man might consider his owne fortune who from the top of dignitie none being more honorable then he in the whole Realme and next the kyng was fallen into so great miserie as they might now sée beyng a man of so high degrée sometyme one of the chiefest Prelates in the Church and an Archbishop the chief of the CouÌ„sell the second person in the Realme of long tyme a man thought in greatest assurauÌ„ce hauyng a kyng on his side notwithstandyng all his authoritie and defence to be debased from high estate to a low degrée of a Counsellour to become a caitiffe and to be set in so wretched a state that the poorest wretch would not chaunge condition with him briefly so heaped with miserie on all sides that neither was left in him any hope of better fortune nor place for worse The latter part of his Sermon he conuerted to the Archbishop whom he comforted and encouraged to take his death well by many places of Scripture as with these and such like hiddyng him not mistrust but he should incontinently receiue that the théefe did to whom Christ sayd Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso that is This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise And out of S. Paule he armed him agaynst the terrour of the fire by this Dominus fidelis est non sinet vos tentari vltra quà m ferre potestis that is The Lord is faythful which will not suffer you to be tempted aboue your strength by the example of the thrée children to whom God made the flame to séeme like a pleasaunt dew addyng also the reioysing of S. Andrew in his Crosse the patience of S. Laurence on the fire assuryng him that God if he called on him and to such as dye in his fayth either would abate the furie of the flame or geue him strength to abide it He glorified God much in his conuersion because it appeared to be onely his worke declaryng what trauell and conference had bene with him to conuert him and all preuayled not till that it pleased God of his mercy to reclayme him and call him home In discoursing of which place he much commended Cranmer and qualified his former doynges thus temperyng his iudgement and talke of him that while the tyme sayd he he flowed in riches and honour he was vnworthy of his lyfe and now that he might not liue he was vnworthy of death But lest he should cary with him no comfort he would diligently labour hee sayd and also hee did promise in the name of all the Priestes that were present immediately after his death there should be Diriges Masses and funerals executed for him in all the Churches of Oxford for the succour of his soule Cranmer in all this meane tyme with what great grief of mynde he stoode hearyng this Sermon the outward shewes of his body and countenaunce did better expresse theÌ„ any man can declare one while liftyng vp his handes and eyes vnto heauen and then agayne for shame lettyng theÌ„ downe to the earth A maÌ„ might haue sene the very image and shape of perfite sorrow liuely in him expressed More then twentie seuerall tymes the teares gushed out aboundantly dropped downe marueilously from his fatherly face They which were present doe testifie that they neuer saw in any child more teares theÌ„ brast out from him at that tyme all the Sermon while but specially when hee recited his Prayer before the people It it is marueilous what commiseration and pitie moued all mens hartes that beheld so heauie a countenaunce and such aboundaunce of teares in an old man of so reuerend dignitie Cole after he had ended his Sermon called
name all men may iudge that your doing herein is not for reuerence to be vsed vnto me but that by suppressing of my name you may the more vnreuerently and vnseemely vse your scoffing taunting rayling and defaming of the author in generall and yet shall euery man vnderstand that your speach is directed to me in especiall as wel as if you had appointed me with your finger And your reuerent vsing of your selfe before the kings highnes commissioners of late doth plainly declare what reuerent respect you haue to them that be in dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth Winchester THis author denieth the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament This author denieth Transubstantiation This author denieth euill men to eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne and tend to destroy that faith which this author fermeth the Popish to erre in calling now all popish that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth wherof shall hereafter be opened Now because faith affirmeth some certaintie if we aske this author what is his saith which he calleth true and catholike it is onely this as we may learne by his booke that in our Lordes supper be consecrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens only to signifie Christes body and bloud he calleth them holy tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he sayth neuerthelesse they be not bare tokens and yet coÌ„cludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but only as a thyng is present in that which signifieth it which is the nature of a bare token saying in an other place there is nothing to be worshipped for there is nothyng present but in figure in a signe which who so euer saith calleth the thyng in deede absent And yet the author sayth Christ is in the man that worthely receiueth spiritually present who eateth of Christes flesh and his bloud reigning in heauen whether the good beleuing man ascendeth by his faith And as our body is nourished with the bread and wyne receyued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fed with the body and bloud of Christ. And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the true catholike fayth Caunterbury I Desire the Reader to iudge my faith not by this short enuious and vntrue collection and reporte but by mine owne booke as it is at length set out in the first part from the 8. vnto the 16. chapter And as concerning holynes of bread and wine wherunto I may adde the water into baptisme how can a dombe or an insensible and liuelesse creature receiue into it selfe any foode and feede thereupon No more is it possible that a spiritlesse creature should receiue any spirituall sanctification or holynes And yet do I not vtterly depriue the outward sacrameÌ„ts of the name of holy thinges because of the holy vse wherunto they serue not because of any holynesse that lyeth hid in the insensible creature Which although they haue no holynes in them yet they be signes and tokens of the meruailous workes and holy effects which god worketh in vs by his omnipotent power And they be no vayne or bare tokens as you would perswade for a bare token is that which betokeneth only and geneth nothing as a painted fire which geueth neither light nor heate but in the due ministration of the Sacramentes God is present working with his worde and Sacramentes And although to speake properly in the bread and wine be nothing in dede to be worshipped yet in them that duely receiue the sacramentes is Christ himself inhabiting and is of all creatures to be worshipped And therfore you gather of my sayings vniustly that Christ is in deede absent for I say according to Gods worde and the doctrine of the olde writers that Christ is present in his sacramentes as they teach also that he is present in his worde when he worketh mightely by the same in the hartes of the hearers By which maner of speach it is not ment that Christ is corporally present in the voyce or sound of the speaker which sound perisheth as soone as the wordes be spoken but this speach meaneth that he worketh with his word vsing the voyce of the speaker as his instrument to worke by as he vseth also his sacramentes wherby he worketh therfore is said to be present in them Winchester Now a catholike faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receiued and beleued agreable and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writinges geuen knowledge therof which be the tokens and markes of a true catholike faith whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth catholike First there is no scripture that in letter maynteineth the doctrine of this authors booke for Christ sayth not that the bread doth oâ—â—ly signifie his body absent nor S Paul saith not so in any place ne any other Canonicall Scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence and vnderstanding of Christes wordes there hath not bene in any age any one approued and knowen learned man that hath so declared and expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signifie Christes body and the wyne his bloud as thinges absent Caunterbury THe first part of your description of a catholike faith is crafty and full of subtletie for what you meane by all you do not expresse The secoÌ„d part is very true and agreeth fully with my doctrine in euery thing as wel in the matter of transubstantiation of the presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the eating and drinking of him as in the sacrifice propitiatory For as I haue taught in these 4. matters of controuersie so learned I the same of the holy scripture so is it testified by all olde writers learned men of all ages so was it vniuersally taught and preached receiued beleued vntill the sea of Rome the chiefe aduersary vnto Christ corrupted all together and by hypocrisie and simulation in the stede of Christ erected Autichrist who being the sonne of perdition hath extolled and aduanced himselfe and sitteth in the temple of God as he were God himselfe losing and bynding at his pleasure in heauen hell and earth condemning absoluing canonising damning as to his iudgement he thinketh good But as concerning your doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body in the bread and bloud in the wyne that ill men do eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that Christ is many tymes offred there is no scripture that in letter mainteyneth any of them as you require in a catholike faith but the scripture in the letter doth mainteine this my doctrine plainly that the bread remaineth Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio
because they be spoken by Christ hym selfe the auctor of all truth and by hys holy Apostle S. Paule as he receaued them of Christ so all doctrines contrary to the same be moste certaynly false and vntrue and of al Christen men to be eschued because they be contrary to Gods word And all doctrine concerning this matter that is more then this which is not grounded vpon Gods word is of no necessity neither ought the peoples heads to be busied or their consciences troubled with the same So that thinges spoken and done by Christ and written by the holy Euangelists and S Paule ought to suffice the fayth of Christian people as touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper and holy communion or sacrament of his body and bloud Which thing being well considered and wayed shall be a iust occasion to pacifie and agree both parties as well them that hetherto haue contemned or lightly esteemed it as also them which haue hetherto for lacke of knowledge or otherwise vngodly abused it Christ ordeyned the Sacrament to moue and stirre all men to frendshippe loue and concord and to put away all hatred variance and discord and to testifie a brotherly and vnfained loue between all them that be the members of Christ But the deuil the enemy of Christ and of all his members hath so craftely iugled herein that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy Sacrament God graunt that al contention set aside both the parties may come to this holy communiō with such a liuely faith in Christ and such an vnfained loue to all Christes members that as they carnallye eate with their mouthes this Sacramentall bread and drink the wine so spiritually they may eate and drink the very flesh and bloud of Christ which is in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of his father And that finally by his meanes they may enioy with him the glory and kingdome of heauen Amen Winchester Now let vs consider the tertes of the Euangelistes and S. Paul which be brought in by the Author as followeth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cuppe and when he had geuen thanks he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and said Take eate this is my body And taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruite of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingedome of God When the houre was come he sate downe and the twelue Apostles with him and he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer for I say vnto you henceforth I wil not eate of it any more vntill it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you for I say vnto you I wil not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntil the kingdome of God come And he tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body whith is geuen for you this doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he tooke the cup saying This cuppe is the new testament in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup. That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cup when supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherefore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cup vnworthely shall be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine himselfe and so eate of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you and many doe sléepe After these tertes brought in the author doth in the 4. chap. begin to trauers Christes intent that he intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receaue that worthely be members of Christes body The catholick church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man hath from the beginning of these textes of scripture confessed truely Christes intent and effectuall miraculous worke to make the bread his body and the wine his bloud to be verely meate and verely drinke vsing therin his humanitie wherewith to féede vs as he vsed the same wherewith to redéeme vs and as he doth sanctifie vs by his holy spirite so to sanctifie vs by his holy diuine flesh and bloud and as life is renued in vs by the gift of Christes holy spirite so life to be increased in vs by the gift of his holy flesh So as he that beléeueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beliefe which is Baptisme receaueth really Christes spirite And likewise he that hauing Christes spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud Doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes very body and bloud And therfore Christ in the institution of this Sacrament sayd deliuering that he consecrated This is my body c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud c. And although to mannes reason it séemeth straunge that Christ standing or sitting at the table should deliuer them his body to be eaten Yet when we remember Christ to be very God we must graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in our thoughtes all imaginations how it might be and consider Christes
the iudgement of the liuing childe may discerne the very true mother from the other that is to say who plainly entend the true childe to continue aliue and who could be content to haue it be destroyed by deuision God of his infinite mercy haue pitie on vs and graunt the true faith of this holy mistery vniformely to be conceiued in our vnderstandinges and in one forme of wordes to be vttered and preached which in the booke of common prayer is well tearmed not distant from the Catholick faith in my iudgement Caunterbury YOu haue so perused these differences that you haue made more difference then euer was before for where before there were no more but two partes the true catholick doctrine and the papisticall doctrine now come you in with your new fantasticall inuentions agreeing with neither part but to make a song of three partes you haue deuised a new voluntary descant so farre out of tune that it agreeth neither with the tenor nor mean but maketh such a shamefull iarre that godly eares abhorre to heare it For you haue taught such a doctrine as neuer was written before this time aud vttered therein so many vntruthes and so many strange sayinges that euery indifferent Reader may easely discern that the true christen faith in this matter is not to be sought at your handes And yet in your own writinges appeareth some thing to confirme the truth quite against your own enterprise which maketh me haue some hope that after my answere heard we shall in the principall matter no more striue for the child seeing that your selfe haue confessed that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present with vs. And there is good hope that God shall prosper this child to liue many yeares seeing that now I trust you will help to foster and nourish it vp as well as I. And yet if diuisyon may shew a stepmother then be not you the true mother of the child which in the Sacrament make so many diuisions For you deuide the substances of bread and wine from their proper accidences the substances also of Christes flesh and bloud from their own accidences and Christes very flesh Sacramentally from his very bloud although you ioyne them again per concomitantiam and you deuide the sacrament so that the priest receaueth both the Sacrament of Christs body and of his bloud and the lay people as you call them receiue no more but the sacrament of his body as though the sacrament of his bloud and of our redemption pertayned onely to the priestes And the cause of our eternall life aud saluation you deuide in such sort betweene Christ and the priest that you attribute the beginning therof to the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and the continuance therof you attribute to the sacrifice of the priest in the masse as you doe write plainly in your last booke Oh wicked Stepmothers that so deuide Christ his Sacramentes and his people After the differences followeth the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters of my book which you binde as it were all together in one fardel and cast them quite away by the figure which you call reiection not answering one word to any Scripture or olde wryter which I haue there alleadged for the defence of the truth But because the Reader may see the matter plainly before his eyes I shall heare rehearse my words againe and ioyne thereto your answere My wordes be these Now to returne to the principall matter lest it might be thought a new deuise of vs that Christ as concerning his body and his humaine nature is in heauen and not in earth therefore by Gods grace it shal be euidently proued that this is no new deuised matter but that it was euer the olde fayth of the catholicke Church vntill the Papistes inuented a new fayth that Christ really corporally naturally and sensibly is here still with vs in earth shutte vp in a boxe or within the compasse of bread and wine This needeth no better nor stronger proofe then that which the olde authors bryng for the same that is to say the generall profession of all Christen people in the common creede wherein as concerning Christes humanitye they be taught to beleeue after this sort That he was conceiued by the holy Ghost borne of the virgin Mary That he suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Was crucified dead aud buried that he decended into hel and rose againe the third day That he ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his almighty Father And from thence shal come to iudge the quick and dead This hath beene euer the catholick faith of Christen people that Christ as concerning his body and his manhode is in heauen and shall there continue vntill he come down at the last iudgement And for as much as the Creede maketh so expresse mention of the Article of his ascention and departing hence from vs if it had been an other article of our faith that his body taryeth also here with vs in earth surely in this place of the Creede was so vrgent an occasion geuen to make some mention thereof that doubtlesse it would not haue been passed ouer in our Creede with silence For if Christ as concerning his humanity be both here and gone hence and both those two be articles of our faith when mention was made of the one in the Creede it was necessary to make mention of the other least by professing the one we should be disswaded from beleeuing the other being so contrary the one to the other To this article of our Creed accordeth holy Scripture and all the old auncyent doctors of Christes church for Christ him self sayd I leaue the world and goe to my father And also he sayd you shall euer haue poore folkes with you but you shall not euer haue me with you And he gaue warning of this error before hand saying that the time would come when many deceauers should be in the world and say Here is Christ and there is Christ but beleue them not said Christ. And S. Mark wryteth in the last chapter of his gospell that the Lord Iesus was taken vp into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father And S. Paul exhorteth all men to seeke for thinges that be aboue in heauen where Christ saith he sitteth at the right hand of God his father Also he saith that we haue such a bishoppe that sitteth in heauen at the right hand of the throne of Gods maiesty And that he hauing offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth continually at the right hand of God vntill his enemies be put vnder his feete as a footstoole And hereunto consent all the olde doctors of the church First Origen vpon Mathew reasoneth this matter how Christ may be called a stranger that is departed into another countrey seeing that he is with vs alway vnto the worldes end aud is among all them that be gathered together in his name and
is such a sleight vsed by you as is worthy to be noted of all men For I goe not onely about to proue in this place onely that Christ as concerning his humain nature is in heauē which I know you deny not but I proue also that he is so in heauen that he is not in earth which you vtterly deny and it is the chiefe point in contention betwene vs. But by this crafte of appeaching me of sleight that I goe about to proue that thing which you deny not which is vntrue you haue vsed such a sleight that you passe ouer 8. leaues of my booke together wherin I proue that Christ as concerning his corporall presence is not here in earth and you answere not one word to any of my argumentes And I pray thee note good Reader what a strange manner of sleight this is to passe ouer eight leaues together cleerely vnanswered and that in the chief point that is in variance betweene vs vnder pretence that I vse sleight where in deede I vse none but proue plainly that Christ is not bodely in heauen and in eareh both at one time If he had but touched mine argumēts glauncing by them it had been somewhat but vtterly to fly away and not once to touch them I think thou wilt iudge no smal sleight and craft therin And me think in good reason the matter ought to be iudged against him for default of answere who being preseut answereth nothing at all to the matter wherof he is accused seeing that the Law sayth Qui tacet consentire videtur Yet Smith is to be commended in respect of you who attempteth at the least to see what shiftes he could make to auoyd my profes and busyeth himself rather thē he would stand mute to say somthing to them And yet in deede it had been as good for him to haue said nothing at all as to say that which is nothing to the purpose First to the Scriptures by me alleadged particularly he vtterly answereth nothing To Origen and S. Augustine by name and to all the other Authors by me alleadged he maketh this brief answere in generall that whatsoeuer those authors say they meane no more but that Christ is not here in earth visibly naturally by circumscriptiō and yet neuerthelesse he is in the sacrament aboue nature inuisibly and without circumscription This suttle distinction hath Smith deuised or rather followeth other Papistes therin to answere the Authors which I haue alleadged And yet of Smithes own distinction it followeth that Christ is not in the sacrament carnally and corporally For if Christ be in the Sacrament but supernaturally inuisibly without circumscription then he is not there carnally and corporally as S. Augustine reasoneth ad Dardanum But yet Smith onely saith that the Authors so meant and proueth not one word of his saying supposing that the old holy writers be like to the Papistes which write one thing and when they list not or cannot defend it they say they meane another For those Authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of affirming diuers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in diuers respectes but their distinction is of the two natures in Christ that is to say the nature of his Godhead and the nature of his manhode And they affirme plainly that the diuersity wherof they spake cannot be in one nature as you say it is but must needes argue proue diuersity of natures And therfore by that diuersity and instinctiō in Christ they proue against the heretickes that Christ hath two natures in him which were vtterly no proofe at all if one nature in diuers respectes might haue that diuersity For the heretickes should haue had a ready answere at hand that such diuersitie proueth not that Christ had two natures for one nature may haue such diuersity if it be true that Smith saith And so Smith with other papists which saith as he doth putteth a sword in the hereticks hands to fight against the catholick faith This good Reader thou shalt easely perceiue if thou doe no more but read the authors which I haue in this place alleadged And yet for thy more ready instruction I shall make a brief rehearsal of the chief effect of them as concerning this matter To aunswere this question how it can be sayd that Christ is a stranger and gone hence into heauen and yet is also here with vs in earth Smith and other Papistes resolue this matter by diuers respectes in one nature of Christ but the old catholick wryters which I alleadged resolue the matter by two natures in Christ affirming most certainly that such two diuers thinges can not haue place both in one nature And therfore say they that Christ is gone hence and is absent in his humanitie who in his Deity is still here with vs. They say also that as concerning his mannes nature the Catholicke profession in our Creede teacheth vs to beleeue that he hath made it immortall but not changed the nature of a very mannes body for his body is in heauen and in one certain place of heauen because that so requireth the measure and compasse of a very mannes body It is also say they visible and hath all the members of a perfecte mannes body And further they say that if Christes body were not conteyned within the compasse of a place it were no body in so much that if the Godhead were a body it must needes be in a place and haue quantitie bignes and circumscription For all creatures say they visible and inuisible be circumscribed and conteyned within a certain compas ether locally within one place as corporall and visible thinges be or els within the property of their own substance as angels and inuisible creatures be And this is one strong argument whereby they proue that the holy Ghost is God because he is in many places at one time which no creature can be as they teach And yet they say moreouer that Christ did not ascend into heauen but by hys humanitie nor is not heare in earth but by hys diuinitie which hath no compasse nor measure And finally they say that to go to hys father from vs was to take from vs that nature which he receaued of vs and therfore when hys body was in earth then surely it was not in heauen and now when it is in heauē surely it is not in earth For one nature can not haue in it selfe two sundry and contrary thinges All things here rehearsed be written by the old auncient authors which I haue alleadged and they conclude the whole matter in this wise that this is the fayth and Catholique confession which the Apostles taught the Martyres did corroborate and faythfull people keepe vnto this day Wherby it appeareth euidently that the doctrine of Smyth and the Papistes at that day was not yet sprong nor had taken no roote Wherfore diligently ponder and way I besech thee gentle
although it was the selfe same Christ in nature But we say that he did eat drinke sleepe labour and sweat talke and speake naturally not bicause onely of his nature but bicause the maner and fashion of doing was such as we vse to do Likewise when Iesus passed through the people and they saw him not he was not then sensibly and visibly among them their eyes being letted in such sort that they could not see and perceaue him And so in all the rest of your aduerbes the speach admitteth not to say that Christ is there substancially corporally carnally and sensibly where he is not after a substanciall corporall carnall and sensuall forme and maner This the husband man at his plough and his wife at her rock is able to iudge and to condemne you in this poynt and so can the boyes in the gramer schole that you speake neither according to the english tonge grammer nor reason when you say that these wordes and aduerbes sensibly corporally and naturally do not signifie a corporall sensible and naturall maner I haue bene here somewhat long and tedious but the reader must pardon me for this subtill and euill deuise of your owne brayne without ground or authoritie contayneth such absurdities and may cast such mistes before mens eies to blind them that they should not see that I am constrayned to speake thus much in this matter and yet more shall do if this suffice not But this one thing I wonder much at that you being so much vsed and accustomed to lye do not yet know what lye meaneth But at length in this mater when you see none other shift you be faine to flye to the church for your shotte anker And yet it is but the Romish church For the olde first Church of Christ is cleerely agaynst you And Origen sayth not as you do that to vnderstand the sayd wordes of Christ spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church but to vnderstand them spiritually is to vnderstand them otherwise then the wordes sound for he that vnderstādeth them after the letter sayth Origen vnderstandeth them carnally and that vnderstanding hurteth and destroyeth For in playne vnderstanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure Christes flesh cannot be eaten nor his bloud dronken Next followeth in order S. Cyprian of whom I write thus And likewise ment Ciprian in those places which the aduersaries of the truth allege of him concerning the true eating of Christes very flesh and drinking of his bloud For Ciprian spake of no grose and carnall eating with the mouth but of an inward spirituall and pure eating with hart and mind which is to beleue in our hartes that his flesh was rent and torne for vs vpon the crosse and his bloud shed for our redemption and that the same flesh and bloud now sitteth at the right hand of the father making continuall intercession for vs and to imprint and digest this in our mindes putting our whole affiance and trust in him as touching our saluation and offering our selues clearly vnto him to loue and serue him all the dayes of our life This is truely sincerely and spiritually to eat his flesh and to drincke his bloud And this sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was that oblatiō which Cipriā sayth was figured and signified before it was done by the wine which Noe dranke and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gaue to Abraham and by many other figures which S. Cyprian there reherseth And now when Christ is come and hath accomplished that sacrifice the same is figured signified and represēted vnto vs by that bread and wine which faythfull people receaue dayly in the holy communion Wherin like as with their mouthes carnally they eate the breade and drincke the wine so by their fayth spiritually they eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud And hereby it apeareth that S. Ciprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine and is wholy vpon our side And agaynst the papistes he teacheth most playnly that the Communion ought to be receaued of all men vnder both kindes and that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that there is not transubstantiation but that bread remayneth there as a figure to represent Christes body and wine to represent his bloud and that those which be not the liuely members of Christ do eat the bread and drincke the wine and be not nourished by them but the very flesh and bloud of Christ they neither eate nor drincke Thus haue you declared the mynd of S. Cyprian Winchester As touching Ciprian this author maketh an exposition of his owne deuise which he would haue taken for an answer vnto him Where as Ciprian of all other like as he is auncient within 250. yeares of Christ so did he write very openly in the matter and therfore Melancthon in his epistle to Decolampadius did chuse him for one whose words in the affirmation of Christes true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguitie And like iudgement doth Hippinus in his book before alleaged geue of Cyprianus faith in the sacrament which two I allege to counteruayle the iudgement of this author who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him playing with the words grosse and carnall and vsing the word represent as though it expressed a figure only Hippinus in the sayd booke alleadgeth Cyprian to say Lib 3. ad Quirinum that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh meaning as Hipinus sayth Eucharistiam wherin S Augustin as Hippinus saith further in the praier for his mother speaking of the bread and wine of Eucharistia sayth that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice whereby was cancelled the byl obligatory that was agaynst vs. And further Hippinus sayth that the olde men called the bread and wine of our Lordes supper a sacrifice an host and oblation for that specially because they beleued taught the true body of Christ and his true bloud to be destribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia and as S. Augustin sayth ad Ianuarium to enter in be receiued with the mouth of them that eat These be Hippinus very words who because he is I thinke in this authors opinion taken for no Papist I rather speake in his words then in myne owne whom in an other part of this worke this author doth as it were for charity by name sclaunder to be a Papist Wherfore the sayd Hippinus wordes shal be as I thinke more weighty to oppresse this authors talke then mine be and therfore howsoeuer this author handleth before the wordes of S. Cyprian De vnctione chrismatis and the word shewing out of his epistles yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certayne otherwise as those places shall need no further aunswere of me here hauing brought forth the iudgement of Hippinus Melancton how they vnderstand S. Cyprians fayth which thou reader oughtest to regard
figure onely of Christes body but it is chāged into the very body of Christe For Christ sayth The bread which I will geue you is my flesh Neuertheles the flesh of Christ is not seene for our weakenes but bread and wine are familiar vnto vs. And surely if we should visibly see flesh and bloud we could not abide it And therfore our lord bearing with our weakenes doth retayn and kepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wine but he doth turne the very bread and wine into the very flesh and bloud of Christ. These be the wordes which the papistes do cite out of Theophilus vpon the gospell of S. Mark But by this one place it appeareth euidently eyther how negligent the Papistes be in searching out and examining the sayinges of the authors which they alleadge for theyr purpose on els how false and deceitfull they be which willingly and wittingly haue made in this one place and as it were with one breth two loud and shamefull lyes The first is that because they would geue the more authoritie to the wordes by them alleadged they like false poticaries that fell quid pro quo falsefy the authors name fathering such sayings vpon Theophilus Alexandrinus an old and auncient author which were in deed none of his wordes but were the wordes of Theophilactus who was many yeares after Theophilus Alexandrinus But such hath euer bene the Papisticall subtelties to set forth theyr owne inuentions dreames and lyes vnder the name of antiquitie and auncient authors The second lye or falsehod is that they falsely the authors wordes and meaning subuerting the truth of his doctrine For where Theophilactus according to the catholike doctrine of auncient authors sayth that almighty God condescending to our infirmitie reserueth the kind of bread and wine and yet turneth them into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud They say that he reserueth the formes and apparaunces of bread and wine and turneth them into the veritie of his flesh and bloud so turning and altering kindes into formes and apparaunces and vertue into veritie that of the vertue of the flesh and bloud they make the veritie of his flesh and bloud And thus they haue falsefied as well the name as the wordes of Theophilactus turning veritie into playne and flatte falsitie But to sette forth playnly the meaning of Theophilactus in this matter As hot and burning yron is yron still and yet hath the force of fyer and as the flesh of Christ still remayning flesh geueth life as the flesh of him that is good so the sacramentall bread and wine remayne still in theyr proper kindes and yet to them that worthely eate and drink them they be tourned not into the corporall presence but into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud And although Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ and the drinking of his very bloud and not onely of the figures of them and of the conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet he meaneth not of a grosse carnall corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud for so not onely our stomackes would yern and our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh to drincke his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite or auayle vs but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread calling the bread not onely a figure but also the body of Christ geuing vs by these wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eat corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drink his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable Winchester Now followeth as it is intitled Theophilact being the wordes in deed not of Theophilact as he writeth vpon Marke and therfore they were not alleaged as his wordes but as the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus wherin this author trauerseth a falshod on thallegers parte to wrong name the author In which allegacion I say if therbe a fault as I know none it is no lye but a probable errour for a man to beleue an other better learned then him selfe and as I found it alleaged I reported it agayne so as hauing mine author learned whome I folowed I am discharged of malice being the author such whome I followed as might possibly haue had such a worke of Theophilus contayning those wordes as they be alleaged the negatiue wherof how this author should proue I can not tell because of the common saying Bernardus non vidit omnia and therfore there may be a theophilus Alexandrinus hauing these words alleadged in theyr forme for any demonstratiou this author can make to the contrary Whither therbe or no any such to be shewed it is not materiall being so many testimonies besides As for Theophilacts wordes I graunt they be not for he wrote his mynde more playnly in an other place of his workes as I shall hereafter shew and by the way make an issue with this author that no catholike writer among the greekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the sacrament then Theophilact hath as shall apeare by and by after I haue noted to the reader this how of Germany about a two yeare before he impugned the truth of Christes presence in the sacrament he translated out of Greeke into Latine the workes of the sayd Theophilact and gaue the Latine church therby some weapon wherwith to destroy his wicked folly afterwarde not vnlike the chance in this author translating into inglish two yeares bye past the Cathechisme of Germany And as Oecolampadius hath since his folly or madnes agaynst the sacrament confessed as appeareth that he did translate Theophilacte so as we neede not doubt of it So this author hath now in this worke confessed the translation of the catechisme which one in communication woulde needes haue made me beleue had beene his mannes doinge and not his Heare now reader how playnly Theophilact speaketh vpon the Gospell of Saynt Iohn expounding the vi Chapter Take hede that the bread which is eaten of vs in the misteries is not onely a certayne figuration of the flesh of our Lord but the flesh it selfe of our Lord for he sayd not The bread which I shall geue is the figure of my flesh but it is my flesh For that bread by the mysticall benedictiō is transformed by the misticall wordes and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our lord And it should trouble no man that the bread is to be beleued flesh for whilest our lord walked in flesh and recaued nourishment of bread that bread he did eat was changed into his body and was made like to his holy flesh and as it is costomably in mans feeding
in direct course to speake of the matter of transubstantiacion In this fourth Book the author intreateth eating and drinking of Christes body and bloud And in the first part therof trauayleth to confirme his purpose and in the second part aunswereth as he can so his aduersaries and so taketh accasion to speake of Adoration His chiefe purpose is to proue that euill men receiue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which after this authors doctrine is a very superfluous matter For if the sacrament be onely a figure and the body and bloud of Christ be there onely fyguratiuely whereto should this author dispute of euill mens eating when good menne can not eate Christ in the sacrament bycause he is not there For by the effect of this authors doctrine the Sacrament is but a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine that in beleeuing and remembring Christes benefites with reuoluing them in our mynde we should in fayth feed vpō Christ spiritually beleuing that as the bread wine feedeth nourisheth our bodies so Christ feedeth nourisheth our soules which be good wordes but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not learneds yet may be well gathered not to limitte the mistery of the supper but to be spoken taught touching the beleuing remēbring Christes benefites with the reuoluing of thē in our minde therby to learne vs how to feed vpō Christ cōtinually without the vse of the visible Sacramēt beyng called of S. Augustine the inuisible sacramēt wher in by fayth we be nourished with the word of God the vertus of Christes body bloud which the true teaching of the church calleth spirituall manducation only without which no man is to be accompted a true membre of the mysticall body of Christ. And therfore who so feedeth vpon Christ thus spiritually must needes be a good man for onely good men be true members of Christes misticall body which spirituall eating is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessaryly to be good and therfore it must be and is certayne conclusion that onely good men do eat and drincke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to life So as this author shall haue of me no aduersary therin And if this author had proued that to be the true doctrine that Christes very body and bloud is not present in the visible Sacrament then might he haue left this fourth booke vnwritten For after his doctrine as I sayd before good men do not eate Christes body in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes for bycause it is not there and then much lesse should euyll men reach it In the Catholike teaching all the doctrine of eating of Christ is concluded in two maner of eatings one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall an other spirituall without the sacrament And because in the eating of the visible Sacrament S. Paule speaketh of vnworthy the same true teaching to open the matter more clerely according to Scripture noteth vnto vs three maner of eatinges one spirituall onely which onely good men do feeding in fayth without the visible Sacrament An other is both spirituall and Sacramentall which also good men only do receiuing the visible Sacrament with a true sincere charitable fayth The third maner of eating is Sacramētall only which after S. Paule euell men do vnworthely and therfore haue iudgement and condemnation and be gilty of our Lords body not esteming our Lordes body there And here ariseth the knot of contention with this author who sayth euell men eate but the Sacramentall bread wher vnto I reply no more do good men neyther if this authors doctrine of the Sacrament be true seing he will haue it but a figure If this author will say the effect is other in good men then in euill men I will not striue therin But to discusse this matter euidētly we must rightly open the truth and then must consider the visible Sacraments as they be of Gods ordinaunce who directeth vs where to seeke for his giftes and how whose working all be it it be not restrayned by his Sacramentes and therfore God may and doth inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleaseth hym yet he teacheth vs of his ordinary working in the visible Sacramentes ordereth vs to seeke his giftes of helth and lyfe there wherupon S. Augustine noteth how Baptisme among the Christian men of Aphrike was very well called health and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in which God geueth helth and lyfe if we worthely vse them The ordinaunce of these Sacramentes is Goddes worke the very author of thē who as he is in him selfe vniforme as S. Iames sayth without alteration so as Dauid sayth his workes be true which is asmuch as uniforme for truth and uniforme aunswereth together As God is all Goodnes so all his workes be good So as considering the substaunce of Gods workes ordinaunces as they be in themselfe they be alwayes vniforme certayne and true in theyr substance as God ordered them Among men for whom they be worught and ordered there is varietie good men euill men worthy vnworthy but as S. Paule sayth there is but one Lord one fayth one Baptisme And the parable of the sower which Christ declared himselfe sheweth a diuersity of the groundes where the seed did fall but the seed was all one that did fall in the good ground and that did fall in the naughty ground but it fructified onely in the good ground which seed Christ calleth his word And in the sixt of S. Iohn sayth his word is spirit and life so as by the teaching of Christ spirite and lyfe may fall vpon naughty men although for theyr malice it tarieth not nor fructifieth not in them And S. Augustine according hereunto noteth how Christes wordes be spirit and lyfe although thou doest carnally vnderstād them and hast no frute of them yet so they be spirite and lyfe but not to thee wherby appeareth the substaunce of Gods ordinaunce to be one though we in the vsing of it vary The promises of God can not be disapoynted by mans infidelitie as S. Paule sayth which place Luther alleageth to shew the vnitie in the substaunce of Baptisme whither it be ministred to good or euill But S. Paule to the Corinthians declareth it notably in these wordes We be the good sauour of Christ in them that be salued and them that perish Here S. Paule noteth the sauour good and one to diuers men but after the diuersitie in men of diuers effectes in them that is to say the sauour of life and the sauour of death which saying of S. Paule the Greeke scooles gathered by Oecumenius open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptly The doue they say and the bèetell shall feed both vpon one oyntment and the beetell dye of it and the doue strengthned by it The diuersitie in the effect
in heauen after which diuision likewise we receaue not in the sacrament Christes flesh that was crucified being so a visible and mortall flesh But Christes flesh glorified incorruptible and impassible a Godly and spirituall flesh And so that is but one in substance and alwayes so that same one is neuerthelesse for the alteration in the maner of the being of it deuided and so called not the same wherin S. Hierom and S. Augustine vsed both one maner of speaking and S. Hierom resembling the diuision that he reherseth of Christes flesh to the diuision of our flesh in the resurrection doth more playnly open how the same may be called not the same bicause we beleue certaynly the resurrection of the same flesh we walke in and yet it shall be by the garmēt of incorruptibility not the same in quality and so be verefied the scriptures that flesh shall not possesse heauen and I shal see God in my flesh and here I will note to the reader by the way S. Hierome writeth this distinction of Christes flesh as a matter agreed on and then in catholique doctrine receaued not of his inuention but in the catholique fayth as a principle established which declareth the belyfe to haue bene of that very godly and spiritual flesh geuen really in the sacrament for els to eate onely in fayth is specially to remember Christes flesh as it was visibly crucified wherin was accomplished the oblation for our sinne and S. Paule willeth vs in the supper to shew forth and professe the death of Christ for so Christ would haue his death continually expressed till his coming and if S. Hierome with other should haue ment of the eating of Christ as he sitteth in heauen reigning this destinction of Christes flesh were an idle matter and out of purpose to compare the distinction in it to be like distinction of oure flesh to enter into heauen and not to enter into heauen the same and not the same And thus I say that this place of S. Hierome sheweth so euedently both his and S. Augustines fayth that wrot at the same tyme as there cannot be desired a more euident matter Caunterbury TO what purpose you should bring in here this place of S. Hierome making much agaynst you and nothing for you I cannot conceaue For he declareth no more in this place but that as all men in this world haue passible bodyes subiect to much filthynes corruption and death and yet after our resurrection we shal be deliuered from corruption vilenes weakenes and death and be made incorruptible glorious mighty and spirituall so Christes body in earth was subiect vnto our infirmities his flesh being crucified and his bloud being shed with a spere which now as you truly say is glorified impassible incorruptible and a spirituall body but yet not so spirituall that his humanitie is turned into his diuinity and his body into his soule as some heretikes phantasy nor that the diuersity of his members be taken away and so left without armes and legges head and feete eyes and eares and turned into the forme and fashion of a bowle as the Papistes imagine The sunne and the mone the fier and the ayre be bodyes but no mans bodyes bycause they lacke hart and lungues head and feete flesh and bloud vaynes and sinewes to knit them togither When Christ was transfigured his face shyned like the sunne and with his mouth he spake to Moyses Helias And after his resurrection we read of his flesh and bones his handes and feete his side and woundes visible and palpable and with mouth tongue and teeth he did eate and speake and so like a man he was in all proportions and members of man that Mary Magdalene could not discerne him from a gardiner And take away flesh and skinne sinewes and bones bloud and vaynes and then remayneth no mans body For take away distinction and diuersitie of partes and members how shall Peter be Peter and Paule be Paule How shall a man be a man and a woman a woman And how shall we see with our eyes and heare with our eares grope with our handes and go with our feete For eyther we shal do no such thinges at all or see with euery part of our bodies and likewise heare speake and go if there be no diuersity of members This I haue spoken for this purpose to declare that S. Hierome speaking of Christes diuine and spirituall flesh excludeth not therby any corporall member that pertayneth to the substance of a mans naturall body but that now being glorified it is the same in all partes that it was before And that same flesh being fyrst borne mortall of the virgine Mary and now being glorifyed and immortall as well the holy fathers did eate before he was borne and his apostles and disciples whiles he liued with vs here in earth as we doe now when he is glorified But what auayleth all this to your purpose except you could proue that to a spirituall eating is required a corporall presence And where you say that S. Hierome and S. Augustine vse both one maner of speaking that is not true For S. Hierom speaketh of the diuersity of the body of Christ and S. Augustine of the diuersity of eating therof And yet here is to be noted by the way that you say we receaue not in the sacramēt Christes flesh that was crucified which your wordes seme to agree euill with Christes wordes who the night before he was crucified declared to his desciples that he gaue them the same body that should suffer death for them And the Apostles receaued the body of Christ yet passible and mortall which the next day was crucified and if we receaue not in the sacrament the body that was crucified then receaue we not the same body that the Apostles did And here in your idle talke you draw by force S. Hieroms wordes to the sacrament when S. Hierom speaketh not one word of the sacramēt in that place let the reader iudge And here for the conclusion of the matter you fantasy and imagine such nouelties and wrape them vp in such darke speaches that we had neede to haue Ioseph or Daniell to expound◠our dreames But to make a cleare answere to your darke reason The body of Christ is glorified and reigneth in heauen and yet we remember with thankfull myndes that the same was crucified and emptied of bloud for our redemption and by fayth to chaw and digest this in our 〈◊〉 is to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud But your brayne rolleth so in fantasies that you wot not where to get out and one of your sayinges impugneth an other For first you say that we receaue not in the sacrament the flesh that was crucified and now you say we receaue him not as he sitteth in heauen and is glorified and so must you nedes graunt that we receaue him not at all Winchester But to returne to S. Augustine touching adoration
popish diuines but the true worshippers of Christ worship him in spirite sitting in his high glory and Maiesty and pluck him not downe from thence corporally to eate him with their teeth but spiritually in hart ascend vp as S. Chrisostō sayth and feede vpon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his father To which spirituall feding is required no bodely presence nor also mouth nor teeth and yet they that receaue any sacrament must adore Christ both before and after sitting in heauen in the glory of his father And this is neyther as you say it is a cold nor grosse teaching of S. Augustine in this place to worship the flesh and humanity of Christ in heauen nor your teaching is not so farre from all doubtes but that you seeme so afrayd your selfe to stand to it that when you haue sayde that Christ is to be worshipped in his humanity as it were to excuse the matter agayne you say you speake not properly And this doctrine of S. Augustine was very necessary for ij considerations One is for the exposition of the Psalme which he tooke in hand to declare where in one verse is commaunded to worship the earth being gods fotestole and this he sayth may be vnderstād in the flesh of Christ which flesh being earth and the foode of faythfull christen people is to be worshipped of all that feede and liue by him For notwithstanding that his flesh is earth of earth and a creature and that nothing ought to be worshipped but God alone yet is found out in Christ the explication of this great doubt and mistery how flesh earth and a creature both may and ought to be worshipped That is to say when earth and flesh being vnited to the godhead in one person is one perfect Iesus Christ both God and man And this is neyther a cold nor grosse saying of S. Augustine but an explication of the diuine and high mistery of his incarnation The other cause why it is necessary both to teach and to exhort men to honor Chistes flesh in heauen is this that some know it not and some doe it not For some heretikes haue taught that Christ was but a man and so not to be honored And some haue sayd that although he be both God and man yet his diuinity is to be honored and not his humanity For extirpation of which errors it is no grosse nor cold saying that Christes flesh in heauen is to be honored And some know right well the whole Christ God and man ought to be honored with one entier and godly honor and yet forgetting them selfe in theyr factes do not according to their knowledge but treading the sonne of God vnder their feete and despising the bloud wherby they were sanctified crucifie agayne the sonne of God and make him a mocking stocke to all the wicked And many professing Christ yet hauing vayne cogitatiōs and phātasies in their heades do worship and serue Antichrist and thinking them selues wise become very fooles in deed And count you it then a cold and a grosse saying that Christ in heauen is to be honored wherin so many olde authors haue trauayled and written so many bookes and wherin all godly teachers trauayle from tyme to tyme And yet bring you here nothing to proue that S. Augustine spake of the reall presence of Christes flesh in the sacramēt and not of Christ being in heauen but this your cold and grosse reason And this will serue to answere also the place here following of S. Ambrose who spake not of the worshipping of Christ onely at the receauing of the sacrament but at all tymes and of all resonable creatures both men and angels Winchester And for the more manifest confirmation that S. Augustine ought thus to be vnderstanded I shall bring in S. Ambrose saying of whome it is probable S. Augustine to haue learned that he writeth in this matter Saynt Ambrose wordes in his booke De spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. be these Non mediocris igitur quaestio ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum Legimus enim alibi Coelum ucihi thronus terra autem scabellum pedum meorum Sed nec terra adoranda nobis quia creatura est dei Videamus tamen ne terrà m illam dicat adorandam Propheta quam Dominus Iesus in carnis assumptione suscepit Itaque per scabellum terrae intelligitur per terram antem caro christi quam hodie quoque in misterys adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu ut supra diximus adorarunt neque enim diuisus Christus sed vnus Which wordes may be englished thus It is therfore no meane question and therfore we should more diligently consider what is the foote stoole For we read in an other place heauen is my throne and the earth the foote stoole of my feete But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of vs bicause it is a creature of God And yet let vs see though least the prophet means that earth to be worshipped which our Lord Iesus tooke in the taking of flesh So then by the footestoole let the earth be vnderstanded and then by the earth the flesh of Christ which we do now worship also in the misteries and which the Apostles as we haue before sayde worshipped in our Lord Iesu for Christ is not deuided but one Hitherto S. Ambrose wherby may appeare how S. Ambrose and S. Augustine tooke occasion to open their fayth and doctrine touching adoration vpon discussion of the selfe same words of the prophet Dauid And S. Ambrose expressely noteth our adoration in the misteries where we worship Christes flesh inuisibly present as the Apostles did when Christ was visibly present with them And thus with these so playne wordes of S. Ambrose consonant to those of S. Augustine and the opening of S. Augustines wordes as before I trust I haue made manifest how this Author trauayleth agaynst the streame and laboreth in vayne to writh S. Augustine to his purpose in this matter The best is in this author that he handleth S. Augustine no worse then the rest but all after one sort bycause they be al of like sort agaynst his new catholique fayth cōfirme the old true Catholique fayth or do not improue it For of this high mistery the authors write some more obscurely and darkely thē other and vse diuersities of speaches and wordes wherwith the true doctrine hath bene of a very few impugned but euer in vayne as I trust in God this shall be most in vayne hauing this author vttered such vntruthes with so much blinde ignorāce as this worke well wayed cōsidered that is to say who made it when he made it of like how many were or might haue bene should haue bene of coūsayle in so great a matter who if they were any be al reproued in this one worke all such circūstāces cōsidered this booke may do as much good to releaue
such perplexity as alteration hath engendred and so do as good seruice in the truth as was ment therby to hinder and empayre it And this shall suffice for an answere to this fourth booke Caunterbury HEre apeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter For you leaue out those wordes of S. Ambrose which maketh his meaning playne that the prophet spake of the mistery of Christes incarnation Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda misteria sunt c. If they deny sayth he that the misteries of the incarnatiō in Christ be to be honored c. And a little after Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominicae sacramentum spectare videatur quod ait Propheta Adorate scabellum pedum eius consideremus Let vs consider by what meanes this saying of the prophet worship his foote stoole may be seene to pertayne to the sacrament of Christes incarnation And after the wordes by you rehearsed foloweth by and by Cum igitur incarnationis adorandum sit Sacramentum c. Seing then that the Sacrament of the incarnation is to be honored In these wordes sheweth S. Ambrose playnly that the worshipping of Christes flesh is vnderstand of the mistery of his incarnation So that S. Ambrose ment not onely that men should worship Christ when they receaue the Sacrament but that all creatures at all tymes should worship him And therfore he expresseth there by name how the Angels did worship him and also Mary Magdalene and the Apostles after his resurrection when they receaued not the Sacrament And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him yet being in his infancy and the prophet after the mynd of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose commaunded to honor him before his incarnation we likewise honor him sitting now in heauen after his ascentiō For so farre is fayth able to reach without eyther tentering or stretching Thus haue I aunswered to all that you haue brought agaynst my fourth booke not obscurely as you like a cuttell haue done hiding your selfe in your darke colours but playnly to the capacity of all men asmuch as I can And this haue I done with some payne of writing but little or no study for the matter being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answere by gods word and auncient authors to an ignorant lawyer being well exercised in neyther of both but making such diuinity a she can dreame in his sleape or deuise of his owne brayne or hath sucked out of the Papistical lawes and decrees and for lacke of arguments furnishing vp his booke with prety toyes with glorious bosting and scornfull taunting And with picking out of my booke such sentences as he perswadeth him selfe that he can make some colour of apparaunt answere to deceaue the reader And such places as he seeth his rhetorike will not serue he passeth them away slightly bicause he is afrayd to file his hands therwith Wherfore I may now right well and iustly conclude here myne answere to his confutation with the wordes of my fourth booke which be these But our sauiour Christ himselfe hath geuen vs warning before hand that such false Christians and false teachers should come and hath bydde vs to beware of them saying If any man tell you that Christ is here or Christ is there beleue him not For there shall rise false Christes and false prophets and shall shew many signes and wonders so that if it were possible the very elect should be brought into erroure Take heede I haue told you before hand Thus our Sauiour Christ like a most louing pastor and sauiour of our soules hath giuen vs warning before hand of the perilles and dangers that were to come and to be wise and ware that we should not geue credite vnto such teachers as would perswade vs to worship a peece of bread to kneele to it to knocke to it to creepe to it to follow it in procession to lift vp our hādes to it to offer to it to light candels to it to shut it vp in a chest or boxe to do all other honor vnto it more then we do vnto God hauing alway this pretence or scuse for our idolatry Behold here is Christ. But our Sauiour Christ calleth them false Prophets and sayth Take heed I tell you before Beleue them not If they say to you behold Christ is a broad or in the wildernes goe not out And if they say that he is kept in close places beleue them not And if you will aske me the question who be these false prophets and seducers of the people the aunswere is soone made The Romish Antichristes and their adherents the authors of all erroure ignorance blindnes superstition hipocrisie and idolatry For Innocentius the thyrd one of the most wicked men that euer was in the sea of Rome dyd ordayne and decree that the host should be diligently kept vnder locke and key And Honorius the third not onely confirmed the same but commaunded also that the priestes would diligently teach the people from tyme to tyme that when they lifted vp the bread called the host the people should then reuerently bowe downe and that likewise they should do when the priest carieth the host vnto sicke folkes These be the statutes and ordinaunces of Rome vnder pretence of holines to leade the people vnto all errour and idolatry not bringing them by bread vnto Christ but from Christ vnto bread But all that loue and beleue Christ himselfe let them not thinke that Christ is corporally in the bread but let them lift vp theyr hartes vnto heauen and worshipping him sitting there at the right hand of his father Let them worship him in them selues whose temples they be in whome he dwelleth and liueth spiritually but in no wise let them worship him as being corporally in the bread For he is not in it neither spiritually as he is in man nor corporally as he is in heauen but onely Sacramentally as a thing may be sayd to be in the figure wherby it is signified Thus is sufficiently reproued the third principall errour of the Papistes concerning the Lordes supper which is That wicked members of the deuil doe eate Christes very body and drincke his bloud ¶ Thus endeth the fourth booke ¶ The Confutation of the second booke HAuing declared how much agaynst all truth this author would beare in hand that the reall presence the corporall presence and substanciall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the sacrament is not the true catholique doctrine but a deuise of the Papistes which is a terme wherwith this author both vncharitably charge the kinges true subiectes among whome he knoweth a great many to be of that fayth he calleth now Papish But setting wordes a part and to come to the matter as I haue shewed this author to erre partly by wilfulnes partly by ignorance in the vnderstanding of the olde authors concerning the true reall
contempt were meeter in an Ethnikes mouth to iest out all then to passe the lippes of such an author to play with the sillables after this sort For although he may read in some blind glose that in the instant of the last sillable gods worke is to be accompted wrought being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttered not to put the vertue in the last sillable nor to scorne the catholique fayth after which manner taking example of this author if an Ethnicke should iest of Fiat Lux at fi was nothing and then at at was yet nothing at lu was nothing but a litle little pearing put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then the light What christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entry of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this author noteth with an exclamation Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread Here I would question with this author whether Christ sayd so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall bread Christ sayd This is my body Ergo he sayd this is no bread And the first part of this reason this author affirmeth in the 59. leafe And the second part is Christes wordes and therfore to auoyd this conclusion the onely way is to say that Christes speach was but a figure which the catholique doctrine sayth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christ saying this is my body sayth in effect this is no bread wherat this author sayth They would bragge if Christ had sayd so In speach is to be considered that euery yea containeth a nay in it naturally so as who so euer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine Who soeuer sayth this is wine sayth it is no beere If a Lapidary sayth This is a Diamōd he sayth it is no glas he sayth it is no christall he sayth it is no white Saphir So Christ saying this is my body sayth it is no bread Which plainesse of speach caused Zuinglius to say playnly if there be presēt the substaūce of the body of Christ there is trāsubstātiatiō that is to say not the substaūce of bread therfore who wil playnly deny transubstantion must deny the true presence of the substaunce of Christes body as this author doth wherein I haue first conuinced him and therfore vse that victory for his ouerthrow in transubstantiation I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body and yet I will touch here such testimonie as this author bringeth out of one Hylary for the purpose of trāsubstātiation in the xxv leafe of this booke in these wordes There is a figure sayth Hylary for bread and wine be outwardly sene and there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued These be Hylaries words as this author alledgeth them who was he sayth within 350. yeares of Christ. Now I call to thy iudgement good reader could any man deuise more pithy wordes for the proofe of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud and the condemnation of this author that would haue an onely figure Here in Hilarius wordes is a figure compared to truth and sight outwardly to beleue inwardly Now our belief is grounded vpon gods word which is this This is my body in which wordes Hylary testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a truth and the figure is in that is sene outwardly I take Hylary here as this author alledgeth him whereby I aske the Reader is not this author ouerthrowē that Christs speach is not figuratiue but true and proper beyng inwardly true that we beleue Ye will say vnto me What is this to transubstantiation to the reprofe wherof it was brought in bicause he sayth bread and wine is seene First I say that it ouerthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christes body and euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this author in Transubstantiation not by authority of the church of Rome but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius sayth who shall serue me to auoyd papistry If one aske me what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seene I say they be in déede séene for they appeare so and therfore be called so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voyce and yet by his sence of féelyng denyed him Esau which was not Esau but was Iacob as the voyce frō within did declare him If ye will aske me how can there accordyng to Hylaries wordes be in the outward visible creatures any figure vnlesse the same be in déede as they appeare bread and wine I will aunswere Euen as well as this outward obiect of the sensible hearynes of Iacob resemblyng Esau was a figure of Christes humanitie and of the very humanitie in déede Thus may Hylary be aunswered to auoyde his authoritie from contrarying transubstantiation But this author shall neuer auoyde that him selfe hath brought out of Hylary which ouerthroweth him in his figuratiue speach consequently in his deniall of transubstantiation also as shall appeare in the further handlyng of this matter Where this author in the 18. leaf compareth these S. Paules wordes The bread that we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ to the expoundyng of Christes wordes This is my body I deny that for Christes wordes declared the substaunce of the Sacrament when he sayd This is my body and S. Paul declareth the worthy vse of it accordyng to Christes institution and by the wordes The bread that we breake doth signifie the whole vse of the Supper wherein is breakyng blessing thankesgeuyng dispensing receiuyng and eatyng So as onely breakyng is not the communion and yet by that part in a figure of speach S. Paul meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the Scripture a terme in speach to goe breake bread although it be not alwayes so taken whereby to signifie to go celebrate our Lordes Supper and therfore bread in that place may signifie the commō bread as it is adhibite to be consecrat which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ and so distributed and receaued is the communiō of the body of Christ as the cup is likewise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction which benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for callyng of Christes bread his body is to make it his body who as S. Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so maketh it to be The argumentes this author vseth in the 19. and 20. leafe of the order of Christes speaches as the Euangelistes rehearse them be captious deuises of this author in case he knoweth what S. Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hath not read S. Augustine De
doctrina Christiana where he geueth a rule of recapitulation as he calleth it when that is told after that was done afore and therfore we may not argue so firmely vpon the order of the tellyng in the speach S. Augustine bringeth an example that by order of tellyng Adam was in Paradise or any trée was brought forth for féedyng with diuers other wherewith I will not encomber the Reader The Euangelist rehearseth what Christ sayd and did simply and truely whiche story we must so place in vnderstandyng as we trifle not with the mysterie at staying and stoppyng of letters and sillables And therfore though the word take eate go before the wordes This is my body we may not argue that they tooke it and eate it afore Christ had told them what he gaue them all these often rehearsalles of bread with he tooke bread and breake bread and blessed bread and if ye will adde held bread all this induce no consequence that he therfore gaue bread For hee gaue that he had consecrate and gaue that he made of bread If Christ when he was tempted to make stones bread had taken the stones and blessed them and deliuered them saying This is bread had he than deliuered stones or rather that hee made of stones bread Such maner of reasonyng vseth Peter Martyr as this author doth whose folie I may well say he saw not to eschew it but as appeareth rather to follow it And yet not content to vse this fonde reasonyng this author calleth Papistes to witnes that they might laugh at it bicause the Euangelist telleth the story so as Christ sayd drinke and then told after what it was this author phantasieth that the Apostles should be so hasty to thinke ere Christ had told them what he gaue which and they had I thinke hee would haue stayed the cup with his hand or byd them tary whiles he had told them more I will no further trauaile with this reasoning which is pitie to heare in such a matter of grauitie of such consequence as it is both in body and soule We may not trifle with Christes wordes after this sort When S. Paule sayth we be partakers of one bread hee speaketh not of materiall bread but of Christes body our heauenly bread which to all is one and can not be consumed but able to féede all the world and if this author gyueth credite to Theodoreths whom he calleth an holyman then shall he neuer finde the Sacrament called bread after the sanctification but the bread of lyfe the like whereof should be in an Epistle of Chrisostome as Peter Martyr alledgeth not yet printed by whose authoritie if they haue any as in their place this author maketh much of them all these argumentes be all trifles for all the namyng of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other must be vnderstanded before the sanctification and not after And if thou Reader lookest after vpon Theodoretus that Epistle thou shalt finde true that I say whereby all this questionyng with the Papistes is onely a calying for this authors pleasure agaynst his owne authors and all learnyng Caunterbury WHere you say that the simplicitie of fayth in a Christen mans brest doth not so precisely marke and stay at the syllables of Christes wordes as I pretende here may the world see what simplicitie is in the Papistes For I do nothyng els but rehearse what the Papistes say that vntill these wordes be fully ended Hoc est Corpus meum there is bread and after those wordes be fully ended there is no more bread but onely Christ himselfe And the same simplicitie do you declare by and by to be in your selfe when you say that Gods worke is in one instance howsoeuer speach require in vs a successiue vtteraunce Then if God chaunge the bread into Christes body in one instaunce tell me I pray you in which instaunce For seyng that our promiticiation is by succession of tyme I thinke you will not say that the worke of God is done before the last syllable be pronounced for then Christes body should be there before the wordes of Cōsecration were fully finished nor I thinke you will not deny but whensoeuer the wordes of consecration be fully pronounced then is Christes body there Wherfore by your owne iudgemēt you vary not in this matter frō the other Papistes but must needes say that Gods secrete worke herein is measured after the prolation of our syllables and so it is none other person that teacheth to playe with syllables in this high mysterie but the Papistes onely And your selfe doe teach in this same place that it is a good lesson to say that in the instaunce of the last syllable Gods worke is to be accompted wrought And I finde it not in blynd Gloses but in the chief authors of the Papistes that the conuersion is not wrought before the whole sentence is finished Hoc est corpus meum And it is no direct aunswere but a meere cauillation and illusion to bryng in here the creation of the world when God sayd fiat lux to be a like matter vnto transubstantiation For Gods speach requireth no successiō of tyme as the speach of the Priest doth Therfore this is but a playeng to shew your subtill wit and craftie Rhetorike whereby your spirite may be iudged whether you go about clearely to set forth the truth or by darke colours and vnlike examples to hide and couer it And where you question with me going about by a subtill Sophisticall argumēt to proue that Christ sayd This is no bread I shall make an other argument of the same forme which shall shew how strong your argument is S. Iohn is not the sone of the virgin Mary Christ sayd to her This is thy sonne Ergo he sayd This is not Iohn The first part I am sure you will affirme in effect The second part is Christes wordes and as the second part in my argument is a figuratiue speach so is it in yours so that in euery point the argumentes be like And therfore as myne argument is nought so is yours also and all that you bring in to folow therof And if I lyst to dalye as you do in such a matter I could conclude directly agaynst you that in the Sacrament is not Christes body thus Christes body is not materiall bread S. Paule sayd it is bread Ergo he sayd it is not Christes body The first part you affirme the secōd part S. Paule affirmeth And therfore to auoyde this cōclusion the onely way is to say that Christes speach was a figuratiue speach when he sayd This is my body For els by the Catholicke doctrine S. Paule saying that it is bread saith in effect it is not the body of Christ. Thus may you see what auayleth your Sophistication when I am constrained Sophisticari cum Sophista vt ars deludatur arte And of like effect is your argument of yea and nay when you say euery
yea conteineth a nay in it naturally Therfore Christ saying it is his body sayth it is no bread If this forme of Argument were infallible then I may turne the same to you agayne and ouerthrow you with your own weapon thus S. Paule sayd it is bread Ergo it is not Christes body if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the other And by such Sophistication you may turne vp all the truth quite and cleane and say that Christ was neither God nor man bycause he sayd he was a vine bread And euery yea say you conteineth a nay in it naturally And where you boast that you haue conuinced me in the matter of the reall presence of Christes body I trust the indifferent Reader wil say that you triumph before the victorie saying that you haue wonne the field when in deede you haue lost it and when Golyathes head is smitten of with his owne sword But the old English Prouerbe is here true that it is good beating of a proude man for whē he is all to beaten backe bone yet will he boast of his victorie and bragge what a valiant man he is And it is an other vayne bragge also that you make whē you say that you haue shewed before that Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body For you haue neither proued that you say nor haue aunswered to my proofes to the contrary as I referre to the iudgement of all indifferent Readers but you haue confessed that Christ called bread his body made demōstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body How can then this speach be true but by a figure that bread is Christes body seyng that in proper speach as you say euery yea conteineth a nay and the affirmation of one thyng is the deniall of an other And where you alledge as it were against me the wordes of Hylarie that there is both a figure and a truth of that figure for answere hereunto the truth is that your matter here is gathered of an vntruth that I would haue onely a figure where as I say playnly as Hylarie sayth that in the true ministration of the Sacrament is both a figure and a truth the figure outwardly and the truth inwardly For bread and wyne be sensible signes and Sacraments to teach vs outwardly what feedeth vs inwardly Outwardly we see and feele bread and wyne with our outward senses but inwardly by faith we see and feede vpon Christes true body and bloud But this is a spirituall feedyng by faith which requireth no corporall presence And here I aske you two questions One is this whither Hylarie say that the body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wyne and that corporally If he say not so as the Reader shall soone iudge looking vpon his wordes then stand I vpright without any fall or foyle for Hylarie sayth not as you do The other question is whither Hylarie doe not say that there is a figure let the Reader iudge also and see whither you be not quite ouerthrowen with your owne crooke in saying that Christes speach is not figuratiue And yet the third question I may adde also why S. Hylarie should say that bread and wine be figures if there be no bread nor wine there at all but be taken cleane away by transubstantiation And where as for aunswere hereto you take the example of Iacob who for his hearynes resembled Esau and was as you say a a figure of Christes very humanitie you doe like an vnskilfull Mariner that to auoyde a litle tempest runneth himselfe vpon a rocke For where you make Iacob who resēbled Esau and was not he in deede to be a figure of Christes humanitie you make by this example that as Iacob by his hearynesse resembled Esau and was not he in deede so Christ by outward apparence resembled a man and yet he was no man in deede And where you denye that these wordes of S. Paule is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ declare the meaning of Christes wordes this is my body because Christes wordes say you declare the substaunce and S. Paules wordes declare the vse I deny that Christes body is the substaunce of the visible Sacrament For the substaūce of the Sacramēt is bread and wine and the thing thereby signified is Christes body and bloud And this is notable which you say that these words the bread which we breake do signifie the whole vse of the Supper not onely breakyng but also blessing thankesgeuing dispensing receauyng and eatyng that bread in this place signifieth common bread taken to be consecrated In which saying it is a world to see the phantasies of mens deuises how vncertain they be in matters perteining to God How agreeth this your saying with your doctrine of transubstantiation For if S. Paule when he sayd the bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christes body ment by bread common bread and by breaking ment also the blessing thankesgeuing receauing and eating then is common bread broken blessed receaued eaten And then where becōmeth your transubstantiation yf cōmon bread be eaten in the Sacramēt And whē is the bread turned into the body of Christ if it remaine cōmō bread vntill it be eatē Yet now you seeme to begin some thing to sauour of the truth that the bread remaineth still in his proper nature enduring the whole vse of the Supper And as touching this place of S. Paule that God calleth things that be not as they were if it perteine vnto Sacrament where Christ called bread his body what could you haue alledged more against yourself For if in this place Christ call that which is not as it were then Christ called bread as it were his body and yet it is not his body in deede But in this your aunswere to the arguments brought in by me out of the very wordes of the Euangelistes is such a shamelesse arrogancie and boldnesse shewed as abhorreth all Christian eares for to heare which is that three Euāgelistes telling the maner of Christs holy Supper not one of them all doe tell the tale in right order but subuert the order of Christes doinges and sayinges and that in such a necessary matter of our Religiō that the diffinition of the whole truth standeth in the order The Euangelistes say you rehearse what Christ sayd and did simply and truely But is this a simple and true rehearsall of Christes wordes and deedes to tell them out of order otherwise then Christ did sayd them And S. Paule also if it be as you say speaking of the same matter cōmitteth the like errour And yet neuer no auncient authour expounding the Euangelistes or S. Paule could spye out this fault and in their Commentaries giue vs warning therof And I am not so ignoraunt but I haue many tymes read S. Augustine De doctrina Christiana where he sayth that
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
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
which this author teacheth vs in deede it is And thus It is in deede bread quoth this author but call it not so quoth this Theodoret It is not in deede the body of Christ quoth this author but yet in any wise call it so quoth Theodoret. Here is playne simulation and dissimulation both togither For by forbidding of the name of bread according to Theodorets teaching we dissemble and hide that it is by this authors teaching and by vsing the name of our Lordes body according to Theodorets teaching we fayne it to be that it is not by this authors teaching which sayth there is onely a figure and by this meanes in so high a mistery we should vse vntruthes on both sides in simulation and dissimulation which is a meruaylous teaching I deny not but thinges signifying may haue the name of that they signify by a figure of speach but we read not in any doctrine giuen that the thing signifying should haue the name by figure and be deliuered from the name of that it is in deede And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his new Catholike fayth ioyned with the teaching of Theodoret and the secret Epistle of S. Chrisostom as this author would haue them vnderstanded But those men Theodoret and Chrisostome in the sence they ment as I vnderstand them taught a true doctrine For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a reall naming of the body of Christ there present in deede and therfore a true perfect name which as S. Chrisostomes secret Epistle sayth the thing is worthy to haue declaring by that worthines the thing named to be there in deed And likewise I vnderstand the other name of bread worthely done away bicause the substance wherupon in reason the name was grounded is changed according to the true doctrine of Transubstantiation therfore that name of bread in their doctrine is truely layd away although Theodoret writeth the visible matter of bread and wine to be seene and felt as they were before and therfore sayth their substance which there signifieth the outward nature is séene and felt to remayne which termes with conuenient vnderstanding may thus agrée with the catholicke teaching of transubstantiation and so in the sacrament on euery part but in the heauenly and earthlye part to be a full whole and perfect truth as the high mystery being the sacrament of our perfect vnity in body and soule with Christ doth require Wherby in my iudgement as this author hath agaynst his owne determination in this enterprise vttered that confirmeth the truth of the reall presence of Christes most precious bodye in the sacrament which he doth in speciall entreating the wordes of S Augustine in the xxvii leafe of hys book besides that in diuers other places he doth the like so bringing vs forth this Theodoret and his secret epistle of S. Chrisostome he hath brought forth that may serue to conuince him in transubstantiation Howbeit as for transubstantiation Zuinglius taketh it truely for a necessary consequence of the trueth if there bee in the sacrament the reall presence of Christes body as there is in déed For as a carnall man not instruct by fayth aswell after consecration as before as he is of the earth speaketh and calleth it bread and asking him what it is will neuer aunswere otherwise and if one asked him whether it were the body of Christ would thinke the questioner mocked him so the faythfull spirituall man answering to that question what it is would after consecration according to fayth aunswere the body of Christ and thinke himself mocked if he were asked is it not bread vnles he had bene taught Christ to haue sayd it had bene both his body and bread As for calling it by the name of bread which it was he would not greatly stick and one thing may haue many names but one thing is but one substance whereby to aunswere to the question what it is sauing onely in the person of Christ wherein we know vnited the two substances of god and man And this matter I repeate and summarily touch agayne to leaue in the readers brest the principall poynt of our beliefe of this mistery to be of the reall presence that is to say vnfayned substantiall presence and therefore the true presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament which hath bene in al ages taught and bene as it is the Catholick fayth of Christendome as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages Caunterbury FOr the conclusion of al these questions when you see that you can make no aunswere but that you be driuen to so many absurdities and that I haue answered so playnely vnto euery one that there is left neither absurdity nor difficulty at al then you deuise the best way and most easy for your selfe to lay apart all questions and idle talke when all these questions and idle talke needed not if the papistes of their idle braines had not deuised their transubstantiation and thereupon moued this idle talke themselues which hath bene occasion not onely of much dissention in all Christian realmes but of the effusion also of much innocent bloud But when the Papistes like vnto Lucifer haue ascended into heauen and searched by vayne and arrogant questions the bowels and secrets of gods maiesty and his wisedome Yea euen whether God haue made the world so well as he might haue done theu they commaund other to keepe silence and not to enter into the bottomles secrecy of Gods misteries nor to seeke that is aboue their reach but to eudeuour themselues to doe that God commanndeth which counsaile as it is most godly and holesome so if the Papistes themselues had obserued in the beginning no man should haue needed to haue troubled his braynes with such fryuolous questions and idle talke But the Papists do like boyes in the schole that make rods to beat other aud when they should be beaten with the roddes which they made themselues then they wish that al rods were in the fier So the Papistes when they see themselues ouerthrowne in their owne questions which they first deuised themselues to be beaten with their owne rods then they cry peace hold hands and question no more But to aunswere the absurdityes layed vnto the Papistes charge you recompence me agayne with â—â— great huge absurdities One is that Christ is really but in heauen onely the other is that bread is stil bread Here thou mayst iudge gentle reader what errours I defend that am by force driuen to such two absurdities that I am fayne to say as I haue written in my booke and as the Apostles and Euangelistes sayd But beware I would aduise thee that thou say not as Gods word teacheth for if thou doost thou mayst be sure to be taken of the Papistes for an hereticke Fynally you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread the body and not the
thereunto in the same place And where you haue set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall man after your owne imagination you haue so well deuised the matter that you haue made ii extremities without any meane For the true faythfull man would answere not as you haue deuised but he would say according to the old catholick fayth and teaching of the Apostles Euangelists Martyrs and confessours of Christes Churche that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts the earthly and the heauenly The earthly is the bread and wine the other is Christ himselfe The earthly is without vs the heauenlye is within vs The earthlye is eaten with our mouthes and carnally feedeth our bodies the heauenly is eaten with our inward man and spiritually feedeth the same The earthly feedeth vs but for a tyme the heauenly feedeth vs for euer Thus would the true faythfull man answere without leaning vnto any extremity either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accideÌ„ces of bread but professing beleuing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heauen and yet spiritually to dwell in his faythfull people and they in him vnto the worldes ende This is the true catholicke fayth of Christ taught from the first beginning and neuer corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers And where you say that one thing is but one substaunce sauing onelye in the person of Christ your teaching is vntrue not onely in the person of Christ but also in euery man who is made of ij substaunces the body and soule And if you had beene learned in philosophy you would haue founde your saying false also in euery corporall thing which consisteth of ij substaunces of the matter and of the forme And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament So vntrue it is that you moste vainely boast here that your doctrine hath bene taught in all ages and bene the catholicke faith which was neuer the catholique but onely the Papisticall fayth as I haue euidentlye proued by holy scripture and the old catholick authors wherein truely and directly you haue not aunswered to one Winchester In whose particular words although there may be sometime cauillations yet I will note to the reader foure marks and tokens imprinted rather in those olde authors deeds then wordes which be certayne testimonies to the truth of their fayth of the reall presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguing vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacrament wherein I note not the particuler sentences which sometime be daungerous speches but their whole doinges As Irene who was in the beginning of the church argueth agaynst the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh whome Irene reproueth by the féeding of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified fleshe of Christ in the Sacrament which flesh and â—t be there but in a figure then it should haue proued the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratiuely And if the Catholicke fayth had not bene then certainely taught and constantly beleued without varience Christes very flesh to be indeede eaten in that mistery it would haue beene aunswered of the heretickes if had bene but a figure but that appeareth not and the other appeareth which is a testimony to the truth of matter indéed Hylary reasonyng of the naturall coniunction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to come to passe by the receiuyng truely the very flesh of our Lord in our Lordes meate and thereupon argueth agaynst the Arrians which Arrians if it had not bene so really in déede would haue aunswered but all was spiritually so as there was no such naturall and corporall Communion in déede as Hylary supposed but as this author teacheth a figure and it had bene the Catholicke doctrine so that argument of Hylary had bene of no force Saint Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to conuince the Appolinaristes and Eutichians which were none argument if Christes very body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the Godhead is in the person of Christ beyng the effect of the argument this that as the presence of Christes body in this mistery doth not alter the propertie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie which agaynst those heretickes serued for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous arguyng to be embraced of the Nestorians who would hereby haue furthered their heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they would haue sayd As the earthly and heauenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanitie and Godhead not vnited in Christ which is false and in the comparynges we may not looke that all should aunswere in equalitie but onely for the point that it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanitie by his Godhead and yet we may not say that as in the Sacrament be but onely accidents of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidentes of the humanitie For that mistery requireth the whole truth of maÌ„s nature and therfore Christ tooke vpon him the whole man body and soule The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidentes onely beyng the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ. And this I write to preuent such cauillations as some would search for But to returne to our matter all these argumentes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very body as the celestiall part of the Sacrament beyng the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remayneth in the former proprietie with the very presence of the celestiall thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke Caunterbury AS for your foure markes tokens if you marke them well you shall perceaue most manifestly your ignorauÌ„ce and errour how they note and appoint as it were with their fingers your doctrine to be erronious as well of Transubstantiation as of the reall presence And to begyn with your first marke Irenee in deede proued the resurrection of our bodyes vnto eternall lyfe bycause our bodyes be nourished with the euerlastyng foode of Christes body And therfore as that foode is euerlastyng so it beyng ioyned vnto his eternall deitie giueth to our bodies euerlastyng lyfe And if the beyng of Christes body in any creature should geue the same lyfe then it might peraduenture be thought of some fooles that if it were in the bread it should giue life to the bread But
could deuise to deliuer some from Purgatory and some from hell if they were not there finally by God determined to abyde as they termed the matter to make rayne or faire wether to put away the plague and other sicknesses both from man and beast to halow and preserue them that went to Ierusalem to Rome to S. Iames in Compostella and other places in pilgrimage for a preseruatiue agaynst tempest and thunder agaynst perils and daungers of the Sea for a remedy agaynst moraine of cattell agaynst pensiuenesse of the hart agaynst all maner affliction and tribulations And finally they extoll their Masses far aboue Christes passion promising many thynges thereby which were neuer promised vs by Christes passion As that if a man heare Masse hee shall lacke no bodily sustenaunce that day nor nothyng necessary for him nor shal be letted in his iourney he shall not lose his sight that day nor dye no sodaine death he shall not waxe old in that time that he heareth Masse nor no wicked spirites shall haue power of him be he neuer so wicked a man so long as he looketh vpon the Sacrament All these foolish and deuilish superstitions the Papistes of their owne idle brayne haue deuised of late yeares which deuises were neuer knowen in the old Church And yet they cry out agaynst them that professe the Gospell and say that they dissent from the Church and would haue them to folow the example of their Church And so would they gladly do if the Papistes would folow the first Church of the Apostles which was most pure and incorrupt but the Papistes haue clearely varied frō the vsage and exāples of that Church and haue inuented new deuises of their own braynes and will in no wise cōsent to folow the primitiue Church and yet they would haue other to folow their Church vtterly variyng and dissentyng from the first most godly Church But thankes be to the eternall God the maner of the holy Communion which is now set forth within this Realme is agreable with the institution of Christ with Saint Paule and the old primitiue and Apostolicke Church with the right fayth of the Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse for our redemption and with the true doctrine of our saluation iustification and remission of all our sinnes by that onely sacrifice Now resteth nothyng but that all faithfull subiectes will gladly receiue and embrace the same beyng sory for their former ignoraunce and euery man repentyng him selfe of his offences agaynst God and amendyng the same may yeld him selfe wholly to God to serue and obey him all the dayes of his lyfe and often to come to the holy Supper whiche our Lord and Sauiour Christ hath prepared And as he there corporally eateth the very bread and drinketh the very wine so spiritually he may feede of the very fleshe and bloud of Iesu Christ his Sauiour and redeemer remembryng his death thankyng him for his benefites and lookyng for none other sacrifice at no priestes handes for remission of his sinnes but onely trustyng to his sacrifice which beyng both the high priest and also the Lambe of God prepared from the begynnyng to take away the sinnes of the world offered vp him selfe once for euer in a sacrifice of sweete smell vnto his Father and by the same payd the raunsome for the sinnes of the whole worlde Who is before vs entred into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his Father as a patron mediatour and intercessour for vs. And there hath prepared places for all them that be lyuely members of his body to reigne with him for euer in the glory of his father to whom with him and the holy Ghost be glory honour and prayse for euer and euer Amen Thus hauing rehearsed the whole wordes of my last booke I shall returne to your issue and make a ioynder or demurre with you therein And if you can not proue your propitiatory Sacrifice of the Priestes by Petrus Lombardus and Nicene Councell then must you confesse by your owne Issue that the Uerdite must iustly passe agaynst you and that you haue a fall in your own suite As for the sacrifice of laudes and thakesgeuyng I haue set it forth playnly in my booke but the sacrifice propitiatory deuised to be made by the priest in the Masse onely is a great abhominatiō before God how glorious soeuer it appeare befor◠men And it is set vp onely by Antichrist and therefore worthy to be abhorred of all that truely professe Christ. And first as concerning Nicene counsell because you begin with that first I will rehearse your wordes Winchester Fyrst to begin with the counsell of Nice the same hath opened the mistery of the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ in this wise that christen men beleue the Lamb that taketh away the sinnes of the world to be situate vpon Gods woorde and to be sacrificed of the priestes not after the manner of other sacrifices This is the doctrine of the counsell of Nice and must then be called an holy doctrine and thereby a true doctrine consonant to the scriptures the foundation of all trueth If the author will deny this to haue bene the teaching of the counsell of Nice I shal alleadge therefore the allegation of the same by Decolampadius who being an aduersary to the truth was yet by Gods prouidence ordered to beare testimony to the truth in this poynt and by his meane is published to the world in greeke as followeth which neuerthelesse may otherwise appeare to be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum pannem poculum sed mente exaltata fide intilligamus situm esse in sacra illa mensa illum Dei agnum qui tollit peccata mundi sacrificatum à sacerdotibus non victimarum more mos preciosum illius corpus sanguinem verè sumentes credere haec esse resurrectionis nostrae Symbola Ideo enim non multum accipimus sed parum vt cognoscamus quoniam non in satietatem sed sanctificationem These wordes may be englished thus Agayne in this godly table we should not in base and low consideration direct our vnderstanding to the bread and cup set forth but hauing our mind exalted we should vnderstand by fayth to be situate in that table the Lamb of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world sacrificed of the priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices and we receiuing truely the precious body and bloud of the same Lamb to beleue these to be the tokens of our resurrection And for that we receiue not much but a litle because we should know that not for saturity and filling but for sanctification This holy counsel of Niece hath bene beleued vniuersally in declaration of the mistery of the Trinity and the Sacramentes also And to them that confesse that counsell to be holy as the author here doth and
his death indeed So in the Lords supper according to his commaundement we remember his death preaching and commending the same vntill his return agayne at the last day And although it be one Christ that died for vs and whose death we remember yet it is not one sacrifice that he made of himselfe vpon the crosse and that we make of him vpon the alter or table For his sacrifice was the redemption of the world ours is not so his was death ours is but a remēbraunce thereof Hys was the taking away the shines of the world ours is a praising and thanking for the same and therefore his was satisfactory ours is gratulatory It is but one christ that was offred thē that is offred now yet the offeringes be diuers his was the thing and ours is the figure His was the originall and ours is as it were a patterne Therefore concludeth Lombardus that Christ was otherwise offered then and otherwise now And seing then that the offeringes and sacrifices be diuers if the first was propitiatory and satisfactory ours cannot be so except we shall make many sacrifices propitiatory And then as S. Paule reasoneth either the first must be insufficient or the other in vayne And as Christ onely made thys propitiatory sacrifice so he made but one and but once For the making of any other or of the same agayne should haue beene as S. Paule reasoneth a reprouing of the first as vnperfect and insufficient And therefore at his last supper although Christ made vnto his father sacrifices of lauds and thankesgeuing as these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do declare yet he made there no sacrifice propitiatory for then either the sacrifice vpon the crosse had bene voyd or the sacrifice at the supper vnperfect and vnsufficient And although he had at his supper made sacrifices propitiatory yet the priests do not so who do not the same that Christ did at his supper For he ministred not the sacrament in remembrannce of his death which was not then brought to passe but he ordained it to be ministred of vs in remembraunce thereof And therfore our offering after Lombardus iudgement is but remembraunce of that true offering wherein Christ offered himselfe vpon the crosse And so did Christ institute it to be And Lombardus sayth not that Christ is dayly offered for proportion of our sinnes but because we dayly sinne wee dayly bee put in the remembraunce of Christes death which is the perfect proportion for sinne And the priest as Lombardus sayth maketh a memoriall of that oblation of Christ and as Hesechius sayth he doth in the name of the people so that the sacrifice is no more the priestes then the peoples For the priestes speak the wordes and the people should aunswere amen as Iustinus sayth The priest should declare the death and passion of Christ and all the people should looke vpon the crosse in the mount of Caluary see Christ there hanging and the bloud flowing out of his side into theyr wounds to heale all their sores and the priest and people altogether should laud and thanke instantly the Chyrurgion and Phiscycion of their soules And this is the priestes and peoples sacrifice not to be propitiators for sinne but as Emissene sayth to worship continually in mistery that was but once offered for the price of sinne and this shortly is the mind of Lombardus that the thing which is done at gods boord is a sacrifice so is that also which was made vpon the crosse but not after one manner of vnderstanding For this was the thing in deed and that is the anniuersary or commemoration of the thing And now haue I made it euident that Petrus Lombardus defaceth in no poynt my saying of the sacrifice but confirmeth fully my doctrine aswell of the sacrifice propitiatory made by Christ himselfe onely as of the sacrifice cōmemoratiue and gratulatory made by the preists and people So that in your issue taken vpon Lombard the verdit cannot but passe wyth me by the testimony of Lombard himselfe And yet I do not fully allow Lombardes iudgement in all matters who with Gratian his brother as it is sayd were ij chiefe champiōs of the Romish sea to spread abroad their errours and vsurped authority but I speake of Lombard onely to declare that yet in his tyme they had not cited so farre to make of theyr was a sacrifice propitiatory But in the end of this processe Lōbard speaketh with out the booke when he concludeth this matter thus that the virtue of this sacrament is the remission of veniall sin and perfection of vertue which if Lombard vnderstand of the sacrifice of Christ it is to little to make hys sacrifice the remission but of veniall sin And if he vnderstand it of the sacrifice of the priest it is to much to make the priests sacrifice either the perfection of vertue or the remission of veniall sinne which be the effects onely of the sacrifice of Christ. Now let vs consider the rest of your confutation Winchester The catholicke doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christes most precious body and bloud to be an iteration of the once perfited sacrifice on the crosse but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice and sheweth it also before the faythfull eyes and refresheth the effectuall memory of it so as in the dayly sacrifice without shedding of bloud we may sée with the eye of fayth the very body and bloud of Christ by Gods mighty power without diuision distinctly exhibits the same body and bloud that suffered and was shed for vs which is a timely memoriall to stir vp our fayth and to consider therin briefly the great charity of God towardes vs declared in Christ. The catholick doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to be in the same in essence that was offered on the crosse once assured therof by Christs wordes when he sayd This is my body that shal be betrayed for you The offering on the crosse was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin whereby to destroy the tyranny of sinne the effect whereof is geuen and dispensed in the sacrament of baptisme once likewise ministred and neuer to be iterate no more then Christ can be crucified agayne and yet by vertue of the same offering such as fall be releued in the sacrament of penaunce Caunterbury After you wilfull wrangling without any cause at the last of your own swing you come to the truth purely and sincerely professing and setting forth the same except in few wordes here and there cast in as it were cockle among cleane corne The offering on the crosse say you was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin the effect whereof is geuen and dispensed in the sacrament of baptisme once likewise ministred and neuer to be iterate but the catholick doctrine teacheth not that the dayly sacrifice is an
iteration of the once perfited sacrifice on the crosse but a representation thereof shewing it before the faith full eies and refreshing our memory therewith so that we may see with the eie of faith the very body and bloud of Christ by gods mighty power exhibite vnto vs the same body and bloud that suffered and was shed for vs This is a godly and catholicke doctrine but of the cokcle which you cast in by the way of distinction without diuision I cannot tell what you meane except you speak out your dreames more playnely And that it is the same body in substaunce that is dayly as it were offered by remembraunce which was once offered in the Crosse for sinne we learne not so playnly by these wordes This is my body Hoc est corpus meum as we do by these Hic Iesus assumptus est in coelum and Qui descendit ipse est qui ascendit suprae omnes coelos This Iesus was taken vp into heauen and he that descended was the same Iesus that ascended aboue all the heauens And where you say that by vertue of Christes sacrifice such as fal be releued in the Sacrament of penaunce the truth is that such as do fall be releued by Christ when so euer they returne to him vnfaynedly with hart and mynde And as for your wordes concernyng the Sacrament of penaunce may haue a Popishe vnderstandyng in it But at length you returne to your former errour and goe about to reuoke or at the least euill fauoredly to expounde that which you haue before well spoken Your wordes be these Winchester The dayly offeryng is propitiatory also but not in that degrée of propitiation As for redemption regeneration or remission of deadly sinne which was once purchased by force therof is in the Sacramentes ministred but for the increase of Gods fauour the mitigation of Gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities the subduyng of temptations and the perfection of vertue in vs. All good workes good thoughtes and good meditations may be called sacrifices and the same be called sacrifices propitiatorie also for so much as in their degrée God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christes death which is the reconciliation betwene God and maÌ„ ministred dispensed particularly as God hath appointed in such measure as he knoweth But S. Paule to the Hebrues exhortyng men to charitable déedes sayth with such sacrifices God is made fauorable or God is propitiate if we shall make new Englishe Whereupon it foloweth bycause the Priest in the dayly sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for she wyng forth and remembraunce of Christes death that act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must néedes be propitiatory and prouoke Gods fauour and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect with God to the members of Christes body particularly beyng the same done for the whole body in such wise as God knoweth the dispeÌ„sation to be méete conuenient accordyng to which measure God worketh most iustly and most mercyfully otherwise then man can by his iudgement discusse determine To call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstandyng that signifieth not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christes most precious body and bloud the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered beyng propitiatorie and satisfactorie for all the world or els the worde satisfactorie must haue a signification and meanyng as it hath sometyme that declareth the acceptation of the thyng done and not the propre contreuaile of the action after which sort man may satisfie God that is so mercyfull as he will take in good worth for Christes sake maÌ„s imperfect endeuour and so the dayly offering may be called a sacrifice satisfactory bicause God is pleased with it beyng a maner of worshyppyng of Christes passion accordyng to his institution But otherwise the dayly sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest called satisfactorie and it is a word in déede that soundeth not well so placed although it might be saued by a signification and therfore thinke that word rather to be well expounded then by captious vnderstandyng brought in slaunder when it is vsed and this speach to be frequented that the onely immolatâ—on of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God And I haue read the dayly sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a Sacrifice satisfactorie but this speach hath in déede bene vsed that the Priest should sing satisfactorie which they vnderstode in the satisfaction of the Priestes duety to attend he prayer the was required to make and for a distinction therof they had prayer sometyme required without speciall limitation and that was called to pray not satisfactorie Finally in man by any his action to presume to satisfie God by way of counteruaile is a very mad and furious blasphemy Caunterbury TO defend the Papisticall errour that the dayly offering of the Priest in the Masse is propitiatory you extend the word Propitiation other wise then the Apostles do speakyng of that matter I speake playnly accordyng to S. Paule and S. Iohn that onely Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes by his death You speake accordyng to the Papistes that the Priestes in their Masses make a sacrifice propitiatory I call a sacrifice propitiatory accordyng to the Scripture such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods indignation agaynst vs obteineth mercy and forgiuenes of all our sinnes and is our raunsome and redemption from euerlastyng damnation And on the other side I call a sacrifice gratificatory of the sacrifice of the Church such a sacrifice as doth not reconcile vs to God but is made of them that be reconciled to testifie their dueties and to shewe them selues thankefull vnto him And these sacrifices in Scripture be not called propitiatory but sacrifices of Iustice of laude prayse and thankes geuyng But you confounde the wordes and call one by an others name callyng that propitiatory whiche the Scripture calleth but of Iustice laude and thankyng And all is nothyng els but to defend your propitiatory sacrifice of the Priestes in their Masses whereby they may remit sinne and redeeme soules out of Purgatory And yet all your wyles and shiftes will not serue you for by extendyng the name of a propitiatory sacrifice vnto so large a signification as you do you make all maner of Sacrifices propitiatory leauyng no place for any other sacrifice For say you all good deedes and good thoughtes be Sacrifices propitiatorie and then be the good workes of the lay people Sacrifices propitiatorie as well as those of the Priest And to what purpose then made you in the begynnyng of this booke a distinction betwene sacrifices propitiatorie and other Thus for desire you haue to defend the Papisticall errours you haue not fallen
moreouer that Christ him selfe commeth downe vpon the child apparelleth him with his own selfe And as at the Lordes holy Table the Priest distributeth wine bread to feede the body so we must thinke that inwardly by fayth we see Christ feedyng both body and soule to eternall lyfe What comfort can be deuised any more in this world for a Christē man And on the other side what discomfort is in your papisticall doctrine what doubtes what perplexities what absurdities what iniquities what auayleth it vs that there is no bread nor wyne or that Christ is really vnder the formes and figures of bread and wyne and not in vs or if he be in vs yet he is but in the lippes or the stomacke and tarieth not with vs. Or what benefite is it to a wicked man to eate Christ and to receaue death by him that is lyfe From this your obscure perplex vncertaine vncomfortable deuilish and Papisticall doctrine Christ defend all his and graunt that we may come often and worthely to Christes holy Table to comfort our feeble and weake fayth by remembraunce of his death who onely is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sinnes and our meate drinke and foode of euerlastyng lyfe Amen Here endeth the Aunswere of the most Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury c. vnto the crafty and Sophisticall cauillation of Doct. Steuen Gardiner deuised by him to obscure the true sincere and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST THE Aunswere of Thomas Archebishop of Caunterbury c. agaynst the false calumniations of doctour Richard Smith who hath taken vpon him to confute the defence of the true catholik doctrine of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. I Haue now obtayned gentle reader that thing which I haue much desired which was that if all men would not imbrace the truth lately set forth by me concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ at the least some man would vouchsafe to take penne in hand and write against my booke bicause that therby the truth might both better be serched out and also more certaynly knowen to the world And herein I hartely thanke the late Bishop of Winchester and doctor Smith who partely haue satisfied my long desire sauing that I would haue wished aduersaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures more exercised in the olde auncient ecclesiasticall authors and hauing a more godly zeale to the triall out of the truth than are these two both being crafty sophisters the one by art and the other by nature both also being drowned in the dregges of papistry brought vp and confirmed in the same the one by Duns and Dorbell and such like Sophisters the other by the Popish Canon law wherof by his degree taken in the uniuersity he is a professor And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester I will declare his craftye Sophistications in myne aunswere vnto his booke But doctour Smith as it appeareth by the title of his preface hath craftely deuised an easy way to obtayne his purpose that the people being barred from the serching of the truth might be stil kept in blindnes and errour as wel in this as in al other matters wherin they haue bene in times past deceaued He seeth full well that the more diligently matters be serched out and discussed the more clearly the craft and falsehode of the subtill Papistes will appeare And therfore in the preface to the reader he exhorteth all men to leaue disputing and resoning of the fame by learning and to giue firme credite vnto the church as the title of the sayd preface declareth manifestly As who should say the truth of any matter that is in question might be tryed out without debating and reasoning by the word of God wherby as by the true touchstone all mens doctrines are to be tryed and examined But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light and to be tryed to the vttermost For as pure golde the more it is tryed the more pure it apeareth so is all manner of truth Where as on the other side all maskers counterfayters and false deceiuors abhorre the light and refuse the triall If all men without right or reason would geue credite vnto this Papist and his Romish church agaynst the most certayne word of God and the olde holye and Catholicke Churche of Christ the matter should be soone at an end and out of all controuersie But for as muche as the pure word of God and the first church of Christ from the beginning taught the true catholike fayth and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the cleane contrary the chaffe can not be tryed out from the pure corne that is to say the vntruth discerned from the very truth without threshing windowing and fanning serching debating and reasoning As for me I ground my beleefe vpon gods word wherin can be no errour hauing also the consent of the primatiue church requiring no man to beleue me further then I hane gods word for me But these Papistes speake at their pleasure what they lift and would be beleeued without godes word bicause they beare men in hand that they be the church The church of Christ is not founded vpon it selfe but vppon Christ and his word but the Papistes build their church vpon them selues deuising new articles of the fayth from tyme to tyme without any scripture and founding the same vpon the Pope and his cleargy monkes and fryers and by that meanes they be both the makers and Iudges of their fayth themselues Wherfore this Papist like a politike man doth right wisely prouide for himselfe and his church in the first entry of his booke that all men should leaue searching for the truth and sticke hard and fast to the church meaning himselfe and the church of Rome For from the true catholike church the Romish church which he accomteth catholike hath varied and dissented many yeares passed as the blindest that this day do liue may well see and perceaue if they will not purposely winke and shut vp their eyes This I haue written to answere the title of his preface NOw in the beginning of the very preface it selfe when this great doctor should recite the wordes of Ephesine counsell he translateth them so vnlearnedly that if a young boy that had gone to the grammer schole but thre yeres had done no better he should scant haue escaped some scholemasters handes with sixierkes And beside that he doth it so craftily to serue his purpose that he cannot be excused of wilfull deprauation of the wordes calling celebration an offering and referring the participle made to Christ which should be referred to the word partakers and leauing out those wordes that should declare that the sayd counsell spake of no propiciatory sacrifice in the Masse but of a sacrifice of laud and thankes which christen people geue vnto God
vntill the Papistes did transforme and transubstantiate the chiefe articles of our christen fayth Thus is an aunswere made vnto the false calumniations of Smith in the preface of his book or rather vnto his whole booke which is so full of bragging boasting slaundering misreporting wrangling wrasting false construing and lying that those taken out of the booke there is nothing worthy in the whole book to be aunswered Neuertheles in answering to the late byshop of Winchesters book I shall fully aunswere also D. Smith in all points that require aunswere And so with one answere shal I dispatch them both And in some places where one of thē varieth from an other as they do in many great matters in the chiefe and principall poynts I shall set them together Bithum cum Bachio Esernium cum Pacidiano to try which of them is more stout and valiaunt to ouerthrow the other ¶ Here endeth the aunswere vnto the Preface of M. Smithes booke which he wrote agaynst the defence of the true and catholicke doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST Matters wherein the Byshop of Winchester varyed from other Papistes OTher say That the body of Christ is made of bread He sayth that the body of Christ is not made of bread nor was neuer so taught but is made present of bread pag. 72. lin 14. pag. 178. lin 10. He sayth that Christ made the demonstratiō of the bread and called it his body when he sayd This is my body pag 257. lin 27. And in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. Other say contrary And Smith fol. 53. He sayth that This is my body is asmuch to say as this is made my body And so he taketh Est for fit pag. 295. lin 35. Other say that Est is taken there substantiue that is to say onely for is and not for is made Marcus Antonius fol. 171. facie 2 consideratione 6. He sayth that Christ is present in the Sacrament after the same maner that hee is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. Other say contrary that hee is in heauen after the maner of quantitie and that hee is not so in the Sacrament He sayth that where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man and that when we speake of Christ is body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie pag. 71. lin 37. Smith sayth that Christes body in the Sacrament hath not his proper forme and quantitie fol. 106. He sayth we beleue simply that Christes body is naturally and corporally in the Sacrament wihout drawyng away his accidences or addyng pag. 353. lin 1. Smith sayth we say that Christes body is in the Sacrament agaynst nature withall his qualities and accidentes fol. 105. He sayth that Gods workes be all seemelynes without confusion although he cā not locally distinct Christes head frō his foote nor his legges from his armes pag. 70. lin 27. Other say that Christes head and foote and other partes be not in deed loccally distinct in the Sacrament but be so confounded that where soeuer one is there be all the rest They teach that the body of Christ is made of bread he sayth it was neuer so taught pag. 79. lin 6. c. He sayth that Christes body is the Sacrament sensibly naturally carnally and corporally pag. 159. lin 9. c. Other say contrary Smith fol. 39. Other say that Christes feete in the Sacrament be there where his head is He sayth that who soeuer say so may be called mad pag. 61. lin 34. He sayth that Christes body is in the Sacrament naturally and carnally pag. 156. lin 6. Other say that corporally Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke and no further He sayth contrary pag. 52. lin 36. He saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in him that receiueth the Sacrament worthely so long as hee remaineth a member of Christ pag. 53. lin 1. pag. 56. lin 31. c. Other say contrary but that Christ flyeth vp into heauen so soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke Smith fol. 64. pag. 65. lin 2. 25. He sayth that no creature can eate the body of Christ but onely man pag. 66. lin 30. Other say cleane contrary He saith that an vnrepentaunt sinner receauyng the Sacrament hath not Christes body nor spirite within him pag. 225. lin 36. Smith saith that he hath Christes body and spirite within him fol. 136. He sayth that of the figure it may not be said Adore it worship it that is not to be Adored which the bodily eye seeth pag. 178. lin 40. pag. 239 lin 32. Marcus Antonius fol. 176. fa. 2. Smith sayth contrary fol. 145. fa. 2. He sayth that reason will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well inough pag. 264. lin 47. Smith sayth that Transubstantiation is agaynst reason and naturall operation fol. 60. Other say that wormes in the Sacrament be gendred of accidences He sayth that the be wrong borne in hand to say so pag. 355. lin 3. He sayth that the accidences of bread and wine do mould sowre and waxe vineger pag. 265. lin 11. 355. lin 8. And Marcus fol. 168. fa. 1. Smith sayth thus I say that the consecrated wine turneth not into vineger nor the consecrated bread mouleth nor engendreth wormes nor is burned nor receiueth into it any poyson as long as Christes body bloud are vnder the formes of them which do abide there so long as the naturall qualities properties of bread wine tary there in their naturall disposition and condition that the bread and wine might be naturally there if they had not bene chaunged into Christes body and bloud and also as long as the hoste and consecrated wine are apt to be receiued of man and no longer but goe and depart thence by Gods power as it pleaseth hym And then a new substaunce is made of God which turneth into vineger engendreth wormes mouleth is burned feedeth men and myse receiueth poyson c. fol. 64. 105. He sayth euery yea conteineth a nay in it naturally so as who soeuer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine For in the rule of common reason the graunt of one substaunce is the deniall of an other And therfore reason hath these conclusions throughly what soeuer is bread is no wyne what soeuer is wine is no milke c. So Christ saying This is my body sayth it no bread pag. 256. lin 38. pag. 265. lin 5. Smith sayth a boye which hath onely learned the Sophistry will not dispute so fondly fol. 77. Other say that the Masse is a sacrifice satisfactory by deuotion of the Priest and not by the thyng that is offered He sayth otherwise pag. 80. lin 43. He saith that the onely immolation of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankynd to the fauour of God pag. 437. lin 1.2 31. Smith sayth what
is it to offer Christes body and bloud at Masse to purchase thereby euerlastyng lyfe if it be not the Masse to be a Sacrifice to pacifie Gods wrath for sinne and to obtaine his mercy Smith fol. 24. 148. and .164 Priestes doe offer for our saluation to get Heauen to auoyde Hell fol. eodem ¶ Matters wherein the Byshop varied from him selfe THe body of Christ in the Sacramēt is not made of bread but is made present of bread pag. 79. lin 6. c. and pag. 202. lin 40. c. Of bread is made the body of Christ pag. 344. lin 8. The Catholicke fayth hath frō the beginnyng confessed truely Christes intent to make bread his body pag. 26. lin 40. Christ gaue that he made of bread pag. 257. lin 50. And of many breads is made one body of Christ pag. 144. lin 23. And fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ that is to say made the body of Christ pag. 295. lin 30. Christ spake playnly This is my body makyng demonstration of the bread when he sayd This is my body in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. I will passe ouer the phantasies of them who wrote the principall chief text This is my body from consecration of the Sacrament to the demonstration of Christes body c in the deuilish deuils Sophistry fol. 70. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 42. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine pag. 251. lin 8. Illis verbis hoc est Corpus meum substantia corporis significatur nec de pane quic quam intelligitur quum corpus de substantia sua nō aliena predicetur fol. 24. fa. 2. Mar Ant. Constant. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the litterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. What can be more euidently spoken of the presence of Christes naturall body and bloud in the most blessed Sacrament of the aultar than is in these wordes This is my body in the deuils Sophistry fol. 5. Where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quātitie pag. 71. lin 47. And he is present in the Sacrament as he is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. c. We beleue simply the substaunce of Christes body to be in the Sacrament without drawyng away of accidentes or adding pag. 353. lin 1. Christ is not present in the Sacrament after the maner of quantitie but vnder the forme and quantitie of bread and wine pag. 71. lin 50. pag. 90. lin 43. In such as receiue the Sacrament worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally and naturally and carnally pag. 166. lin 19. and pag. 173. lin 54. and pag. 191. lin 47. The maner of Christes beyng in the Sacrament is not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall pag. 159. lin 17. and pag. 197. lin 32. We receiue Christ in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receiue him worthely pag. 167. lin 9. and pag. 174. lin 1. When an vnrepentaunt sinner receiueth the Sacrament hee hath not Christes body within him pag. 225. lin 43. He that eateth verely the flesh of Christ is by nature in Christ Christ is naturally in him pag. 17. lin 38. c. An euill man in the Sacrament receiueth indeede Christes very body pag. eadem lin 7. Euill men eate verely the flesh of Christ pag. 225. lin 47. Christ geueth vs to be eaten the same flesh that hee tooke of the virgin pag. 241. lin 27. We receiue not in the Sacrament Christes body that was Crucified pag. 243. lin 16. Saint Augustines rule De doctrina Christiana pertaineth not to Christes Supper pag. 117. lin 21. The sixt of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made to the eatyng of a token of Christes flesh pag. 4. lin 40. S. Augustin meaneth of the sacrament pag. 119. lin 24. The sixt of Iohn must needes be vnderstand of corporall and sacramētall eatyng pag. 17. lin 48. Reason in place of seruice as beyng inferiour to fayth will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough pag. 265. lin 1. And as reason receiued into faithes seruice doth not striue with Transubstantiation but agreeth well with it so mans sences be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation as a matter whereof they can no skill for the sences can no skill of substaunces pag. 271. lin 24. c. Thine eyes say there is but bread and wyne Thy tast sayth the same Thy feelyng and smellyng agree fully with them Hereunto is added the carnall mans vnderstandyng which bycause it taketh the begynning of the senses proceedeth in reasonyng sensually in the deuils sophistry fol. 6. The Church hath not forborne to preache the truth to the confusion of mans senses and vnderstandyng fol. 15. It is called bread bycause of the outward visible matter pag. When it is called bread it is meant Christ the spirituall bread pag. 284. lin 25. The fraction is in the outward signe not in the body of Christ pag. 144. lin 39. and pag. 348. lin 21. And in the deuils sophistry fol. 17. That which is broken is the body of Christ pag. 348. lin 18. The inward nature of the bread is the substaunce pag. 286. lin 23. Substaunce signifieth the outward nature pag. 359. lin 22. The substaunces of bread and wine be visible creatures pag. 285. lin 48. and pag. 286. lin 44. Accidents be the visible natures and visible elementes pag. 363. lin 39. Christ is our satisfaction holy and fully and hath payde our whole debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his wrath agaynst vs pag. 81. lin 39. The act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must needes be propitiatory and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect pag. 437. lin 13. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wyne pag. 251. lin 8. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the literal sense hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. And it is a singular miracle of Christ vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their propre sense ibidem lin 21. The sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was neuer reiterate pag. 368. lin 46. Priestes do sacrifice Christ pag. 381. lin 42. c. And the Catholicke doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to bee the same in essence that was offered on the Crosse pag. 436. lin 11. The Nestorians graunted both the Godhead manhode alwayes to be in Christ continually pag. 309. lin 18. The Nestorians denyed Christ conceyued God or borne God but that he was afterward God as a mā that is not borne a Byshop is after made a Byshop So the Nestorians sayd that the Godhead was
an accession after by merite and that he was conceiued onely man pag. 309. lin 12. Christ vseth vs as familiarly as he did his Apostles pag. 83. lin 54. Christ is not to be sayd conuersaunt in earth pag. 101. lin 16. ¶ Concessa ON what part thou Reader seest craft slyght shift obliquitie or in any one poynt an open manifestly there thou mayst consider what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended pag. 12. lin 19. When Christ had taught of the eatyng of him selfe being the bread descended from heauen declaryng that eatyng to signifie beleuyng then hee entred to speake of the geuyng of his flesh to be eaten pag. 27. lin 7. Christ must be spiritually in a man before he receiue the sacrament or he can not receiue the sacrament worthely pag. 48. lin 46. and pag. 140. lin vltima and pag. 172. lin 28. and 181. lin 28. How Christ is present pag. 61. lin 10. and pag. 71. lin 41. and pag. 90. lin 44. pag. 57. lin 17. and pag. 197. lin 30. By fayth we know onely the beyng present of Christes most precious body not the maner therof pag. 61. lin 43. What we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie pag. 71. lin 34. Although Christes body haue all those truth of forme and quantitie yet it is not present after the maner of quantitie pag. 71. lin 37. For the worthy receiuing of Christ we must come endued with Christ and clothed with him seemely in that garment pag. 92. lin 31. Really that is to say verely truly and in deede not in phantasie or imagination pag. 140. lin 21. All the old prayers and ceremonies sounde as the people did communicate with the Priest pag. 145. lin 9. Really and sensibly the old Authors in syllables vsed not for somuch as I haue read but corporally naturally they vsed speakyng of this sacrament pag. 155. lin 13. Christ may be called sensibly present pag. 155. lin 26. pag. 159. lin 10. By fayth Christ dwelleth in vs spiritually pag. 158. lin 16. Our perfect vnitie with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christ bodily and naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode pag. 166. lin 30. c. and pag. 17. lin 34. Euill men eate the body of Christ but sacramentally and not spiritually pag. 222. lin 47. Christes flesh in the sacrament is geuen vs to eate spiritually and therfore there may be no such imaginations to eate Christes body carnally after the maner hee walked here nor drinke his bloud as it was shed vpon the Crosse but spiritually vnderstanded it giueth lyfe pag. 241. lin 18. To eate onely in faith is specially to remember Christes flesh as it was visibly Crucified pag. 243. lin 28. We eate not Christ as he sitteth in heauen reignyng pag. 243. lin 32. The word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authoritie in a generall Counsell where the Byshop of Rome was present pag. 250. lin 28. The word Nature signifieth both the substaunce and also propertie of the nature pag. 291. lin 27. The sensible thyng after the capacitie of common vnderstandyng is called substaunce but the inward nature in learnyng is properly called substaunce pag. 338. lin 31. In common bread the substaunce is not broken at all pag. 257. lin 32. The Catholicke doctrine teacheth not the dayly sacrifice of Christes most precious body and bloud to be an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the crosse but a sacrifice that representeth the sacrifice and sheweth it also before the faythfull eyes pag. 386. lin 20. The effect of the offeryng on the Crosse is geuen and dispensed in the Sacrament of Baptisme pag. 386. lin 30. By vertue of the same offeryng on the Crosse such as fall be releued in the sacrament of penaunce pag. ead lin 16. The dayly sacrifice of the Churche is also propitiatory but not in that degree of propitiation as for redēption regeneration or remission of deadly sinne which was once purchased and by force thereof is in the Sacramentes ministred but for the increase of Gods fauour the mitigation of Gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities the subduyng of temptations and the perfection of vertue in vs. pag. 387. lin 15. c. All good workes good thoughtes and good meditations may be called sacrifices sacrifices propitiatory also for asmuch as in their degree God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christes death pag. ead lin 19. c. To call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstandyng that signifieth not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christs most precious body and bloud the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered beyng propitiatory and satisfactory for all the worlde pag. eadem lin 43. c. Or els the word satisfactory must haue a signification and meanyng that declareth the acception of the thyng done and not the propre counteruaile of the action For otherwise the dayly sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest can not be called satisfactory and it is a worde in deede that soundeth not well so placed although it might be saued by a signification pag. eadem lin 46. c. I thinke this speach to be frequēted that the onely immolatiō of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankynd to the fauour of God pag. ead lin 50. I haue not read the dayly sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory pag eadem lin 52. But this speach hath in deede bene vsed that the Priest should sing satisfactory which they vnderstode of the satisfaction of the Priestes duety to attend the prayer he was required to make Ibid. lin 53. In the sacrifice of the Church Christes death is not iterated but a memory dayly renewed of that death so as Christes offeryng on the Crosse once done and consumate is now onely remembred pag. 391. lin 5. The same body is offered dayly on the aultar that was once offered vpon the Crosse but the same maner of offeryng is not dayly that was on the aultar of the Crosse. For the dayly offeryng is without bloudshedyng and is termed so to signifie that bloudshedyng once done to be sufficient pag. eadem lin 8. c. ¶ Matters wherein the Byshop varyeth from the truth and from the old Authours of the Church IF we eate not the fleshe of the sonne of man we haue not lyfe in vs bycause Christ hath ordered the Sacrament c. pag. 17. lin 12. When Christ sayd Take eate this is my body he fulfilled that which he promised in the vj. of Iohn that he would geue his flesh for the lyfe of the world pag. 27. lin 28. Mar. Ant. fol. 168. When Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothyng he spake
Papistes 396 Fayth true was in the Churche from the begynnyng 405 Falsehode feareth light 395 Fathers in the old law receaued the same Sacrament as we 58.75 Figure or signification founde in Scripture 10.11 Figures haue the names of the thynges signified .124 235. they require not the presence of the thynges signified 306 Figuratiue speaches especially vsed in Scripture concernyng the Sacramentes 135 Forme what it meaneth 267 Forme visible what it is 268 G. GAmaliel his counsell 6.7 God his omnipotency in the Sacrament 8. 29. 30 H. HEretiques concernyng Christes two Natures 294. Holynesse in the Sacrament wherein it standeth 156.187 I. IAcob in that he sought by his mothers aduise to resemble Esau is not a figure of Christes humanitie 260 Impanation 267 Infusion 333 Ionas 15 Ione of Kent 78 L. LVther 7.11 M. MAma 229 Masse priuate how fondly proued by Gardiner .150 the sacrifice therof .371 it is not propitiatory .373.378 it is detestable .375 the Papistes argumentes for it confuted .378 neuer vsed in the primatiue Church .378 the abuse therof 379 Materia prima 350 N. NAmes chaungyng 292.218 Nature of two significations 292 Negotions by comparison 335 Nestorius his errour 20.176 Nicolas 2. Pope his fleshly constitution of the Sacrament 114 O. ONe thyng one substaunce 362 Onely one singular 87 P. PAnes propositionis wherof they be figures 203 Papistes their foure principall erroure .42 they vary among them selues .73 their fayth of the Sacrament and the true fayth how they differre 49.50.51 Powryng 332 Presence by fayth requireth no corporall presence 316 Priest and lay men how they differre 376 Promises of God vnder condition 216 Prosperitie no note of true doctrine 7.8 R. REall presence proueth no Transubstantiation .253 in the formes it is vnprofitable and vncōfortable 300 Really what it is 70 Really and sensibly is not founde in any old writers 156 Receaue how we ought 143. 148. 208. 228 Receauer in him is reall conuersion 287 Reseruation 58 Romish Church not the mother of the Catholicke fayth 12.13 S. SAcramentes their true effect .10 the Papistes errours therein .42 their names why chaunged .360 they differre in the old and new Testament 75 Sacrament of Christes body the eatyng therof .23 why ordayned .25 37. 39. it is no miracle .29 30. why ordayned in bread and wine .38 the doctrine therof how different betwene Papistes Protestantes .49 50. as soone as it is eaten Christes body goeth into heauen .53 in it remayneth not two natures .300 what is to be wōdered at therto .65 194. 367. it is to be reuerenced not worshypped .134.239 the misterie and holynesse therof wherein it standeth .156.242 the true doctrine therof simple and playne .351 the true administration therof .362 it must not be receaued of one for an other .375 it goeth into the diuine substaunce to the worthy receauer 316 Sacrament the word is of two significations 212 Sacramentall mutation 346 Sacrifices art of two kyndes .372 differre in the old and new law 371 Sacrifice of Christ and ours how they differe 385 Sacrifice propitiatorie of Christ what it is .370 the effect therof 391 Sacrifice of the Church dayly what .89 9◠372. 385. it consisteth of two thynges .300 wherein it standeth 391. 397 Sacrifice of all Christian people what .374 aswell made by a lay man as a Priest 378 Sacrifice propitiatory and gratificatory how they differre 388 Sacrifices deuised by Winchester 87 Salomons iudgement in the child 94 Schole Authours their deuotion 351 Sences may be deceiued in the Accidentes .275 they auayle to fayth and iudgyng of substaunces 278 Similitudes how farre they extend 300 Sinners whether they haue Christ within them 226 Smith his booke full of rayling .4 confuted .28 42. 44. his vayne distinctions .102 his nouelties in speach and doctrine .109 hee belyeth Ephesius Counsell and Cranmer .396 his argument of the doore and Sepulcher 403 Soule the hunger therof .35 and foode therof 36 Stercorametae their opinion 52 Substaunces more properly sene then their accidentes .274 they can not doe without accidentes 349 Sunne how it is present with vs on earth 92 Supper of the Lord the abuse therof .18 it geueth not lyfe to the receauer 32 T. THeodoretes Dialogue on the Sacrament 128 Transubstantiation subuerteth fayth .40 the Authours thereof .251.323 is at large confuted and is agaynst Gods word .253 agaynst all reason .263 agaynst all sence .171 it passeth the fondnesse of all Philosophers .268 it is no matter of fayth .276 it is contrary to the fayth of the old fathers .279 the Papistes reasons to proue it .324 Authours wrested for it .330 absurdities that follow thereon .338 Scripture doth not enforce a man to beleue it 353 V. VArietie a token of vncertaine doctrine 106 Unitie of Christes mysticall body through the Sacrament 39 Unitie with Christ how 166.191.175 W. WIcklesse 7 Winchester his booke is but frowardnesse armed with eloquence .1 his Sermon in defence of the Sacrament .2 why depriued of his estate and called before the Commissioners ibid. his subtletie and craft .2.5.46.64.101.303 his vntrue collection of Cranmers doctrine .3 his vntrue report .3 4. 9. 13. 15. 19. 31. his Catholicke fayth .4 but his doctrine not Catholicke .5 glad to seeke ayde of Luther .7 15. his aunswere to these speaches I am a doore a vyne 9. addeth to S. Augustine what hee listeth 22. confuted in his erroneous Exposition of the 6. of Iohn 20. confesseth Christ to be in the Sacrament after a spirituall maner .93 94. maketh two sortes of sacrifices .87 translated veritie for vertue .199 he accuseth the Euangelistes of disorder in the doctrine of the Sacrament .261 he calleth accidentes the nature of substaunce 275 ¶ FINIS AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Daye dwellyng ouer Aldersgate beneath Saint Martines Anno. 1580. Cum gratia Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis Sacrament Christes presence in the godly receiuer Math. 6. Math. 18. Iohn 6. The naming of the late Bishop of Winchester The reall presence of Chryst should proue no Transubstantiation of the bread and wine The great mercy benefits of God towards vs. The erronious doctrine of the papists obscuring the same The state of religion brought in by the papists Math. 15. The chiefe rootes of all errours What moued the author to write A warnyng geuen by the Authour Ierem. 51. Apoc. 14. 17. 18. Math. 11. 1. Pet. 2. Esay 53. Iohn 4. Thomas Cranmer Archb. of Canterbury Doct. Cranmer made Archb. of Cant. by kyng Henry Doct. Cranmer alwayes defended by kyng Henry Looke for the story at large in the booke of the Actes and Monumentes in the last Edition pag. 1752. Thomas Cranmer a Gentleman borne Thom. Crāmer first commyng to Cambridge◠Thomas Cranmer fellow of Iesus colledge Thom. Crāmer after the decease of his wife chosen agayne fellow into Iesus Colledge Doct. Cranmer publike examiner in Cambridge of them that were to proceede Friers in hatred with Doct. Cranmer Doct. Barret Doct. Cranmer sollicited to be fellow
of the Cardinalles Colledge in Oxford refused it Question of the kynges diuorce with Katherine Dowager Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe chief furtherers of the kynges diuorce Doct. Stephens D. Foxe Doct. Cranmer coÌ„ferryng together of the kynges cause Doct. Cranmers aunswere in the question of the kynges diuorce Doct. Cranmers deuise well lyked of The king troubled about the cause of his diuorce Doct. Cranmer sent for to the kyng in post Talke betwene the kyng and Doct. Cranmer The king troubled in coÌ„scieÌ„ce Doct. Cranmer excusing and disabling himselfe to the kyng Doct. Cranmer assigned by the kyng to searche the Scriptures in the cause of his diuorce The kyng first geuen to vnderstand that the Pope hath no authoritie to dispence with the word of God The kynges matter remoued from the popes Canon law to the triall of the Scriptures The kynges Mariage fouÌ„de by Gods word vnlawfull Doct. Cranmer with other sâ—nt to Rome Ambassadour to the Pope Arguing to the popes face that contrary to the word of God he had no power to dispense Doct. Cranmer made the popes Penitentiary Doct. Cranmer Ambassadour to the Emperour Conference betwene Byshop Cranmer and Cornelius Agrippa Doct. Cranmer made Archbyshop of Cant. 1. Tim. 3. Titus 1. The order of Doct. Cranmers study The gentle nature of Doctour Cranmer Doct. Cranmer stoute and constant in Gods cause Doct. Cranmer a stoute enemy agaynst the sâ—â— Articles Of this commyng of the I. Cromwell and the two Dukes to the Archbyshop ExaÌ„ple for Ecclesiasticall Pastours Archb. CraÌ„mer in displeasure about the imployng of Chauntrey landes The singular patience of this Archbyshop A story betwen the Archb. of Caunterbury a popish Priest his enemy The rayling of a popish Priest agaynst Doct. Cranmer Chersey â—â—yng for his kynseâ—â— to the Archb. The Priest sent for to the Archbyshop The Archbyshops wordes vnto the Parson The Priest coÌ„fesseth his fault to the Archb. The raâ—he tâ—â—ngeâ— of men sclaunderously speakyng â—uill by meÌ„ whoÌ„ they neuer knew nor saw before The Priestest aunswere The Masse Priest ignoraunt in the Scripture The giâ—e of popish Priests when they fauour not the Religion of a man they sclauÌ„der his person Euill will neuer sayd well The Archbyshop forgâ—â—eth and dismisseth the Priest The liberall doynges of this Archbyshop The Archbyshop clearyng all his debtes before his attainder The Archb. Cranmer euer constant in defence of Christs truth and Gospell The Archb. alone standeth in defence of the truth Bishop Heath and Byshop Skippe forsake the Archb. in the playne field The Archb. incensed by B. Heath and B. Skippe to geue ouer the defence of the Gospell The aunswere of the Archb. to Doct. Heath Skippe The Papistes busie to bryng the Archb. out of credit with the kyng The Archbyshop agayne accused to the kyng The kyng sent Syr Antony Deny at midnight for the Archb. The kynges wordes and aduise for the supportation of the Archbyshop The Archbyshops auÌ„swere to the kyng The kyngs fauourable care consideration towarde the Archb. of Cant. The kyng sendeth his â—â—gnet in the behalfe of the Archb. of Canterbury The Archbyshop beyng one of the Counsell made to staÌ„d at the Counsell chamber doore waityng Doct. Buttes the kings Phisition a frend of the Archb. The Archbyshop called before the Counsell The CouÌ„sel beyng set agaynst the Archb. hee sheweth the kyngs Kyng appealeth from them The kynges wordes to the Counsell in defence of the Archbyshop The Lordes of the Counsell glad to be freÌ„ds againe with the Archbyshâ—p The kyng a great supporter of Cranmer The Lord CroÌ„wels wordes to the Archbyshop The true and goâ—ly doctrine of the Sacrament in fiue bookes set forth by the Archb. of Canterbury An explication of StepheÌ„ Gardiner agaynst Cranmer Archbyshop of CaÌ„t. Manâ—taltameÌ„te repostum Iudicium paridis spraetaeque inniria matris Virg. AEneid 1. This Doctour Thornton was after the Byshop of Douer a cruell wicked persecuter This Byshop was Doctour Heath Byshop after of Yorkâ— Cranmer condemned of treason Cranmer released of treason and accused of heresie Cranmer had to Oxford Of this condeÌ„nation read in the last 〈◊〉 pag. 1554. The Archbyshop contented to recant Causes mouyng the Archbyshop to geue with the tyme. The Queenâ—s hart set agaynst Cranmer The Queene conferreth with Doct. Cole about Cranmers burnyng L. William of Thame L. ShaÌ„doys Syr Thomas Bridges Syr Iohn Browne appourted to be at Cranmers execution Cranmer writteth subscribeth the Articles with his owne handes Doct. Cranmer brought to D. Coles SerinoÌ„ Doct. Cranmer set vpoÌ„ a stage Doct. Coles Sermon deuided into three partes The summe effect of Doct. Coles Sermon at Oxford If Cole gaue this iudgement vpon Cranmer wheÌ„ hee had repented what iudgement is then to be geueÌ„ of Cole whiche alwayes hath pâ—â—dured in errour and neuer yet repented If all heretickes in England should be burned where should Doct. Cole haue bene ere now Lex non aequalitatis sed iâ—iquitatis No state in this earth so hye nor so sure but it may fall Doct. Cole encourageth the Archb. to take his death patiently 1. Cor. 10. Doct. Cole reioyseth in the Archbyshops conuersion bâ—t that reioysing lasted not long Dirâ—ges and Masses promised for Cranmers soule The teares of the Archb. Cranmer required to declare his fayth CraÌ„mer willing to declare his fayth The wordes of the Archb. to the people The Prayer of the Archb. The last words of exhortatioÌ„ of the Archb. to the people Exhortation to contempt of the world Exhortation to obedience Exhortation to brotherly loue Exhortation to rich meÌ„ of this world mouyng them to charitable almes Luke 18. 1. Iohn 3. The Archb. declareth the true coÌ„fession of his fayth without all colour or dissemblyng The Archb. reuoketh his former recantation and repenteth the same The Archb. refuseth the Pope as Christes enemy and Antichrist The Archb. standeth to his booke written agaynst Wincester The expectation of the Papistes deceaued The Popistes in a great chaffe agaynst the Archbyshop Cranmers aunswere to the Papistes Cranmer pulled downe from the stage Cranmer led to the fire The Archb. brought to the place of execution M. Ely refuseth to geue his haÌ„d to the Archb. The Archb. tyed to tht â—â—â—ke Cranmer putteth his right haÌ„d which subscribed first into the â—râ— The last wordâ— of Cranmer at his death The Friers lying report of Cranmer I would as much as may be do my due to the matter and him also The craft of winchester in the beginnyng The summe of the booke Because the author pretendeth a defence of the catholick faith it were reason to know what it is The effect of that this author calleth his faith Untrue report Bread wine water be not holy but holy tokens They be not bare tokens Christ is preseÌ„t in his sacramentes A catholike fayth Thus authors fayth hath no point of a catholike fayth Untrue report Scripture in letter fauoureth not thus autors fayth My doctrine is catholike by your owne description
1. Cor. 10. Ioh. 6. Ioh. 16. Heb. 7.9 10. Christ is spiritually present An issue No writer approued testifieth this authors faith The summe of the issue Outward teaching Your doctrine is not catholike by your owne description My issue I notable matter a man to be condemned by his owne former writinges Bertram confessed to be of this opinion This authors doctrine often reiected as false Actes v. My Catechisme Bertrame Berengarius Wickliffe Luther The Papistes haue bene the cause why the catholike doctrine hath bene hundered and hath not had good successe these late yeâ—es These wordes This is my body agre in sence with the rest of the scripture Vntrue report This author hath no wordes of scripture for the ground of his faith This is my body is no proper speach Gods omnipotencie Psal. 115. Rom. 9. An aunswer to the like speaches in apparance The fayth of this author is but to â—eleue a story The Lordes supper hath nâ— miracle in it by this authors vnderstanding No promise made to a token in the supper or in yâ— 6. of Iohn Iniury to baptisme Math. v â— Mark. vit Tokens be but tokens howsoeuer they be garnished with gay wordes without scripture For apparell pag. 30. numero 9. Untrue report Euery speciall sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a secret hiddeÌ„ truth Bread is not a vayn and bare token I warrant Ioh. 6. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10 A new teaching of onely figure How can â— fayth be called catholike that begunneth to be published nowe Marke 1. Tokens how to discern truth from falshood â— Reg. 3. A lesson of Salomons iudgement Truth nedeth no ayd of lies Truth loueth simplicity and playnnes The Church of Rome is not the true mother of the catholick fayth Absurda falsa The speaking of the true mother Rome to the mother of the papistical fayth The name of the Author great wherewith to put men to silence An impudent vntruth The sayth of the Sacrament in the Catechisme unproueth this Authors doctrine now Erasmus commendeth to the world the work of Algerus vpon the Sacrament The body of Christe hidden vnder the signes Erasmus would all to repent that follow Berengarius error Peter Martyr doth with lyes impugne the faith of the Sacrament An issue This Author would with the enuious words of papish oppresse the truth Foure manifest vntruthes The first vntruth that the faith of the reall presence to the faith of the papists Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Epinus Mine issue Cyrill and â—â—â—storius In baptisme we receaue Christs spirite to geue life in the Lords Supper we receaue his flesh bloud to continue life Chap. 1. The abuse of the Lordes supper Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. Iohn 6. The second vntrueth for verely meat translatyng very meat Origenes in Leuit. hom 7. Propterea er go caro cius verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus Et in Math. hom 12. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus verus est potus Hierom. in Eccle. cap. 3. Caro enim verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus August in Psal. 33. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus vere potus est Damas. lib. 4. ca. 14. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meus verus est potus Euthyimus in lo. cap. 9. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meas verus est potus The nature of a cuttil Plim lib. 9. ca. 29. Eccle. 37. Christ is verely and truely geueÌ„ in the Sacrament but yet spiritually Iohn 6 Cyrill Lanathematismo 11. Nestorius Iniury to baptisme Galat. 3 In the sixt chapiter of Iohn Christ spake not of corporall eating Iohn 6 Iohn 6. Iohn 8. Iohn 1. The 3. vntruth of the handling the wordes of S. Augustine Mine issue August in 10 an Tractat. 26. Eodem tract Aug. de Ciuit. lib. 21. cap. 25. worthely August de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 13. How Christes flesh is eaten Iohn 6. Cyprian in sermone de caena Domini August in Ioan. tra 26. Cap. 3. The eating of the Sacrament of his body Mat. 26. Marck 14. Luke 2â— 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 4. Christ called the materiall bread his body 1. Cor. 10. Marck vii 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 5. Euill men do eat the SacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 6. These thinges suffice for a christian mans faith concerning this Sacrament Cap. 7. The SacrameÌ„t which was ordayned to make loue and concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord Math. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. The 4. vntruth that by these words hoc est corpus meum Christ ment not to make the bread his body Neither Saint Paul nor the Euangelistes adde any words wherby to take away the signification of bread and wine The fourth vntruth the Christ intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body The variaunce between you Smith Against Smith Christ called bread his body Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. Ireneus Tertullianus Cyprianus Epiphanius Heironymus Augustinus Cyrillus Theodorus Gods miraculous workes in the Sacrament Imuty to baptisme Mine issue Gods omnipotency Mat. 16. Gen. 1. Eating signifieth beleeuing 3 vntruthes vttered by you in this one place The first Iohn 6. The secondâ— Iohn 6. The third That Christ fulfilled not his promise to geue vs life at his supper Iohn 6 Esay 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9. Gal. 6. Rom. 1. Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. Iohn 3. Gal. 3. Mat. 16. Marck 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. A warrant for apparrell Christes ambiguous speechess were not alwayes opened by the Euangelistes Luke 12. Luke 9. Iohn 12. 1 Math. 13. Psal. 77. This is my body is no proper speech Cap. 6. Cap. 9. The spirituall hunger thirstines of the soul. Eph. 2. Rom. 3 Psal. 41. Psal. 62. Rom. 4. Rom. 7. Rom. 8. Math. 5. Luke 1. Iohn 4. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. Cap. 10. Mat. 11. The spirituall foode of the soule Iohn 7. Iohn 6. Iohn 6. Gal. 2. Cap. 11. Christ farre excelleth all corporall foode Iohn 11. Cap. 12. The sacrameÌ„ts were ordayned to confirme our faith Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 13. Wherfore this sacrament was ordayned in bred and wine Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 14. The vnity of Christes misticall body 1. Cor. 10. Dionysios eccle Hie. cap. 31 Cap. 14. This sacrameÌ„t moueth all men to loue and freÌ„dship The doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—ion doth clean subuert our faith in Christ. Cap. 16. The spirituall eating in with the hart not with the teeth Iohn 6. Luke 21. 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. Luke 22. Mark 14. Iniury to both Sacramentâ—s D. Smith Cap. 17. 4 principall errors of the Papistes The first is of the presence of Christ. Innocent 3. De summa trin fide