and manifest vntruth and that I vntruely charge you with the enuious name of a papisticall faith But in your issue you terme the wordes at your pleasure and reporte mee otherwise then I doe say for I doe not say that the doctrine of the reall presence is the papistes faith onely but that it was the papists faith for it was their deuise And herein will I ioyne with you an issue that the papisticall church is the mother of transubstantiation and of all the foure principall errors which I impugne in my booke Winchester It shal be now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the Sacrament which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the maiesty therof requireth in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of S. Iohn he beginneth a litle to low and passeth ouer that pertaineth to the matter and therfore should haue begun a litle higher at this clause and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde The Iewes therfore striued between themselues saying How can this man geue his flesh to be eaten Iesus therfore sayd vnto theÌ„ Uerely verely I say vnto you except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man drink his bloud ye haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life I will rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meat and my bloud very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the lyuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father Euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here is also a faulte in the translation of the text which should be thus in one place For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke In which speach the verbe that coupeleth the words flesh and meate together knitteth them together in their proper signification so as the flesh of Christ is verely meate and not figuratiuely meate as the author would perswade And in these wordes of Christ may appeare plainly how Christ taught the mistery of the food of his humanity which he promised to geue for food euen the same flesh that he sayd he would geue for the life of the world and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholy brought forth that is to say and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I shall geue for the life of the world and so is it plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sence that S. Iohn speaketh in saying The word was made flesh signifying by flesh the whol humanity And so did Cyril agrée to Nestorius when he vpon these textes reasoned how this eating is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitye to which nature in Christes person is properly attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man dispenced and geuen in the Sacrament And betwéene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstanding the misterye that Nestorius estéeming of ech nature in Christ a seuerall person as it was obiected to him and so dissoluinge the ineffable Unitie did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man seperate Cyrill maintayned the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseperable vnited to the Godhead and for the ineffable mistery of that Union the same to be a flesh that geueth life And then as Christ sayth If we eate not the fleshe of the Sonne of man we haue not life in vs because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and bloud to nourish such as be by his holy Spirite regenerate And as in Baptisme we receaue the Spirite of Christe for the renuinge of our lyfe so doe wer in this Sacrament of Christes most precious body and bloud receaue Christes very flesh and drinke his very bloud to continue and preserue increase and augment the life receaued And therefore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme that he speaketh here of the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud and in both Sacramentes geueth dispenseth and exhibiteth in déede those celestiall giftes in sensible elementes as Chrisostome sayth And because the true faithfull beléeuing men doe only by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnity of person the sonne of God so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ in one person the flesh of the Sonne of man is the proper flesh of the sonne of God Saint Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ Uerely verely vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. to be a figuratiue speach because after the bare letter it séemeth vnprofitable considering that flesh profiteth nothing in it self estemed in the own nature alone but as the same flesh in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature so is it as Christ sayd after Cyrilles exposition spirite and life not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therunto It is viuificatrix as Cyrill sayde and as the holy Ephcâ—ine Councell decreed A flesh geuing life according to Christes wordes Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the later day And then to declare vnto vs how in géeuinge this life to vs Christe vseth the instrument of his very humayne body it followeth For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly spirite so doth he sanctifie vs by his godly flesh and therefore repeteth agayn to inculcate the celestiall thing of this mistery and saieth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth to me and I in him which is the naturall and corporall vnion betwéene vs and Christ. Whereupon followeth that as Christ is naturally in his Father and his Father in him so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ he is by nature in Christ and Christ is naturally in him and the worthy receauer hath life increase augmented and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ. And because of the ineffable vnion of the two natures Christ sayd This is the food that came downe from heauen because God whose proper flesh it is came downe from heauen and hath an other vertue then Manna had because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it which Manna being but a figure thereof did not but being in this foode Christes very flesh inseparably vnited to the Godhead the same is of such efficacye as he that worthely eateth of it shall liue for euer And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the
But all this is spoken quite besides the matter and serueth for nothing but to cast a myst before mens eyes as it semeth you seeke nothing els thorow your whole booke And this your doctrine hath a very euill smacke that spirite and life should fall vppon naughty men although for theyr malice it tary not For by this doctrine you ioyne togither in one man Christ and Beliall the spirite of God and the spirite of the diuell lyfe and death and all at one tyme which doctrine I will not name what it is for all faythfull men know the name right well and detest the same And what ignoraunce can be shewed more in him that accoumpteth himselfe learned then to gather of Christes wordes where her sayth his wordes be spirit and life that spirit and lyfe should be in euill men because they heare his wordes For the wordes which you recyte by and by of S. Augustin shew how vayne your argument is when he sayth The wordes be spirite and life but not to thee that doest carnally vnderstand them What estimation of learning or of truth would you haue men to conceaue of you that bring such vnlearned argumentes wherof the inuadilitie appeareth within six lynes after Which must nedes declare in you either much vntruth and vnsincere proceding or much ignoraunce or at the least all exceding forgetfulnes to say anythyng reproued agayn within six lynes after And if the promises of God as you say be not disapoynted by our infidelitie then if euyll men eate the very body of Christ and drink his bloud they must nedes dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them and by him haue euerlasting lyfe bycause of these promises of Christ Qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in memanet et ego in eo Et quimanducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe And he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him And yet the third promise Qui manducat me ipse viues propter me He that eateth me he shall also lyue by me These be .iij. promises of God which if they can not be disapoynted by our infidilitie then if euyll men eat the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud as you say they doe in the sacrament then must it nedes follow that they shall haue euerlasting life and that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them bicause our infidilitie say you can not disappoynt Goddes promises And how agreeth this your saying with that doctrine which you were wont earnestly to teach both by mouth and penne that all the promises of God to vs be made vnder condition if our infidilitie can not disappoynt Gods promises For then the promises of God must nedes haue place whether we obserue the condition or not But here you haue fetched a great compasse circuit vtterly in vayne to reproue that thing which I neuer denied but euer affirmed which is That the substaunce of the visible sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which I say is bread and wine in the sacrament as water is in baptisme is all one substance to good and to badde and to both a figure But that vnder the fourme of bread and wine is corporally present by Christes ordinaūce his very body and bloud eyther to good or to ill that you neyther haue nor can proue yet thereupō would you bring in your conclusion here wherin you commit that folly in reasoning which is caled Petitio principij What neede you to make herein any issue when we agree in the matter For in the substance I make no diuersitie but I say that the substance of Christes body and bloud is corporally present neyther in the good eater nor in the euill And as for the substance of bread and wine I say they be all one whether the good or euill eate and drincke them As the water of Baptisme is all one whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned therin and it is one word that to the euill is a sauoure of death and to the good is a sauoure of lyfe And as it is one Sonne that shineth vppon the good and the badde that melteth butter and maketh the earth harde one flower wherof the bee sucketh hony and the spyder poyson and one oyntment as Decumenius sayth that kylleth the bettyll and strengthneth the doue Neuerthelesse as all that be washed in the water be not washed with the holy spirite so all that eate the sacramentall bread eate not the very body of Christ. And thus you see that your issue is to no purpose except you would fight with your owne shadowe Now forasmuch as after all this vayne and friuolous consuming of wordes you begin to make answere vnto my profes I shall here reherse my profes and argumentes to the intent that the reader seyng both my profes and your confutations before his eyes may the better consider and geue his iudgement therein My forth booke begynneth thus THe grosse errour of the Papistes is Of the carnall eating and drinking of Christes flesh and bloud with our mouthes For they say that whosoeuer eate and drincke the sacramentes of bread and wine do eat and drincke also with theyr mouthes Christes very flesh and bloud be they neuer so vngodly and wicked persons But Christ him selfe taught cleane contrary in the sixt of Iohn that we eate not him carnally with our mouthes but spiritually with our fayth saying Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleueth in me hath euerlasting lyfe I am the bread of life Your fathers did eat Manna in the wildernes and dyed This is the bread that cam from heauen that who so euer shall eate therof shall not dye I am the liuely bread that cam from heauen If any man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer And the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the lyfe of the world This is the most true doctrine of our sauiour Christ that whosoeuer eateth him shall haue euerlasting lyfe And by and by it followeth in the same place of S. Iohn more clearly Verely verely I say vnto you except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drincke his bloud you shall not haue life in you He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will rayse him agayne at the last day For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drincke He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this
Gospel of S. John Whereby appeareth how euidently they set forth the doctrine of the mistery of the eating of Christes flesh drinking his bloud in the sacrament which must néedes be vnderstanded of a corporal eating as Christ did after order in the institution of the sayd Sacrament according to his promise and doctrine here declared Canterbury HEre before you enter into my seconde vntrueth as you call it you finde faulte by the way that in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the Gospell of S. Iohn I begine a little to lowe But if the reader consider the matter for the which I alleadge S. Iohn he shal wel perceiue that I began at the right place where I ought to begin For I doe not bring forth S. Iohn for the matter of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament whereof is no mention made in that chapter as it would not haue serued me for that purpose no more doth it serue you althoughe ye cyted the whole Gospell But I bring saynt Iohn for the matter of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud wherin I passed ouer nothing that pertaineth to the matter but rehearse the whole fully and faithfully And because the Reader may the better vnderstand the matter and iudge between vs both I shall rehearse the wordes of my former booke which be these THe Supper of the Lord otherwise called the holy communion or sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ hath been of many men and by sundry wayes very much abused but specially within these four or fiue hundered yeares Of some it hath beene vsed as a Sacrifice propiciatory for sinne and otherwise superstitiouslye far from the intent that Christ did first ordaine the same at the beginning doing therein great wrong and iniury to his death and passion And of other some it hath been very lightly estemed or rather contemned and despiced as a thing of smal or of none effect And thus betweene both the parties hath been much variance and contention in diuers partes of Christendome Therefore to the intent that this holy Sacrament or Lords Supper may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed nor of the other party be abused to any other purpose then Christ himselfe did first appoint ordain the same and that so the contention on both parties may be quieted and ended the most sure and playn way is to cleaue vnto holye scripture Wherein whatsoeuer is found must be taken for a most sure ground and an infallible truth and whatsoeuer cannot be grounded vpon the same touching our faith is mans deuise changeable and vncertain And therfore here are set forth the very words that Christ him selfe and his Apostle S. Paule spake both of the eating and drinking of Christs body bloud also of the eating drinking of the sacramēt of the same First as concerning the eating of the body and drinkinge of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ hee speaketh him selfe in the sixte Chapiter of Saynt Iohn in this wise Verely verely I say vnto you except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I wil rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drinke Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here haue I rehearsed the wordes of Christ faithfully and fully so much as pertayneth to the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud And I haue begun neither to high nor to low but taking only so much as serued for the matter But here haue I committed a fault say you in the translation for verely meate translating very meat And this is another of the euydent and manifest vntruthes by me vttered as you esteeme it Wherein a man may see how hard it is to escape the reproches of Momus For what an horrible crime trow you is committed here to call very meat that which is verely meat As who should say that very meat is not verely meate or that which is verely meate were not very meate The olde Authors say very meate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verus cibus in a hundreth places And what skilleth it for the diuersitye of the wordes where no diuersity is in the sence And whether we say very meat or verely meate it is a figuratiue speache in this place and the sence is all one And if you will looke vpon the new testament lately set forth in Greeke by Robert Steuens you shall see that he had three Greeke copyes which in the said sixt chap. of Iohn haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that I may be bold to say that you finde faulte here where none is And here in this place you shew forth your olde condition which you vse much in this booke in following the nature of a cuttil The property of the cuttill saith Pliny is to cast out a black incke or color when soeuer she spieth her selfe in danger to be taken that the water being troubled and darckned therewith she may hide her selfe and to escape vntaken After like maner do you throughout this wholl booke for when you see no other way to flye and escape then you cast out your blacke colors maske your selfe so in cloudes and darcknes that men should not discerne where you become which is a manyfest argument of vntrue meaning for he that meaneth plainly speaketh plainly Et qui sophisticè loquitur odibilis est saith the wise man For he that speaketh obscurely and darckly it is a token that he goeth about to cast mistes before mennes eyes that they should not see rather then to open their eyes that they may cleerely see the truth And therfore to answere you plainly the fattie fleshe that was geuen in Christes last Supper was geuen also vpon the crosse and is geuen daylye in the ministration of the Sacrament But although it be one thinge yet it was diuerslye geuen For vpon the crosse Christ was carnally geuen to suffer and to dye At his last Supper he was spiritually geuen in a promise of his death and in the Sacrament he is daily geuen in remembraunce of his death And yet it is all but one Christ that was promysed to die that died in deede and whose death is remembred that is to say the very same Christ the eternall word that was made flesh And the same flesh was also geuen to be spiritually eaten and was eaten in deede before his supper yea and before his
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
intent by his will preached vnto vs by Scriptures and beleued vniuersally in his church But if it may now be thought séemely for vs to be so bold in so high a mistery to begin to discusse Christes intent What should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall signification as be rehearsed touching the mistery of this Sacrament First in the sixt of Iohn when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signifie beleeuing whereat was no murmuring that then he should enter to speak of geuing of his flesh to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say that he would geue a bread that is his flesh which he would geue for the life of the world In which wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therefore as we beleeue the gift of his flesh to the Iewes to be crucified so we must beléeue the gift of his flesh to be eaten and of that gifte liuery and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his promises faithfull as Christ is to be made in both And therefore when he sayd in his Supper Take eate this is my body he must néedes intend plainly as his words of promise required And these wordes in his Supper purporte to geue as really then his body to be eaten of vs as he gaue his body in deede to be crucified for vs aptly neuerthelesse and conueniently for ech effect and therefore in maner of geuing diuersly but in the substance of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare witnes the same and therefore sayd this is my body that shal be betraied for you expressing also the vse when he said take eate which words in deliuering of material bread had béen superfluous for what should men doe with bread when they take it but eate it specially when it is broaken But as Cyrill sayth Christ opened there vnto them the practise of that doctrine hée spake of in the sixt of S. Iohn and because he sayd he would geue his flesh for food which he would geue for the life of the world he for fulfilling of his promise sayd Take eate this is my body which wordes haue béen taught and beléeued to be of effect and operatory and Christ vnder the forme of bread to haue béen his very body According whereunto S. Paule noteth the receauer to be gilty when he doth not estéeme it our Lordes body wherewith it pleaseth Christ to féede such as be in him regenerate to the intent that as man was redéemed by Christ suffering in the nature of his humanitie so to purchase for man the kingdome of heauen lost by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitye geuing it to be eaten he ordayned it to nourish man and make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to enioy that kingdome And therefore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament and the same to be in déede deliuered Christ vsed playn wordes testified by the Euangelistes Saint Paule also rehearsed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the eleuenth to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuing as it were an exposition of the effect vseth the same proper wordes declaring the effect to be the communication of Christes body and bloud And one thing is notable touching the Scripture that in such notable spéeches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguity the Euangelists by some circumstance declared it or sometime opened it by playn interpretation as whē Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within thrée dayes build it agayne The Euangelist by and by addeth for interpretation This he sayd of the temple of his body And when Christ sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine The circumstaunce of the texte openeth the ambiguity But to shew that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the Euangelistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstaunces whereby to take away the proper signification of the wordes body and bloud so as the same might seeme not in déede geuen as the catholicke faith teacheth but in signification as the author would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ the Spirite geueth life the flesh profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ ech in their property a part considered but not as they be in Christs person vnited the mistery of which vniō such as beléeued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descention from heauen and after of his ascension thether agayn whereby they might vnderstand him very God whose flesh taken in the virgins wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs is as I haue before opened viuifike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes intent was to geue verely as he did in déede his precious body and bloud to be eaten and dronken according as he taught thē to be verely meate and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder forme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniētly and without horror of our nature receaue them Christ therein condescending to our infirmity As for such other wrangling as is made in vnderstanding of the words of Christ shall after he spoaken of by further occasion Caunterbury NOw we be come to the very pith of the matter and the chiefe pointe wherupon the wholl controuersie hangeth whether in these words this is my body Christ called bread his body wherin you and Smith agree like a man and a woman that dwelled in Lincolnshere as I haue heard reported that what pleased the one misliked the other sauing that they both agreed in wilfulness So do Smith and you agree both in this point that Christ made bread his body but that it was bread which he called his body when he sayd This is my body this you graunt but Smith denieth it And because all Smithes buildinges cleerely fall downe if this his chiefe foundation be ouerthrowen therfore must I first proue against Smith that Christ called the materiall bread his body the wine which was the fruite of the vine his bloud For why did you not prooue this my Lord sayth Smith would you that men should take you for a prophet or for one that could not erre in his sayinges First I alleadge against Smithes negation your affirmation which as it is more true in this point then his negation so for your estimation it is able to counteruail his saying if there were nothing els yet if Smith had well pondered what I haue written in the second chap. of my second booke and in the 7. and 8. chapters of my third book he should haue
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
manner which we say not but in a spirituall maner and therefore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such maner as God onely knoweth yet dooth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence exceding our capacitie to comprehend the maner how This is the very true teaching to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament euen of the same body that suffred in playne simple euident termes and wordes such as can not by cauilation be mistaken and construed so néere as possibly mans infirmitie permitteth and suffreth Now let vs consider in what sort the author and hys company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the Sacrament who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne which sonne this author sayth is euer corporally in heauen and no where els and yet by operation and vertue is here in earth so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any language of man able to expresse God and hys mysteryes For and thinges that be sene or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible misteryes the nature wherof is that they can not throughly be expressed they were no misteries and yet it is true that of thinges visible wherein God worketh wonderfully there may be great resemblances some shadowes and as it were inductions to make a man astonied in consideration of thinges inuisible when he séeth thinges visible so wonderfully wrought and to haue so maruaylous effectes And diuers good catholicke deuoute men haue by diuers naturall things gone about to open vnto vs the mistery of the trinitie partely by the sonne as the author doth in the Sacrament partely by fyre partely by the soule of man by the Musitians science the arte the touch with the players fingers and the sound of the cord wherein wil hath all trauailed the matter yet remayneth darke ne can not be throughly set forth by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the sonne whiche sonne this author sayth is onely corporally in heauen and no where els and in the earth the operatiō and vertue of the sonne So as by this authors supposall the substance of the sonne should not be in earth but onely by operation and vertue wherein if this author erreth he doth the reader to vnderstande that if he erre in consideration of naturall thinges it is no maruayle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I will not of my selfe begin the contention with this author of the naturall worke of the Sonne I will bryng forth the saying of Martin Bucer now resident at Cambridge who vehemently and for so much truly affirmeth the trew reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament For he sayth Christ sayd not This is my spirite this is my vertue but This is my body Wherefore he sayth we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hang vpon the crosse our Lord hym selfe whiche in some parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the sonne for hys purpose to proue Christes body present really and substancially in the sacramēt where this author vseth the same similitude to proue the body of Christ really absent I will wryte in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin expounding the xrvi chapiter of Saynte Mathew and then I will put the same in english Bucers wordes bée these Vt Sol vere vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est radys tamen suis praesens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substantialiter quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini simbolis quam oculi vident habent Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res sidei non sunt igitur huc admittende cogitationes de presentatione corporis quae constar ratione huius vitae etiamnum patibilis fluxae Verbo Domini simpliciter inhaerendum est debet fides sensuum de fectui praebere supplimentum Which is thus much in English As the sonne is truely placed determinately in one place of the visible heauē and yet is truely and substantially present by meanes of hys beames els where in the world abroad So our Lord although he be comprehended in one place of the secrete and diuine heauen that is to say the glory of hys father yet neuerthelesse by hys word and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man and therfore in substance in his holy supper which presence mans mind geuing credite to his words and tokens with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see and haue the sonne presente exhibited and shewed with his corporally lyght This is a deep secrete matter and of the new testament and a matter of fayth and therfore herein thoughtes be not to be receiued of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of thys life transitorie and subiect to suffer We must simply cleaue to the word of Christ and fayth must releue the default of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his minde whereunto because the similitude of the sonne doth not aunswere in all partes he noteth wisely in th ende howe this is a matter of faith and therefore vpon the foundation of faith we must speake of it thereby to supply where our sences fayle For the presence of Christ and whole Christe God and man is true although we can not thinke of the maner how The chiefe cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shew how in hys iudgement we haue not onely in earth the operation and vertue of the sonne but also the substance of the sonne by incane of the sonne beames which be of the same substaunce with the sonne and can not be deuided in substance from it and therfore we haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sonne not onely the operation and vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sort yet the beames that touch the earth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papiste and yet for the reall and substantiall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pithely and playnly and here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the sonne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the sacrament which is one of the high misteries in our religiō And this may
beleued with our faith or that the bread and wine after the Consecration be the body and bloud of Christ or that we be nourished with the body and bloud of Christ or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here or that Christ at his last supper bare himselfe in his owne hands These and all other like sentences may be vnderstanded of Christes humanity litterally carnally as the words in cōmō spech do properly signifye for so dooth no man eat Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud nor so is not the bread and wine after the consecration his flesh and bloud nor so is not his flesh and bloud whole here in earth eatē with our mouthes nor so did not Christ take him selfe in his own hands But these and all other like sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth to be eaten and drunken of Christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euery where or els they must be vnderstanded figuratiuely or spiritually For figuratiuely he is in the bread and wine and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread wine but really carnally and corporally he is onely in heauen from whence he shall come to iudge the quick and dead This briefe aunswere will suffice for all that the papists can bryng for their purpose if it be aptly applyed And for the more euidence hereof I shall apply the same to somme such places as the Papistes think do make most for thē that by the aunswere to those places the rest may be the more easely answered vnto Winchester In the lxxiiii leaf this author goeth about to geue a generall solution to all that may be sayd of Christes beyng in earth in heauen or in the sacrament and geueth iustructions how these wordes of Christs diuine nature figuratiuely spiritually really carnally corporally may be placed and thus he sayth Christ in his diuine nature may be sayed to be in the earth figuratiuely in the sacrament spiritually in the man that receiueth but really carnally corporally only in heauen Let vs consider the placing of these termes When we say Christ is in his diuine nature euery where is he not really also euery where according to the true essēce of his godhed in deed euery where that is to say not in fantasy nor imagination but verily truely and therefore really as we beleue so in déed euery where And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace is not Christ in them really by grace but in fantasy and imagination And therfore what soeuer this author sayth the word really may not haue such restraint to be referred onely to heauen vnles the author would deny that substance of the godhead which as it comprehendeth all being incomprensible is euery where without limitation of place so as it is truely it is in déed is and therfore really is and therfore of Christ must be sayd wheresoeuer he is in his diuine nature by power or grace he is there really whether we speak of heauen or earth As for the termes carnally and corporally as this author semeth to vse them in other places of this book to expresse the maner of presence of the humaine nature in Christ I maruaile by what scripture he shall proue that Christs body is so carnally and corporally in heauen We be assured by fayth groūded vpon the scriptures of the truth of the beyng of Christs flesh and body there and the same to be a true flesh and a true body but yet in such sence as this author vseth the termes carnall and corporall against the sacrament to imply a grossenes he can not so attribute those termes to Christes body in heauen S Augustine after the grosse sense of carnally sayth Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen And Gregory Nazianzen sayth Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge so as he shal be sene yet there is in him no grossenes he sayth and referreth the maner of his being to his knowlege onely And our resurrection S. Augustine sayeth although it shall be of our true flesh yet it shall not be carnally And when this author had defamed as it were the termes carnally and corporally as tearmes of grossenes to whō he vsed alwayes to put as an aduersatiue the terme spiritually as though carnally and spiritually might not agrée in one Now for all that he would place them both in heauē where is no carnallyty but all the maner of being spirituall where is no grossenes at all the secrecie of the manner of which life is hidden from vs and such as eye hath not séen or eare heard or ascended into the hart and thought of man I know these termes carnally and corporally may haue a good vnderstanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossenes or made them aduersaries to spirituall and a man may say Christ is corporally in heauen because the truth of his body is there and carnally in heauen because his flesh is truly there but in this vnderstanding both the wordes carnally and corporally may be coupled with the word Spiritually which is agaynst this authors teaching who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christes presence in the man that receiued the sacrament worthely which spech I do not disalow but as Christ is spiritually in the man that dooth receiue the Sacrament worthely so is he in him spiritually before be receiue or els he can not receiue worthely as I haue before said And by this appeareth how this author to frame his generall solution hath vsed neither of the tearmes really carnally and corporally or spiritually in a conuenient order but hath in his distribution misused them notably For Christ in his diuine nature is really euery where and in his humaine nature is carnally and corporally as these words signify substāce of the flesh and body continually in heauen to the day of iudgement neuertheles after that signification present in the sacrament also And in those termes in that signification the fathers haue spoken of the effect of the eating of Christ in the sacrament as in the perticuler solutions to the authors here after shall appear Mary as touching the vse of the word figuratiuely to say that Christ is figuratiuely in the bread and wine is a saying which this author hath not proued at all but is a doctrine before this diuerse times reproued and now by this author in England renewed Caunterbury ALthough my chief study be to speak so playnly that all men may vnderstand euery thing what I say yet nothing is plaine to him that wil finde knots in a rish For when I say that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth and to be eaten and drunken of christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euerye where or els they must be vnderstand figuratiuely or spiritually for figuratiuely he
of his worke entreating transubstantiation he would the same wordes of Chrisostome by this forme of spech in the negatiue should not deny precisely And when Chrisostome sayth Do not think that you by man receiue the body of God but that we should not consider man in the receiuing of it Here this author doth alleage these wordes and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of mere deniall But I would aske of this author this question If Chrysostomes fayth had bene that we receaue not the body of God in the Sacrament verily why should he vse wordes idlely to entreate of whom we receiued the body of God which after this authors doctrine we receaue not at all but in figure and no body at all which is of Christes humanity being Christ as this author teacheth spiritually that is by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receaueth and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in this booke onely fyguratiuely Turne back reader to the 36. leafe in the authors booke and read it with this and so consyder vpon what principle here is made an Ergo. I will aunswere that place when I speake of Transubstantiation which shall be after answered to the third and fourth booke as the naturall order of the matter requireth The second place of Chrisostome that this author bringeth forth he graunteth it soundeth much agaynst him fauoreth his aduersaryes but with conferring and considering he trusteth to alter it from the true vnderstanding And not to expound but confound the matter be ioyneth in spech the sacrament of baptisme with this sacramēt which shift this author vsed vntruely in Hylary and would now beare in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament then in baptisme which is not so for in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present and in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence therof for dispensatiō of that mistery as I haue before touched discussing the aunswere to Emissen where as Chrisostome speaking of this sacrament whereof I haue before spoken and Melancthon alleadging it to Decolampadius saith thus The great miracle and great beneuolence of Christ is that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre in our handes here to be embrased of vs. And therfore where this author would note the wonder of Gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonerfull for the worke and effect in man this is one peece of trueth but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the old Fathers wonder at the worke in the Sacrament how bread is chaunged into the body of Christ how Christ sitting in heauen God man is also man and God in the Sacramēt and being worthely receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hylary sayth and corporally as Cyrill sayth How this can be no man can tell no faythfull man should aske and yet it is the true catholick fayth to be truely so wrought For as Cinistene sayth he that is the author of it he is the witnes of it And therfore I will make it an issue with this author that the olde fathers speaking of the wonderfull operation of God in this Sacrament referre it not onely to the vertue and effect of this Sacrament nor to the vertue specially but chiefly to the operation of God in the substaunce of this Sacrament and the Sacrament selfe for such a difference S. Augustine maketh saying Aliud est Sacramentum aliud virtus sacramenti The Sacrament is one the vertue of the Sacramēt is an other Finally in aunswering to Chrisostome this author doth nothing but spend wordes in vayne to the more playne declaration of his owne ignoraunce or worse Caunterbury AS concerning Chrisostome you haue spent so many taunting and scornefull wordes in waste without cause that I need to wast no wordes here at all to make you aunswere but referre the reader to my booke the 25. leafe and 36. leafe and to the 32.33 and 34. leafe where the reader shall finde all that is here spoken fully aunswered vnto But alwayes you be like your selfe proceding in amplification of an argument agaynst me which you haue forged yourselfe and charge me therewith vntruely For I vse not this spech that we receaue not the body of God at all that we receaue it but in a figure For it is my constant fayth and beleefe that we receaue Christ in the sacrament verily and truely and this is plainely taught and set forth my book But that verily as I with Chrisostome and all the olde authors take it is not of such a sort as you would haue it For your vnderstanding of Uerily is so Capernaicall so grosse and so dul in the perceauing of this mistery that you thinke a man can not receaue the body of Christ verily vnles he take him corporally in his corporall mouth flesh bloud and bones as he was borne of the virgine Mary But it is certaine that Chrisostome ment not that we receaue Christes body verily after such a sort when he sayth Doe not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God And yet because I deny onely this grosse vnderstāding you misreport my doctrine that I should say we receaue not Christ at all but in a figure and no body at all wherin you vntruly and sclaundrously report me as my whole book and doctrine can witnesse agaynst you For my doctrine is that the very body of Christ which was borne of the virgine Mary and suffered for our sinnes geuing vs lyfe by his death the same Iesus as concerning his corporal presence is taken from vs and sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet is he by fayth spiritually present with vs and is our spirirituall foode and nourishment and sitteth in the middes of all them that-be gathered togither in his name And this feding is a spirituall feedyng and an heauenly feeding farre passing all corporall and carnall feeding and therfore there is a true presence and a true feding indeed and not in a figure onely or not at all as you most vntruely report my saying to be This is the true vnderstanding of the true presence receiuing feding vpon the body and bloud of our Sauior Christ and not as you depraue the meaning and true sence therof that the receiuing of Christ truly and verily is the receiuing corporally with the mouth corporall or that the spirituall receauing is to receaue Christ onely by his diuine nature which thing I neuer sayd nor mēt Turn I pray thee gētle reader to the 36 leaf of my booke and note these wordes there which I alledge out of Chrisostome Doe not thinke sayth he that you receaue by a man the body of God Then turne ouer the leafe and in the xx line note again my saying that in the holy communion Christ himselfe is spiritually eaten and drunken and
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
nature of bread as he tooke the nature of man and so ioyned it to his substance And than as we haue God verely incarnate for our redemption so should we haue him Impanate Thou maist consider good reader that the rest of their reasons be very weake and feeble when these be the chiefe and strongest Truth it is in deede that Christ should haue bene impanate if he had ioyned the bread vnto his substance in vnity of person that is to say if he had ioyned the bread vnto him in such sort that he had made the bread one person with himselfe But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally there followeth no Impanation therof no more than the holy Ghost is Inaquate that is to say made water being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme Nor he was not made a doue when he tooke vpon him the forme of a doue to signifie that he whome S. Ihon did baptise was very Christ. But rather of the errour of the Papistes them selues as one errour draweth an other after it should follow the great absurdite which they speake vppon that is to say that Christ should be Impanate and Inuinate For if Christ doe vse the bread in such wise that he doth not adnihilate and make nothing of it as the Papistes say but maketh of it his owne body than is the bread ioyned to his body in a greater vnity than is his humanity to his Godhead For his Godhead is adioyned vnto his humanity in vnity of person and not of nature But our Sauiour Christ by their saying adioyneth bread vnto his body in vntie both of nature and person So that the bread and the body of Christ be but one thing both in nature and person And so is there a more entier vnion betwene Christ and bread than betwene his Godhead and manhod or betwen his soule and his body And thus these arguments of the Papistes returne like riuited nayles vpon their owne heades Winchester The solution to the second reason is almost as fondly handled alluding from Impanation to Inaquation although it was neuer sayd in scripture This water is the holy ghost but in baptisme to be water and the holy Ghost also And of the doue is not sayd This is the holy Ghost but the holy Ghost descended as in the resemblance of a done The substance of bread is not adnihilate bicause Gods worke is not adnihilation who geueth all being and adnihilation is a defection of the creature from God and yet Christes body is not augmented by the substance of bread in which body it endeth by conuersion as in the better without adnihilation which is a changing by miracle And when this Author knoweth this or should haue knowen it or hath forgotten it he writeth like one that were ignorant and had read nothing in the matter as it were to make himselfe popular to ioyne himselfe in ignorāce with the rude vnlearned people Caunterbury AS for my solution to the second reasō it is able to stand agaynst your confutation therof and to ouerthrow it quite For no more is Christ in the bread and wine in the Lordes supper then the holy Ghost is in the water of baptisme And therfore if the holy Ghost be not inaquate no more is Christ impanate And when the scripture sayth Upon whome soeuer thou shalt see the Ghost coming downe And also when S. Iohn sayd I saw the holy Ghost come downe like a doue did he see any thing but the doue And yet that which he sawe the scripture there as well by the voyce of God as by the wordes of S. Ihon calleth the holy Ghost Wherfore the scripture calleth the doue the holy Ghost For the speach was as much to say as this which I see come downe is the holy Ghost and yet was that the doue which he saw And that the doue which he saw was the holy ghost was as true a speach as we looking vpon the bread which we see do say This is the body of Christ. And yet as that speach meaneth not that the holy Ghost is made a doue so this speach meaneth not that the body of Christ is impanate No more then these wordes of Christ spoken vnto his mother Mary and to S. Ihon loe thy sonne And loe thy mother meane not that Ihon was made Christ nor that Mary his mother was made Ihons naturall mother But of your saying it followeth that the bread is humanate or incarnate For if these wordes of Christ This is my body meane as you say that bread is made Christes flesh then as Verbum caro factum est The word was made flesh concludeth that Christ was incarnate So Panis caro factus est The bread is made flesh concludeth that the bread is incarnate seing as you say it is not adnihilate But of adnihilation you write so strangely that it seemeth you haue written what you dreamed in your slepe rather then what you learned of any author catholike or infidele For who euer heard that adnihilation could be wrought but by the onely power of God For the gentill philosophers write according to the nature that Sicut exnihilo nihil sit Ita nihil in nihilum redigitur Asnothing can be made of nought so nothing can be tourned into nought So that as it is the worke of God onely to make of nought so it can be but onely his worke also to turne thinges into nought And what man beeing neuer so rude or popular hauing any discretion at all would define adnihilation as you do that a defection of a creature from God should be adnihilatiō and tourning into nothing For so should all the angels that fell from God be adnihilate and so should likewise all apostatase and all other that by sinne relinquishe the army of God and follow his aduersary the deuill and all Papistes that abandoning Christ as Iudas did runne to Antechrist to whome it were better to be adnihilate or neuer to be borne then eternally to remayne in gods indignation Now followeth the last reason Yet a third reason they haue which they gather out of the sixt of Ihon where Christ sayth I am liuely bread which came from heauen If any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer And the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world Then reason they after this fashion If the bread which Christ gaue be his flesh than it can not also be materiall bread and so it must needes follow that the materiall bread is gone and that none other substance remayneth but the flesh of Christ onely To this is soone made answer that Christ in that place of Ihon spake not of the materiall and sacramentall bread nor of the sacramentall eating for that was spoken two or three yeares before the sacrament was first ordayned but he spake of spirituall bread many times repeating I am
the bread of life which came from heauen and of spirituall eating by fayth after which sorte he was at the same present tyme eaten of as many as beleued on him although the sacrament was not at that tyme made and instituted And therfore he sayd Your fathers did eate Manna in the desert and dyed but he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Therfore this place of S. Ihon can in no wise be vnderstande of the sacramentall bread which neither came from heauen neither giueth life to all that eate Nor of such bread Christ could haue then presently sayd This is my flesh except they will say that Christ did than consecrate so many yeares before the institution of his holy Supper Winchester A third reason this author frameth himselfe wherby to take occasion to affirme how the vi chapiter of S. Ihon should not appertayne to the Sacramentall manducation the contrary wherof appeareth aswell by the wordes of Christ in that vi chapiter saying I will geue not I doe giue which promise was fulfilled in the supper as also by the catholique writers and specially by Cirill and therfore I will not further striue with this author in that matter but see how he can assoyle the authorities wherunto he entreth with great confidence Caunterbury THe third reason I framed not my selfe as you say I did but had it ready framed out of your owne shoppe in your booke of the Diuels sophistry And as for the vi chapiter of Ihon I haue sufficiently shewed my mind therin in my answere to Doctor Smithes preface which shall suffice also for aunswere to you in this place And as for Cirill is clearly agaynst you who declareth that when Christ sayd I will geue my flesh for the life of the world he fulfilled not that promise in his supper but in the crosse For if Christ had geuen to vs life in his supper what should he haue needed after to dye for the same purpose The wordes of Cirill be these vpon the wordes of Christ Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Morior inquit pro omnibus vt permeip sum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur euim mors morte mea Which wordes meane thus much in English I will dye for all that by my death I may geue life to all and that my flesh may be the redemption of all for death shall dye by my death Thus expoundeth Cirill the wordes of Christ that when he sayd I will geue he did not fulfill that promise in his spuper but in the crosse giuing vs life by his death not by eating and drinking of him in his supper as you most ignorantly say And yet all men may iudge how much I beare with you when I call it but ignorance Now followeth myne answere to the authors wrested by the papistes Now that I haue made a full direct and playne answer to the vayne reasons and cauilations of the Papists order requireth to make likewise answer vnto their sophisticall allegations and wresting of authors vnto their phantasticall purposes There be chiefely three places which at the first shew seeme much to make for their intent but when they shall be throughly wayed they make nothing for them at all The first is a place of Ciprian in his sermon of the Lords supper where he sayth as is alledged in the Detection of the deuils Sophistry This bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples changed in Nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotency of gods word made flesh Here the Papists sticke tooth and nayle to these wordes Changed in nature Ergo say they the nature of the bread is changed Here is one chiefe poynt of the diuels sophistry vsed who in the allegation of Scripture vseth euer eyther to adde therto or to take away from it or to alter the sence therof And so haue they in this author left out those wordes which would open playnly all the whole matter For next the wordes which be here before of them recited do follow these wordes As in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity was hid euen so did the diuinity ineffably put it selfe into the visible sacrament Which wordes of Ciprian do manifestly shew that the sacrament doth still remayne with the diuinity and that sacramentally the diuinity is poured into the bread and wine the same bread wine still remayning like as the same diuinity by vnity of person was in the humanity of Christ the same humanity still remayning with the diuinite And yet the bread is changed not in shape nor substance but in nature as Ciprian truly sayth not meaning that the naturall substance of bread is cleane gone but that by Gods word there is added therto an other higher propertie nature and condition farre passing the nature and condition of common bread that is to say that the bread doth shew vnto vs as the same Ciprian sayth that we be partaker of the spirite of God and most purely ioyned vnto Christ and spiritually fead with his flesh and bloud so that now the sayde misticall bread is both a corporall food for the body and a spirituall foode for the soule And likewise is the nature of the water changed in baptisme for as much as beside his common nature which is to wash and make cleane the body it declareth vnto vs that our soules be also washed and made cleane by the holy ghost And thus is answered the chiefe authoritie of the doctours which the Papists take for the principall defence of their errour But for further declaration of S. Ciprians mind herein reade the place of him before recited fol. 320. Winchester First in Ciprian who speaketh playnly in the matter this author findeth a fault that he is not wholy alleadged wherupon this author brought in the sentence following not necessary to be rehersed for the matter of Transubstantiation and handsome to be rehersed for the ouerthrowe of the rest of this authors new catholique fayth and whither that now shall be added was materiall in the matter of Transubstantiation I require the Iudgement of thee O reader The first wordes of Ciprian be these This bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples changed in nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotencye of gods word made flesh These be Ciprians wordes and then follow these As in the persone of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden euen so the diuinite ineffably infused it selfe into the visible Sacrament Thus sayth Ciprian as I can English him to expresse the word Infudit by Latin English not liking the English word shed bicause in our English tongue it resembleth spilling euacuation of the whole and much lesse I can agree to vse the word powring although Iufundo in Latine may in the vse of earthly thinges signifie so bicause powring noteth a successiue working
to such as profes to beleue the determination of that counsell in the opening of the mistery of the Trinity with other words then Scripture vseth although they expres such sence as in the scriptures is contained Why should not all such like wise beleue the same counsel in explication of the Sacraments which to do the author hath bound himselfe graunting that counsell holy And then we must bebeleue the very presence of Christes body and bloud on gods bord and that Priestes doe there sacrifice and be therefore called and named sacrificers So as those names terms be to be honoured and religiously spoken of being in an holy counsell vttered and confessed because it was so séene to them and the holy ghost without whose present asistance and suggestion beleued to be there the counsell could not or ought not to be called holy Now if we conferre with that counsell of Nice the testimony of the Church beginning at S. Dionyse who was in the time of the Apostles and after him comming to Irene who was nere the apostles and then Tertullian and so S. Cyprian S. Chrisostome S. Cyrill S. Hierome S. Augustine and from that age to the tyme of Petrus Lombardus all spake of the sacrament to the same effect and termed it for the word sacrifice and oblation to be frequented in the church of the body and bloud of Christ as may be in particularity shewed whereof I make also an issue with the author Caunterbury FOr aunswere to Nicene councell it speaketh of a sacrifice of laudes and thankes giuing which is made by the Priest in the name of the whole church and is the sacrifice as well of the people as of the priest this sacrifice I say the counsell of Nice speaketh of but it speaketh not one word of the sacrifice propitiatory which neuer none made but onely Christ nor he neuer made it any more then once which was by his death And where so euer Christ shal be herafter in heauē or in earth he shal neuer be sacrificed agayne but the church continually in remembraunce of that sacrifice maketh a sacrifice of laud and prayse geuing euermore thanks vnto him for that propitiatory sacrifice And in the third chapter of my booke here recited the difference of these ii sacrifices is playnely set out And although Nicene counsell call Christ the lambe that taketh away the sins of the world yet doth it not mean that by the sacrifice of the priest in the Masse but by the sacrifice of himselfe vpon the crosse But here according to your accustomed maner you alter some wordes of the counsell and adde also some of your owne For the councell sayd not that the Lamb of God is sacrificed of the priests not after the manner of other sacrifices but that he is sacrificed not after the manner of a sacrifice And in saying that Christ is sacrificed of the priest not like a sacrifice or after the maner of a sacrifice the counsell in these wordes signified a difference betweene the sacrifice of the priest and the sacrifice of Christ which vpon the Crosse offered himselfe to be sacrificed after the manner of a very sacrifice that is to say vnto death for the sinnes of the world Christ made the bloudy sacrifice which tooke away sinne the priest with the church make a commemoration thereof with laudes and thanksgeuing offering also themselues obedient to God vnto death And yet this our sacrifice taketh not away our sinnes nor is not accepted but by his sacrifice The bleeding of him took away our sinnes not the eating of him And although that Counsell say that Christ is situate in that table yet it sayth not that he is really and corporally in the bread and wine For thē that counsell would not haue forbid vs to direct our mindes to the breade and cup if they had beleued that Christ had bene really there But forasmuch as the counsell commaundeth that we shall not direct our mindes downeward to the bread and cup but lift them vp to Christ by fayth they geue vs to vnderstand by those wordes that Christ is really and corporally ascended vp into heauen vnto which place we must lift vp our mindes and reach him there by our fayth and not looke downe to find him in the bread And yet he is in the bread sacramentally as the same counsel sayth that the holy ghost is in the water of baptisme And as Christ is in his supper present to feed vs so is he in baptisme present to clothe and apparell vs with his owne selfe as the same counsell declareth whose words be these He that is baptised goeth downe into the water being subiect to sinne and held in the bands of corruption but he riseth vp free from bōdage and sinne being made by the grace of God his sonne and heir and coinheritor with Christ and apparelled with Christ himself as it is written As many of you as be baptised vnto Christ you haue put Christ vpon you These wordes of the counsell I reherse onely in english because I wil not let nor encōber the reader with the greeke or latine as you do which is nothing els but to reherse one thing thrise without need or profit If I had list I could haue rehersed all the greek authors in greek and the latine writers in latine but vnto english men vnto whom onely I write it were a vain labour or glory without fruit or profyte or any other cause except I entended to make my booke long for gayne of the printer rather then for profit to the reader But to returne to the matter Christ is present in his holy supper as that holy Councell sayth euen as he is present in Baptisme but not really carnally corporally and naturally as you without ground imagine And if he were to present yet is he not there sacrificed agayne for sinne For then were his first sacrifice vpon the Crosse in vayne if it sufficed not therefore And as for Dionyse Irenee Tertullian with all your other authors I haue aunswered them in the thirtenth chapiter of this my laste booke And what need you make an issue in this thing which is not in controuersy and which I affirme in my whole last booke The matter in question is of the sacrifice propitiatory and you make your issue of the sacrifyce generally Now let vs see how you intreat Petrus Lombardus Winchester For the other poynt in that the author approueth the iudgemēt of Petrus Lombardus in the matter what should I more doe but write in the wordes of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them which he these in the fourth booke the xii chapter alleadged by the author Post haec quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrisiciū vel immolatio si Christus quotidie vel immoletur semel tantum immolatus sit Ad hoc breuiter dici potest illud quod offertur consecratur a sacerdote vocari
backe the people that were ready to depart to Prayers Brethren sayd hee lest any man should doubt of this mans earnest conuersion and repentaunce you shall heare him speake before you and therfore I pray you Maister Cranmer that you will now performe that you promised not long agoe namely that you would openly expresse the true and vndoubted profession of your fayth that you may take away all suspition from men and that all men may vnderstand that you are a Catholicke in déede I will do it sayd the Archbyshop and with a good will who by and by rising vp and putting of his cap began to speake thus vnto the people I desire you well beloued brethren in the Lord that you will pray to God for me to forgeue me my sinnes which aboue all men both in number and greatnes I haue committed but among all the rest there is one offence whiche of all at this tyme doth vexe and trouble me wherof in processe of my talke you shall heare more in his proper place and then puttyng his hand into his bosome he drew forth his Prayer whiche he recited to the people in this sense ¶ The Prayer of Doct. Cranmer Archb. of Cant. at his death GOod Christen people my dearely beloued brethren and sisters in Christ I beséech you most hartely to pray for me to almightie God that he will forgeue me all my sinnes and offēces which be many without number and great aboue measure But yet one thyng gréeueth my conscience more then all the rest wherof God willyng I entend to speake more hereafter But how great and how many soeuer my sinnes be I beséech you to pray God of his mercy to pardon and forgeue them all And here knéelyng downe he sayd O Father of heauen O Sonne of God redeemer of the world O holy Ghost three persons and one God haue mercy vpon me most wretched caitiffe and miserable sinner I haue offended both against heauen and earth more then my toung can expresse Whether then may I goe or whether should I flye To heauen I may be ashamed to lift vp myne eyes and in earth I finde no place of refuge or succour To thee therfore O Lord do Irunne to thee do I humble my selfe saying O Lord my God my sinnes be great but yet haue mercy vpon me for thy great mercy The great mistery that God became mā was not wrought for litle or few offēces Thou diddest nor geue thy sonne O heauenly Father vnto death for small sinnes onely but for all the greatest sinnes of the world so that the sinner returne to thee with his whole hart as I do here at this present Wherfore haue mercy on me O God whose property is alwayes to haue mercy haue mercy vpon me O Lord for thy great mercy I craue nothyng O Lord for myne owne merites but for thy names sake that it may be halowed thereby and for thy deare sonne Iesus Christ sake And now therfore our Father of heauen halowed by thy name c. And then he rising sayd Euery man good people desireth at that tyme of their death to geue some good exhortation that other may remember the same before their death and be the better thereby so I beseech God graunt me grace that I may speake some thyng at this my departyng whereby God may bee glorified and you edified First it is an heauie case to see that so many folke be so much doted vpon the loue of this false world and so carefull for it that of the loue of God or the world to come they seeme to care very litle or nothyng Therefore this shal be my first exhortation that you set not your myndes ouer much vpon this glosing world but vpon God and vpon the world to come and to learne to know what this lesson meaneth whiche S. Iohn teacheth That the loue of this world is hatred agaynst God The second exhortation is that next vnder God you obey your Kyng and Queene willingly and gladly without murmuryng or grudgyng not for feare of them onely but much more for the feare of God knowyng that they be Gods Ministers appointed by God to rule and gouerne you and therefore who soeuer resisteth them resisteth the ordinaunce of GOD. The third exhortation is that you loue altogether lyke brethren and sisters For alas pitie it is to see what cōtention and hatred one Christen man beareth to an other not takyng ech other as brother and sister but rather as straungers and mortall enemyes But I pray you learne and beare well away this one lesson to doe good vnto all men asmuch as in you lyeth to hurt no man no more then you would hurt your owne naturall louyng brother or sister For this you may be sure of that who soeuer hateth any person and goeth about maliciously to hinder or hurt him surely and without all doubt God is not with that mā although he thinke him selfe neuer so much in Gods fauour The fourth exhortation shal be to them that haue great substaunce and riches of this world that they will well consider and wey three sayinges of the Scripture One is of our Sauiour Christ him selfe who sayth It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen A sore saying and yet spoken of him that knoweth the truth The second is of S. Iohn whose saying is this He that hath the substaunce of this world and seeth his brother in necessitie and shutteth vp his mercy from him how can he say that he loueth God The thyrd is of S. Iames who speaketh to the couetous rich mā after this maner Weepe you and howle for the miserie that shall come vppon you your riches doe rotte your clothes be moth eaten your gold and siluer doth canker and rust and their rust shall beare witnesse agaynst you and consume you like fire you gather a horde or treasure of Gods indignation agaynst the last day Let them that be rich ponder well these three sentences for if euer they had occasion to shew their charitie they haue it now at this present the poore people beyng so many and victuals so deare The description of Doct. Cranmer how he was plucked downe from the stage by Friers and Papistes for the true Confession of his Fayth First I beleue in God the Father almightie maker of heauen and earth c. And I beleue euery Article of the Catholicke fayth euery word and sentence taught by our Sauiour Iesus Christ his Apostles and Prophetes in the new and old Testament And now I come to the great thyng that so much troubleth my conscience more thē any thyng that euer I did or sayd in my whole life and that is the settyng abroad of a writyng contrary to the truth which now here I renounce and refuse as thynges written with my hand contrary to the truth which I thought in my hart written for feare of
he had with his Apostles the night before his death at which time as Mathew sayth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cup and when hee had geuen thankes he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke hence forth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day whē I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome This thing is rehearsed also of S. Marke in these wordes As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and sayd Take eate this is my body and taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he sayd to them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many verely I say vnto you I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine vntill that daye that I drinke it new in the kingdome of God The Euangelist S. Luke vttereth this matter on this wise When the houre was come he sate down and the twelue Apostles with hym And he said vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer For I say vnto you hēceforth I will not eat of it any more vntil it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he toke the cuppe and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you For I say vnto you I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill the kingdome of God come And he toke bread and when hee had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body which is geeuen for you This doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he toke the cup saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud which is shedde for you Hitherto you haue herd all that the euangelistes declare that Christ spake or did at his last supper concerning thinstitutiō of the communion and sacramēt of his body and bloud Now you shall here what S. Paul sayth concerning the same in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians where he writeth thus Is not the cuppe of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we breake a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread one body For we al are partakers of one bread and one cuppe And in the eleuenth he speaketh on this manner That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed toke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cuppe when Supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drinke it in remembrance of me for as oft as you shal eate this bread and drinke this cup you shew forth the Lords death til he come Wherfore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cuppe vnworthely shal be gilty of the body bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine him selfe and so eat of the bread and drinke of the cuppe For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you many doe sleepe By these wordes of Christ rehearsed of the Euangelistes and by the doctrine also of Saint Paule which he confesseth that he receaued of Christ two thinges specially are to be noted First that our Sauiour Christ called the materiall bread which he brake his body the wine which was the fruit of the vine his bloud And yet he spake not this to the intent that men should thinke that the material bread is his very body or that his very body is materiall bread Neither that wine made of grapes is his very bloud or that his very bloud is wine made of grapes But to signifie vnto vs as S. Paul sayth that the cuppe is a communion of Christes bloud that was shed for vs and the bread is a communion of his flesh that was crucified for vs. So that although in the truth of his humain nature Christ be in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father yet whosoeuer eateth of the bread in the Supper of the Lord according to Christes institution and ordinaunce is assured of Christes own promise and testament that he is a member of his body and receaueth the benefites of his passion which he suffered for vs vpon the crosse And likewise he that drinketh of that holy cuppe in the Supper of the Lord according to Christes institution is certified by Christes legacy and testament that he is made partaker of the bloud of Christ which was shed for vs. And this ment S. Paule when he sayth is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the can bread which we breake a cōmunion of the body of Christ so that no man contēne or lightly esteeme this holy cōmuniō except he contēne also Christs body and bloud and passe not whether he haue any felowship with him or no. And of those men S. Paule saith that they eate and drink their own damnation because they esteme not the body of Christ. The second thing which may be learned of the forsaid wordes of Christe and S. Paule is this that although none eateth the body of Christ and drinketh hys bloud but they haue eternall life as apereth by the wordes before recited of S. Iohn yet both the good and the bad doe eate and drynke the bread and wine which be the Sacramentes of the same But beside the Sacramentes the good eate euerlasting life the euill euerlasting death Therfore S. Paule sayth Who soeuer shall eate of the bread or drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Here S. paul saith not that he that eateth the bread or drinketh the cup of the Lord vn worthely eateth drinketh the body bloud of the Lord but is gilty of the body bloud of the Lord. But what he eateth drynketh S. Paul declareth saying he that eateth drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh his own dānatiō thus is declared the sum of al that scripture speketh of the eating drinking both of the body bloud of Christ also of the sacramēt of the same And as these thinges be most certaynly true
proofe in Scripture to say God doth it because he can doe it For hee can doe many thinges which hee neither doth nor will doe He could haue sent moe then twelue Legions of Angels to deliuer Christ from the wicked Iewes and yet he would not doe it He could haue created the world and all thinges therin in one moment of time and yet his pleasure was to doe it in sixe dayes In all matters of our christen faith written in holy Scripture for our instruction and doctrin how farre so euer they seeme discrepant from reason we must represse our imaginations and consider Gods pleasure and will and yeald therto beleeuing him to be omnipotent And that by his omnipotent power such thinges are verelye so as holy scripture teacheth Like as we beleeue that Christ was borne of the blessed virgin Mary without company of man that our Sauyour Christ the third day rose agayn from death that he in his humanity ascended into heauen that our bodyes at the day of iudgement shall rise agayne and many other such like thinges which we all that be true christeÌ„ men do beleeue firmely because we finde these thinges written iu Scripture And therfore we knowing Gods omnipotency doe beleue that he hath brought some of the said things to passe already and those things that are yet to come he will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to passe Now if you can proue that your transubstantiatioÌ„ your fleshly presence of Christes body and bloud your carnall eating and drinking of the same your propitiatory sacrifice of the masse are taught vs as plainly in the scripture as the sayd articles of our faith be then I will beleeue that it is so in deede Otherwise neither I nor any man that is in his right wittes will beleeue your said articles because God is omnipotent and can make it so For you might so vnder pretence of Gods omnipotency make as many articles of our faith as you list if such arguments might take place that God by his omnipotent power can conuert the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of his flesh and bloud ergo he doth so in deede And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine yet Christ vsed not so many wordes in the mistery of his holy supper without effectual signification For he is effectually present and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine but in the godly receauers of them to whom he geeueth his own flesh spiritually to feede vpon and his own bloud to quench their great inward thirst And here I would wishe you to marke very wel one true sentence which you haue vttered by the way which is That Christ declared that eating of him signifieth beleeuing and start not from it an other time And marke the same I pray thee gentle Reader For this one sentence assoyleth almost all the argumentes that be brought by this Lawyer in his wholl booke against the truth And yet to the sayd true saying you haue ioyned an other vntruth haue yoaked them both together in one sentence For when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended froÌ„ heauen there was no murmuring thereat say you Which your saying I can not but wonder at to see you so farre deceaued in a matter so plaine and manifest And if I had spoaken such an euident and manifeste vntruth I doubt not but it should haue beene spoaken of to Rome gates For the text sayth there plainly Murmur abant Iudaei de illo qoud dixisset Ego sum panis vinus qui de coelo descendi The Iewes murmured at him because he sayd I am the bread of life that came from heauen But when you wrote this it seemeth you looked a litle to low and should haue looked higher And here by this one place the Reader may gather of your own wordes your intent and meaning in this your booke if that be true which you sayd before that euer where contention is on what parte the Reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lye there he may consider whatsoeuer excuse be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended An other vntruth also followeth incontinently that when Christ sayd The bread which I will geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world In these wordes say you Christ maketh mention of two gifts But what be those two giftes I pray you And by what wordes is the diuersitie of those two giftes expressed If the geuing as Smith sayth be geuing to death then those two giftes declare that Christ dyed for vs twise And if one of Christes giftes haue liuery and seisyn why hath not the other likewise And when was then that liuery and seisyn geuen And if eating of Christ be beleeuing as you sayd euen now then liuerey and seisyn is geuen when we first beleeue whether it be in baptisme or at any other time But what you mean by these wordes that Christ gaue in his supper his body as really to be eateÌ„ of vs as he did to be crucified for vs I vnderstand not except you would haue Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth as he was after crucified whipped and thrust to the hart with a speare But was he not then so really and corporally crucified that his body was rent and torne in peeces And was not he so crucified then that he neuer was crucified after Was he not so slayn then that he neuer dyed any more And if he were so eaten at his supper then did his Apostles teare his flesh at the supper as the Iewes did the day following And then how could he now be eaten agayn Or how could he be crucified the day following if the night before he were after that sort eaten all vp But aptly say you and conueniently Mary Sir I thanke you but what is the aptly and conueniently but spiritually and by faith as you said before not grosly with the teeth as he was crucified And so the manner was diuers I graunt and the substance all one But when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper as you say he did then what needed he after to dye that we might liue if he fulfilled his promise of life at his supper Why said the Prophets that he should be wouÌ„ded for our iniquities and that by his wounds we should be healed if we had life and were healed before he was wounded Why doth the catholick faith teach vs to beleue that we be redeemed by his blud sheading if he gaue vs life which is our redemâ—ion the night before hee shed his bloud And why sayth S. Paule that there is no remission without bloud sheading Yea why did he say Absit mihi
for your catholick confessiō that Christ doth in deed fede such as be regenerated in him not only by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud at his holy table this I confesse also but that he feedeth Iewes Turkes and Infidels if they receaue the sacrament or that he corporally feedeth our mouthes with his flesh and bloud this neither I confesse nor any scripture or auncyeut writer euer taught but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hartes and by fayth not with mouth and teeth except our hartes be in our mouthes and our fayth in our teeth Thus you haue labored sore in this matter and sponne a fayre threde and brought this your first booke to a goodly conclusion For you conclude your booke with blasphemous wordes agaynst both the sacrament of baptisme and the Lordes supper nigardly pinching gods giftes and diminishing hys lyberall promises made vnto vs in them For where Christ hat◠promised in both the sacramentes to be assistant with vs wholl both in body and spirite in the one to be our spirituall regeneration and apparell and in the other to be our spirituall meate and drinke you clyp hys liberall benefites in such sorte that in the one you make him to geue but onely his spirite and in the other but onely hys body And yet you call your booke an Explication and assertion of the true catholicke fayth Here you make an ende of your first booke leauing vnanswered the rest of my booke And yet forasmuch as Smith busieth him selfe in this place with the aunswere therof he may not passe vnanswered againe where the matter requireth The wordes of my booke be these But these thinges cannot manifestly appeare to the reader except the principall poyntes be first set our wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods word which be chiefly fower First the Papistes say that in the supper of the Lord after the wordes of consecration as they call it there is none other substaunce remaining but the substaunce of Christes flesh and bloud so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten nor wine to be dronken And although there be the colour of bread and wine the sauour the smell the bignesse the fashion and all other as they call them accidentes or qualities and quantitees of bread and wine yet say they there is no very bread nor wine but they be turned into the flesh bloud of Christ. And this conuersion they call transubstantiation that is to say turning of one substance into an other substance And although all the accidentes both of the bread and wine remaine still yet say they the same accidentes be in no maner of thing but hang alone in the ayre without any thing to stay them vpon For in the body and bloud of Christ say they these accidentes cannot be nor yet in the ayre for the body and bloud of Christ and the ayre be neither of that bignesse fashion smell nor colour that the bread and wine be Nor in the bread and wine say they these accidentes can not be for the substance of bread and wine as they affirm be clean gone And so there remaineth whitenes but nothing is white there remaineth colours but nothing is colored therwith there remaineth roundnes but nothing is round and there is bignes and yet nothing is bigge there is sweetenes without any sweet thing softnes without any soft thing breaking without any thing broaken diuision without any thing deuided and so other qualities and quantities without any thing to receiue them And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith But it is not the doctrine of Christ but the subtile inuention of Antichrist first decreed by Innocent the third and after more at large set forth by schoole authors whose study was euer to defend and set abroad to the world all such matters as the bishoppe of Rome had once decreed And the Deuill by his minister Antichrist had so daseled the eyes of a great multitude of christian people in these latter dayes that they sought not for their faith at the cleere light of Gods word but at the Romish Antichrist beleeuing what so euer he prescribed vnto them yea though it were against all reason al sences Gods most holy word also For els he could not haue been very Antichrist in deede except he had been so repugnant vnto Christ whose doctrine is clean contrary to this doctrin of Antichrist For Christ teacheth that we receaue very bread and wine in the most blessed Supper of the Lord as Sacraments to admonish vs that as we be fedde with bread and wine bodely so we be fedde with the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spirituallye As in our baptisme we receiue very water to signify vnto vs that as water is an elemēt to wash the body outwardly so be our soules washed by the holy ghost inwardly The second principall thinge wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods worde is this They say that the very naturall fleshe and bloud of Christ which suffred for vs vpon the crosse sitteth at the right hād of father in heauen is also really substancially corporally naturally in or vnder the accidents of the sacramental bread wine which they call the fourmes of bread and wine And yet here they vary not a litle among thē selues for some say that the very naturall body of Christ is there but not naturally nor sensibly And other say that it is there naturally and sensibly and of the same bignes and fashion that it is in heauen and as the same was borne of the blessed virgine Mary and that is there broken and torne in peces with our teeth And this appeareth partly by the schole authors partely by the confession of Berengarius which Nicholas the second constrained him to make which was this That of the Sacramentes of the Lordes table the said Berengarius should promise to hold that faith which the sayd Pope Nicholas his counsel held which was that not only the sacramēts of bread wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar broken and torne with the teeth of the faithful people But the true catholick faith grounded vpon Gods most infallible word teacheth vs that our sauiour Christ as concerning his mans nature and bodily presence is gone vp vnto heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father and there shall he tary vntill the worldes ende at what time he shall come againe to iudge both the quick and the dead as he saith him self in many Scriptures I forsake the world saith he and goe to my Father And in another place he saith You shal euer haue poore men among you but me shall not you euer haue And againe hee saith Many hereafter shall come and say looke here is Christ or looke there
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
say Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine and for an aduersatiue therto I say that we which follow the Scriptures and aūcient writers say that he is receaued in the harte and entreth in by faith euery indifferent Reader vnderstandeth this aduersatiue vpon our side that we say Christ is not receaued in the mouth but in the hart specially seeing that in my fourth booke the second and third chapters I make purposely a processe therof to proue that Christ is not eaten with mouthes and teeth And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute vnto me in this comparison to make the comparison more full and plain let this be the comparison They say that Christ is receiued with the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine we say that he is not receaued with the mouth but with harte and entreth in by faith And now I trust there is no sleight in this comparison nor both the partes may not be vnderstand on both sides as you say they might before And as for S. Augustine serueth nothing for your purpose to proue that Christes body is eaten with the mouth For he speaketh not one word in the place by you alleadged neither of our mouthes nor of Christes body But it seemeth you haue so feruent desire to be doing in this matter that you be like to certain men which haue such a fond delight in shooting that so they be doyng they passe not how farre they shoote from the marke For in this place of S. Augustine against the Donatists he shooteth not at this butte whether Christes very naturall body be receaued with our mouthes but whether the Sacramentes in generall be receaued both of good and euill And there he declareth that it is all one water whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned in it All one Table of the Lord and one cup whether Peter suppe thereat or Iudas All one oyle whether Dauid or Saule were annointed therewith Wherfore he concludeth thus Memento ergo Sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum quo illa vel omnino non sint vel minus sancta sint sed ipsis malis hominibus vt haec habeant ad testimonium damnationis non ad adiutorium sanitatis Remēber therfore saith S. Augustine that the manners of euill men hinder not the Sacramentes of God that either they vtterly be not or be lesse holy but they hinder the euill men them selues so that they haue the Sacramentes to witnesse of their damnatiō not to helpe of their saluation And all the processe spoaken there by S. Augustine is spoaken chiefly of Baptisme against the Donatistes which sayd that the Baptisme was naught if either the minister or the receauer were naught Against whom S. Augustine concludeth that the Sacramentes of themselues be holy and be all one whether the minister or receauer be good or bad But this place of S. Augustine prooueth as wel your purpose that Christes body is receaued by the mouth as it prooueth that Poules steeple is higher then the crosse in Cheape For he speaketh not one worde of any of them al. And therefore in this place where you pretēd to shoote at the butte you shoote quite at rouers and cleane from the marke And yet if Iudas receaued Christ with the bread as you say and the deuil entred with the bread as S. Iohn saith then was the deuil and Christ in Iudas both at once And thē how they agreed I meruaile For S. Paul saith that Christ and Beliall cannot agree O what a wit had he neede to haue that will wittingly maintayn an open error directly against God his word and all holy auncient writers Now followeth the fourth comparison in my booke They say that Christ is really in the Sacramentall bread being reserued a wholl yeare or so long as the forme of bread remayneth But after the receauing thereof he flyeth vp say they from the Receauer vnto heauen as soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. Winchester This comparison is like the other before whereof the first parte is garnished and embossed with vntruth and the second parte is that the Church hath euer taught most truely and that all must beleeue and therefore that peece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the manner onely bring spoaken as though it differed from the continuall open teaching of the Church which is not so Wherefore in the manner of it in vtterance signifieth an vntruth which in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoubtedly Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the Sacrament so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. In this first parte there is a fault in the matter of the spéech for explication whereof I will examine it particularly This Author saith they say that Christ is really in the Sacramental bread being reserued an wholl yeare c. The Church geuing faith to Christes word when he said This is my body c. teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread vnto which wordes when doe put the word really it serueth onely to expresse that truth in open wordes which was before to be vnderstanded in sence For in Christ who was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and who did exhibite and gaue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promysed in his Sacramentes of the olde law We must vnderstand his wordes in the institution of his Sacramentes without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing of them and therefore when be ordered his most precious body and bloud to be eaten and druken of vs vnder the formes of bread and wine we professe and beléeue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the Sacrament for a celestiall foode to comforte and strengthen vs in this miserable life And for certainty of the truth of his worke therein we professe he geueth vs his body really that is to say in déed his body the thing it selfe which is the heauenly parte of the Sacrament called Eucharistia hauing the visible forme of bread and wine and contayning inuisibly the very body and bloud of our Sauyour Christ which was not wonte to be reserued otherwise but to be ready for such as in daunger of death call for it and the same so long as it may be vsed is still the same Sacrament which onely tyme altereth not Whereof Cirill wrote to this sence many hundred yeares past and Hesychius also and what ought to be done when by negligence of the mynister it were reserued ouerlong Mary where it liketh the Author of these differences to say the church teacheth Christ to flée vp from the
receauer vnto heauen so sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke this maner of speach implieth as though Christ leaft the seat of his maiestie in heauen to be present in the Sacrament which is most vntrue The Church acknowledgeth beleeueth and teacheth truly that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory frō whence he shall come to iudge the worlde and also teacheth Christs very body and bloud and Christ him selfe God and man to be present in the Sacrament not by shifting of place but by the determination of his will declared in Scriptures and beléeued of the Catholick church which articles be to reason impossible but possible to God omnipotent So as being taught of his will we should humbly submitte all our sēses and reason to the faith of his will and worke declared in his Scriptures In the beléefe of which misteries is great benefit and consolation and in the vnreuerēt search and curious discussion of thē presumptuous boldnes wicked temerity I know by faith Christ to be present but the particularity how he is present more then I am assured he is truely present and therfore in substance present I cannot tell but present he is and truely is and verely is and so in déede that is to say really is and vnfaynedly is and therfore in substance is and as we tearme it substancially is present For all these aduerbes really substancially with the rest be contayned in the one word is spoakē out of his mouth that speaketh as he meaneth truely and certainly as Christ did saying This is my body that shall be betrayed for you who then carryed him selfe in his hands after a certain manner as S. Augustine sayth which neuer man besides him could doe who in that his last Supper gaue him selfe to be eaten without consuming The wayes and meanes wherof no man can tell but humble spirites as they be taught must constātly beléeue it without thinking or talking of flying of stying of Christ again vnto heauē where Christ is in the glory of his Father continually and is neuerthelesse because he will so be present in the Sacrament wholl God and man dwelleth corporally in him that receaueth him worthely Wherfore Reader when thou shalt agayn well consider this comparison thou shalt finde true how the first parte is disguysed with vntrue report of the common teaching of the Church how so euer some glose or some priuat teacher might speak of it And the second part such as hath béen euer so taught One thing I think good to admonish the reader that what soeuer I affirme or precisely deny I meane within the compasse of my knowledge which I speak not because I am in any suspicion or doubt of that I affirme or deny but to auoyd the temerity of denying as neuer or affirming as euer which be extremityes And I mean also of publicke doctrine by consent receaued so taught and beléeued and not that ony one man might blindly write as vttering his fancy as this autor doth for his pleasure There followeth in the Author thus Caunterbury BEcause this comparison as you say is like the other therfore it is fully answered before in the other comparisons And here yet agayn it is to be noted that in all these 4. comparisons you approue and allow for truth the second parte of the comparison which we say And where you say that Christ vndoubtedly remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the sacrament so long as that man remaineth a member of Christ. How agreeth this with the common saying of all the Papistes that Christ is conteyned vnder the formes of bread and wine and remayneth there no longer then the formes of bread and wine remain Wherefore in this point all the wholl route of the Papistes will condemne for vntruth that which you so constantly affirme to be vndoubtedly true And when the Papistes teache that the body of Christ is really in the sacramēt vnder the forme of bread they speak not this geueng faith to Christ his words as you say they doe for Christ neuer spake any such words and as for this saying of Christ this is my body it is a figuratiue speach called Metonymia when one thing is called by the name of another which it signifieth and it hath no such sence as you pretend for these is a great diuersity betweene these two sayinges This is my body and the body of Christ is really in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread But the Papists haue set Christes wordes vpon the tenters and stretched them out so farre that they make his wordes to signifie as pleaseth them not as he meant And this is a marueilous doctrine of you to say that Christ was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and did exhibite and geue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promised in the Sacramentes of the olde law For he is the body of all the figures as well of the new law as of the olde and did exhibite and geue his promises in the Sacramentes of the olde law as he doth now in the Sacraments of the new law And we must vnderstand and the wordes spoaken in the institution of the Sacramentes in both the lawes Figuratiuely as concerning the Sacramentes and without figure as concerning the thinges by them promised signified and exhibited As in circumcision was geeuen the same thing to them that is geuen to vs in baptisme and the same by Manna that we haue at the Lords table Only this difference was betweene them and vs that our redemption by Christes death and passion was then onely promised and now it is perfourmed and past And as their Sacramentes were figures of his death to come so be our figures of the same now past and gon And yet it was all but one Christ to them and vs. Who gaue life comfort and strength to them by his death to come and geueth the same to vs by his death passed And he was in their Sacramentes spiritually and effectually present and for so much truely and really present that is to say in deede before he was born no lesse thē he is now in our Sacramēts present after his death and assention into heauen But as for carnall presence he was to them not yet come And to vs he is come and gone agayne vnto his Father from whom he came And as for the reseruation of the Sacrament neither Cyrill nor Hesychius speake any worde what ought to be done with the Sacrament when by negligence of the Minister it were reserued ouer long But Hesychius sheweth plainly that nothing ought to be reserued but to be burned what so euer remayned And as for the flying of Christ vp into heauen so soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or changed in the stomack I say not that the church teacheth so but that Papistes say so whith for as
much as you say that it liketh me to reporte this most vntruely reade what the glose saith vpō the chapter Tribus gradibus de Consecrat dist a there you shall finde these words Certum est quod species quam citó dentibus teruntur tam citó in Coelum rapitur corpus Christi And if this glose be false and erroneous why was it published and set out by the authority of the Papistes Why hath it been writtē and printed in so many countreis and so many yeares without reprofe of any fault found therein by any man But here may wise men learn to beware of your doctrine For you reproue those Papistes which haue written of this matter 4. or 5. hundreth yeares past and doe inuent a new deuise of your own And therefore wise men when they see you teach one doctrine and the Papistes that were before your time teach another they will beleeue none of you all And where you say that in the beleefe of this mistery is great benefitte and consolation What benefitte I beseech you is it to vs if Christ be really and corporally in the formes of bread and wine a moneth or two or a yeare or two And if we receaue him really and corporally with the bread and wine into our mouthes or stomackes and no further and there he tarieth not in that sorte but departeth away from vs by and by agayn what great benefit or comforte I pray you is such a corporall presence vnto vs And yet this is the teaching of all the Papistes although you seeme to vary from them in this last point of Christes sodayne departure But when the matter shall be throughly answered I weene you will agree with the rest of the Papistes that as concerning his carnall presence Christ departeth from vs at the least wheu the formes of bread and wine be altered in the stomack And then I pray you declare what comfort and benefitte we haue by this carnall presence which by and by is absent and taryeth not with vs Such comfort haue weake and sick consciences at the Papistes handes to tell them that Christ was with them and now he is gone from them Neuerthelesse in the beleef of this mistery if it be vnderstāded according to Gods word is great benefit and consolation but to beleeue your addition vnto Gods word is neither benefit nor wisedome And I pray you shew in what place the Scripture saith that vnder the formes of bread and wine is the body of Christ really corporally and naturally or els acknowledge them to be your own additiō beside Gods word and your stout assertion herein to be but presumptuous boldnesse and wicked temeritie affirming so arrogantly that thing for the which you haue no authority of Gods word And where you seeme to be offended with the discussion of this matter what hurte I pray you can gold catch in the fire or truth with discussing Lyes onely feare discussing The Deuill hateth the light because he hath been a lyar from the beginning and is loth that his lies should come to light and triall And all Hipocrites and Papistes be of a like sorte afraide that their doctrine should come to discussing whereby it may euidently appeare that they be indued with the spirite of error and lying If the Papists had not feared that their doctrines should haue bene espied and their opions haue come to discussing the scriptures of God had bene in the vulgare and English tounge many yeares ago But God be praysed at the length your doctrine is come to discussing so that you can not so craftely walke in a cloude but the light of Gods word will alwaies shew where you be Our Sauiour Christ in the fifth of Iohn willeth vs to search the scriptures and to trie out the trueth by them And shall not we then with humble reuerence search the trueth in Christes Sacramentes And if we can not tel how Christ is present why do you then say that he is substantially present corporally present naturally and carnally present And how sure be you that Christ is in substaunce present because he is truely present Are you assured that this your doctrine agreeth with Gods word Doth not Gods word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit where he is not present in his corporall substance As when he saith Where two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them And also when he sayth I shall be with you till the end of the world Was it not a true presence that Christ in these places promised And yet can you not of this true presence gather such a corporall presence of the substance of Christs manhod as you vnlearnedly contrary to the scriptures◠go about to proue in the Sacramēt For when Christ said This is my body it was bread which is called his body in a figuratiue speach as all olde authors teach and as I haue proued in my third booke the 8 and 11 chap. And the manner how Christ caried himfelfe in his own handes sainct Augustine declareth it to be figuratiuely And because you can finde no repugnaunce betweene the two partes of this comparison to make them more plaine I shall fill them vp with more wordes as I did the other comparisons before This therefore shall be the comparison They say that Christ is really and corporally in the sacramentall bread beyng reserued so long as the forme of bread remayneth although it be an whole years and more but after the receiuing thereof he flyeth vp from the receauer into heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or digested in the stomacke But we say that after what manner Christ is receaued of vs in the same wise he remaineth in vs so long as we remaine the members of Christ. And where in the end you admonish the reader that what so euer you affirme or precisely deny you meane within the compasse of your knowledge and of publicke doctrine and of doctrine by consent receaued what do you here else but deuise certayne sleightes and prepare for your selfe priuy holes to start out at when so euer you should be taken with a manifestly So that you should not be cōpelled to abide by any word that you say For by these crafty sleightes and shifts of the compasse of your knowledge and of publick doctrine and of doctrine by common consent receaued you meane to say euer what you list And though neuer so manyfest a lye or vntruth be layd to your charge yet shall no manne neuer be able to proue it so manifestly against you but you shall haue one of these thre shiftes to flee out at for your defence Now foloweth in my booke the fift comparison They say that in the Sacrament the corporall members of Christ be not distant in place one frō an other but that where so euer the head is there be the feete and where so euer
them by Manna was geuen the same thing that now is geuen to vs in the sacramentall bread And if I would graunt for your pleasure that in theyr sacrameÌ„ts Christ was promised and that in ours he is really geuen doth it not then followe aswell that Christ is geuen in the sacrament of Baptisme as that he is geuen in the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud And S. Augustin contra Faustum esteemeth them madde that think diuersity betweene the things signified in the old and new testament because the signes be diuers And expressing the matter playnely sayth that the flesh and bloud of our sacryfice before Christs comming was promised â— y sacryfices of similitudes in his passion was geuen indeed after his asâ—â—ntion is solemnly put in our memory by the Sacrament And the thing which you say S. Augustine noteth to be geuen in the sacraments of the new testament and to be promised in the sacramentes of the olde S. Augustine expresseth the thing which he ment that is to say saluation and eternall lyfe by Christ. And yet in thys mortall lyfe we haue not eternall lyfe in possession but in promise as the prophets had But S. Augustine sayth that we haue the promise because we haue Christ all ready come which by the Prophets was promised before that he should come therefore S. Iohn the Baptist was called more then a Prophet because he said Here is the lamb of God already preset which the Prophets taught vs to looke for vntill he came The effect therfore of S. Augustins words plainly to be expressed was this that the prophets in the old testament Promised a sauiour to come redeem the world which the sacraments of that tyme testified vntill hys comming but now he is already come and hath by his death performed that was promised which our sacramentes testifie vnto vs as S. Augustine declareth more playnely in his booke De fide ad Petrum the xix chapter So that S. Augustine speaketh of the geuing of Christ to death which the sacraments of the old testament testified to come and ours testify to be done and not of the geuing of him in the sacraments And forasmuch as S. Augustine spake generally of all the sacraments therefore if you will by his words proue that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy communion you may aswell proue that he is corporally in baptisme For saint Augustine speaketh no more of the one then of the other But where saint Augustin speaketh generally of al the sacraments you restrayne the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lords supper onely that the ignoraunt reader should thinke that saynt Augustine spake of the corporall presence of Christ in the sacramentes and that onely in the sacraments of bread and wine where as saynt Augustine himself speaketh onely of our saluation by Christ and of the sacraments in generall And neuerthelesse as the fathers had the same Christ and mediator that we haue as you here confesse so did they spiritually eat his fâ—esh and drinke his bloud as we doe and spiritually feed of him and by faith he was present with theÌ„ as he is with vs although carnally and corporally he was yet to come vnto theÌ„ and from vs is gon vp to his father into heauen This besides saynt Augustine is plainely set out by Bertrame aboue 6. hundreth yeares passed whose iudgement in this matter of the sacrament although you allow not because it vtterly coÌ„demneth your doctrine therein yet forasmuch as hytherto his teaching was neuer reproued by none but by you alone and that he is commeÌ„ded of other as an excellent learned man in holy scripture and a notable famous man aswell in liuing as learning and that among his excellent works this one is specially praised which he wrot of the matter of the SacrameÌ„t of the body and bloud of our Lord therfore I shall reherse his teaching in this point how the holy fathers and Prophets before the comming of Christ did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud So that although Bertrams saying be not estemed with you yet the indifferent reader may see what was written in this matter before your doctrine was inuented And although his authority be not receiued of you yet his words may serue against Smyth who herein more learnedly and with more iudgement then you approueth this author This is Bertrams doctrine S. Paule saith that all the old fathers did eat the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spiritual drink But peraduenture thou wilt ask Which the same Euen the very same that christen people do daily eat and drinke in the church For we may not vnderstand diuers things when it is one and the self same Christ which in times past did feed with his flesh and made to drink of his bloud the people that were baptised in the cloude and sea in the wildernes and which doth now in the church feed christen people with the bread of his body and giueth theÌ„ to drink the floud of his bloud When he had not yet taken mans nature vpon him wheÌ„ he had not yet tasted death for the saluation of the world not redemed vs with his bloud neuertheles euen then our forefathers by spiritual meat and inuisible drink did eat his body in the wildernes and drink his bloud as the Apostle beareth witnesse saying The same spiritual meat the same spiritual drink For he that now in the church by his omnipotent power doth spiritually conuert bread wine into the flesh of his body and into the floud of his owne bloud he did theÌ„ inuisibly so worke that Manna which came from heauen was his body and the water his bloud Now by the thinges here by me alledged it euidently appereth that this is no nouelty of speech to say that the holy fathers and Prophets did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud For both the scripture and old authors vse so to speake how much soeuer the spech mislike them that like no fashion but their own And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of Ione of Kent Is this a good argument The fathers did eat Christes flesh and drinke his bloud spiritually before he was borne ergo after he was not corporally borne of his mother Or because he was corporally borne is he not therefore dayly eaten spiritually of his faithfull people Because he dwelt in the world corporally from his incarnation vnto his ascention did he not therfore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that tyme and hath so done euer sithens and will do to the worldes end Or if he be eaten in a figure can you induce thereof that he was not borne without a figure Do not such kynde of argumentes fauour the errour of Ione of Kent Yea do they not manifestly approue her pestiferous heresy if they were to be alowed What man that meaneth the trueth would bring in such manner of resoning to deface the truth
reader the sayinges of these authors and see whether they say that one nature in Christ may be both in heauen and in earth both here with vs and absent from vs at one tyme and whether they resolue this matter of Christs being in heauen and in earth as Smith doth to be vnderstand of his māhoode in diuersitie of these respectes visible and inuisible And when thou hast well considered the authors sayinges then geue credite to Smith as thou shalt see cause But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hote that the Bishop of Winchester durste not once touch it and Smith as soone as he had touched it felt it so scawlding hote that he durst not abyde it but shranke away by and by for feare of burning his fingers Now here what followeth further in my booke But now seeing that it is so euident a matter both by the expresse words of Scripture and also by all the old authors of the same that our Sauiour Christ as concerning his bodely presence is ascended into heauen and is not here in earth And seeing that this hath been the true confession of the Catholicke faith euer since Christes ascention it is now to be considered what mooued the Papistes to make a new and contrary faith and what Scriptures haue they for their purpose What moued them I know not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condition of the sea of Rome which is of al other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for Scripture they alleadge none but onely one and that not truely vnderstanded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to iarre and sound contrary to all other Scriptures pertaining to the matter Christ toke bread say they blessed brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body These words they euer still repeate and beate vpon that Christ sayd this is my body And this saying they make their shooteanker to proue therby as well the reall and naturall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these words of Christ say they be most plain and most true Then for as much as he said This is my body it must needes be true that that thing which the Priest holdeth is his hands is Christs body And if it be Christes body then can it not be bread Whereof they gather by their reasoning that there is Christes body really present and noe bread Now forasmuch as all their proofe hangeth onely vpon these wordes this is my body the true sence and meaning of these wordes must be examined But say they what neede they any examination what wordes can be more plain then to say This is my body Truth it is in deed that the wordes be as plain as may be spoaken but that the sence is not so plain it is manifest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For when Christ gaue bread to his disciples and said This is my body there is no man of any discretiō that vnderstandeth the english tongue but he may well know by the order of the speache that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the old authors also do affirme although some of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the wordes seeme and purport but there must needes be some figure or mistery in this speech more then appeareth in the playne wordes For by this manner of speeche plainly vnderstand without any figure as the wordes lye can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread which all Christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherefore in these wordes must needes be sought out another sence meaning then the words of themselues do beare And although the true sense and vnderstanding of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the matter so playne that no scrouple or doubt shall remayne here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whiche processe shal be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speches And although it be manifest inough by the playn wordes of the gospel and proued before in the processe of Transubstantiation that Christ spake of bread when he sayd This is my body likewise that it was very wyne which he called his bloud yet least the Papistes should say that we sucke this out of our own fyngers the same shall be proued by testimony of the old authors to be the true and old fayth of the catholicke Church Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any auncient author to the contrary First Ireneus writing against the Valentinians in his fourth booke sayeth that Christ confessed bread which is a creature to be his body and the cuppe to be his bloud And in the same booke he writeth thus also The bread wherin the thanks be geuen is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same booke he saith that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice was his bloud And in the fift booke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his body a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plain that Christ taking very materiall bread a creature of God and of such sort as other bread is which we doe vse called that his body when he said this is my body and the wine also which doth feede and nourish vs he called his bloud Tertullian likewise in his booke written against the Iewes saith that Christ called bread his body And in his booke against Martian he oftentimes repeateth the selfe same wordes And S. Cipryan in the first booke of his epistles saith the same thing that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he called his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes and made into mine And in his second booke he saith these wordes Water is not the bloud of Christ but wine And againe in the same epistle he saith that it was wine which Christ called hys bloud and that if wine be not in the chalice then we drinke not of the fruit of the vine And in the same Epistle he saith that meale alone or water clone is not the body of Christ except they be both ioyned together to make therof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speaking of a lofe which is round in fashion and cannot see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierome wryting ad Hedibiam saith
represented vnto vs his testament confirmed by his bloud And if the Papistes will say as they say in deed that by this cup is neither mēt the cup nor the wine cōtayned in the cup but that thereby is mēt Christs bloud contayned in the cup yet must they nedes graunt that there is a figure For Christes bloud is not in proper speach the new testament but it is the thing that confirmed the new Testament And yet by this strange interpretation the Papistes make a very strange speach more strange then any figuratiue speach is For this they make the sentence this bloud is a new Testament in my bloud Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason that the foolishnes therof is euident to euery man Winchester As for the vse of figuratiue speaches to be accustomed in scripture is not denyed But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to Decolampadius of the sacrament geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speaches in gods ordinances and commaūdementes and otherwise For if in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinaunces and commaundementes figures may be often receiued truth shal by allegories be shortly subuerted and all our religion reduced to significations There is no speach so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speach but such as expresseth the common playne vnderstanding and then the common vse of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speach As these speaches drink vp this cup or eate this dish is in deed a figuratiue speach but by custome make so common that it is reputed the playne speach bicause if hath but one onely vnderstanding commonly receyued And when Christ sayd This cup is the new testament the proper speach therof in letter hath an absurditie in reason and fayth also But whan Christ sayd this is my body although the truth of the lytterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason yet hath it no absurditie in humilitie of fayth nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture And seing it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their proper sence there can no reasoning be made of other figuratiue speaches to make this to be their fellow and like vnto them No man denieth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper but such as be equall with playne proper speach or be expounded by other Euangelestes in playne speach Canterburie I See well you would take a dong forke to fight with rather then you would lack a weapon For how highly you haue estemed Melancthō in tymes past it is not vnknowne But whatsoeuer Melancthon sayeth or how soeuer you vnderstand Melancthon where is so conuenient a place to vse figuratiue speeches as when figures and Sacraments be instituted And S. Augustine giueth a playne rule how we may know when Gods commādemēts be giuen in figuratiue speches yet shal neither the truth be subuerted nor our religion reduced to significations And how can it be but that in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinances commaundements figures must needes be often receaued contrary to Melancthons saying if it be true that you say that there is no spech so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speech But now be all speches figuratiue when it pleaseth you What need I then to trauaile any more to proue that Christ in his supper vsed figuratiue speches seyng that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying And these wordes This is my body spoken of the bread and This is my bloud spoken of the cuppe expresse no playne comon vnderstanding wherby the common vse of these figures should be equall with plain proper speches or cause them to be taken as common proper speches for you say your felf that these speches in letter haue an absurdity in reason And as they haue absurdity in reason so haue they absurdity in fayth For neither is there any reason fayth myracle nor truth to say that materiall bread is Christes body For then it must be true that his body is material bread a conuersa ad conuertentem for of the materiall bread spake Christ those words by your confession And why haue not these words of Christ This is my body an absurdity both in fayth and reason aswell as these words This cup is the new Testament seyng that these wordes were spoken by Christ as well as the other and the credite of him is all one whatsoeuer he sayth But if you will needes vnderstand these wordes of Christ This is my body as the playn wordes signify in their proper sence as in the end you seeme to do repugning therein to your owne former saying you shall see how farre you go not onely from reason but also from the true profession of the christian fayth Christ spake of bread say you This is my body appoynting by this word this the bread whereof followeth as I sayd before If bread be his body that his body is bread And if his body be bread it is a creature without sence and reason hauing neither life nor soule which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken Heare now what followeth further in my booke Now forasmuch as it is playnly declared manifestly proued that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that these sentences be figuratiue speches and that Christ as concerning his humanity bodily presence is ascended into heauen with his whole flesh and bloud and is not here vpon earth and that the substance of bread and wine do remayne still and be receaued in the sacrament and that although they remayne yet they haue changed their names so that the bread is called Christs body and the wine his bloud and that the cause why their names be changed is this that we should list vp our harts minds frō the things which we se vnto the things which we beleue be aboue in heauē wherof the bread wine haue the names although they be not the vey same things in deed these things well considered and wayed all the authorities and arguments which the Papists fayn to serue for their purpose be clean wiped away For whether the authors which they alleadge say that we do eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud or that the bread and wine is conuerted into the substance of his flesh and bloud or that we be turned into his flesh or that in the Lordes supper we do receiue his very flesh and bloud or that in the bread and wine is receiued that which did hang vpon the crosse or that Christ hath left his flesh with vs or that Christ is in vs and we in him or that he is whole here and whole in heauen or that the same thing is in the Chalice which flowed out of his side or that the same thing is receiued with out mouth which is
is in the bread and wine and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wine but really carnally and corporally he is onely in heauen You haue termed these my wordes as it liketh you but farre otherwise then I eyther wrote or ment or then any indifferent reader would haue imagined For what indifferent reader would haue gathered of my words that Christ in his diuine nature is not really in heauen For I make a disiunctiue wherein I declare a playn distinction betweene his diuine nature and his humaine nature And of his diuine nature I say in the first mēber of my diuision which is in the beginning of my aforesayd words that by that nature he is euery where And all the rest that followeth is spoken of his humayne nature wherby he is carnally and corporally onely in heauen And as for this word really in such a sense as you expound it that is to say not in phantasy nor imagination but verily and truely so I grant that Christ is really not onely in them that duely receaue the sacrament of the Lordes supper but also in them that duely receaue the sacrament of Baptisme and in all other true christian people at other times when they receiue no sacramēt For al they be the members of Christs body and Temples in whom he truely inhabiteth although corporally and really as the Papistes take that word really he be onely in heauen and not in the sacrament And although in them that duely receaue the sacrament he is truely and in deed and not by phansy and imagination and so really as you vnderstand really yet is he not in them corporally but spiritual◠as I say and onely after a spirituall manner as you say And as for these wordes carnally and corporally I defame them not for I meane by carnally and corporally none otherwise than after the form and fashion of a mans body as we shal be after our resurrectiō that is to say visible palpable and circumscribed hauing a very quantitie with due proportion and distinction of members in place and order one from an other And if you will deny Christ so to be in heauen I haue so playne and manifest scriptures agaynst you that I will take you for no christian man except that you reuoke that error For sure I am that Christes naturall body hath such a grossenes or stature and quantitie if you will so call it bicause the word grosenes grosely taken as you vnderstand it soundeth not well in an incoruptible and immortall body Marry as for any other grosenes as of eating drinking and grose auoyding of the same with such other like corruptible grosenes it is for grose heades to imagine or think eyther of Christ or of any body glorified And although S. Augustine may say that Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen yet he sayth playnly that his body is of such sort that it is circumscribed and conteined in one place And Gregory Nazianzene ment that Christ should not com at the last iudgement in a corruptible and mortall flesh as he had before his resurrection and as we haue in this mortall lyfe for such grosenes is not to be attributed to bodyes glorified but yet shal he come with with such a body as he hath since his resurrection absolute and perfect in all partes and members of a mans bodye hauing handes feete head mouth syde and woundes and all other partes of a man visible and sensible like as we shall all appeare before him at the same last day with this same flesh in substance that we now haue and with these same eyes shall we see God our Sauiour Marry to what fynes and purenes our bodyes shall be then changed no man knoweth in the perigrination of this world sauing that S. Paule sayth that he shall change this vile body that he may make it like vnto his glorious body But that we shall haue diuersity of all members and a due proportion of mens natural bodyes the scripture manifestly declareth what soeuer you can by a synister glose gather of Nazianzene to the contrary that glorified bodies haue no flesh nor grossenes But see you not how much this saying of S. Augustin that our resurrection shall not be carnally maketh agaynst your self For if we shal not rise carnally then is not Christ risen carnally nor is not in heauen carnally And if he be not in heauen how can he be in the Sacrament carnally and eaten and drunken carnally with our mouthes as you say he is And therfore as for the termes carnally and corporally it is you that defame thē by your grosse taking of thē and not I that speak of none other grossenes but of distinction of the naturall and substantiall partes with out the which no mans body can be perfect And wheras here in this processe you attribute vnto Christ none other presence in heauen but spirituall without all manner of grossenes or carnallity so that all manner of beyng is spirituall and none otherwise then he is in the sacramēt here I ioyn an issue with you for a ioynt and for the price of a faggot I wondred all this while that you were so ready to graunt that Christ is but after a spirituall manner in the sacrament and now I wonder no more at that seyng that you say he is but after a spirituall maner in heauen And by this meanes we may say that he hath but a spirituall manhod as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a spirituall body And yet some carnall thing and grossenes he hath in him for he hath flesh and bones which spirites lack except that to all this impietye you will adde that his flesh and bones also be spirituall thinges not carnall And it is not without some strange prognosticatiō that you be now waxed altogither so spirituall Now as concerning the word figuratiuely what need this any profe that christ is in the sacraments figuratiuely which is no more to say but sacramentally And you graunt your selfe fol. 28. that Christ vnder the figure of visible creatures gaue inuisibly his pretious body And fol. 80. you say that Christ sayd This is my body vsing the outward signes of that visible creatures And this doctrine was neuer reproued of any catholick man but hath at al times and of al men bene allowed without contradition sauing now of you allone Now followeth my answere to the authors particularly And first to Saynt Clement My wordes be these They alleadge S. Clement whose wordes be these as they report The sacraments of Gods secrets are committed to three degrees to a Priest a Deacon and a minister which with feare and trembling ought to kep the leauings of the broken peces of the Lordes body that no corruption be foūd in the holy place least by negligence great iniury be done to the portion of the Lordes body And by and by followeth So many hostes must
vnto his Apostles and ascended into heaueÌ„ Which things diuers hereticks sayd were not done verily in deed but apparantly to mens sightes and that in deed he had no such carnall corporall body as he appered to haue And agaynst such errors speaketh the epistle and not of the reall and corporall presence of Christ in the sacrameÌ„t although Eucharistia or the sacrament be ordeyned for a remembrance of that very body and so hath the name of it as the sacraments haue the names of the things which they signify But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from the true sence and purpose that was ment to an other sence and purpose that was not ment may appeare the truth of the Papistes who wrast and misconstrue all old auncient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and vngodly purposes Next in my book followeth mine aunswere to Dionisius Dionysius also Whom they alleage to prayse and extoll this sacrament as in deed it is most worthy being a sacrament of most high dignity and perfection representing vnto vs our most perfect spirituall coniunction vnto Chryst and our continuall nourishing feeding comfort and spiritual life in him yet he neuer sayd that the flesh and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wine really corporally sensibly and naturally as the Papists would beare vs in hand but he calleth euer the bread and wine signes pledges and tokens declaring vnto the faythfull receiuers of the same that they receaue Christ spiritually that they spiritually eat his flesh drinke his bloud And although the bread and wine be figures signes tokens of Christes flesh and bloud as S. Dionyse calleth them both before the Consecration and after yet the Greek annotations vpon the same Dionyse do say that the very things themselues be aboue in heauen And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in thys poynt of Christes real and corporal presence so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean agaynst them and that specially in three poynts in Transubstantiation in reseruation of the Sacrament and in the receiuing of the same by the Priest alone Winchester As touching Dionysius a wise reader may without any note of mine se how this author is troubled in hym and calleth for ayd the help of him that made the greek commeÌ„taries vpon Dionysius and pleadeth therwith the forme of the wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally wherof two that is to say really and sensibly the old authors in sillables vsed not forsomuch as I haue red but corporally and naturally they vsed speaking of this sacrament This Dionyse spake of this mistery after the dignitie of it not contending with any other for the truth of it as we do now but extolling it as a marueilous high mistery which if the bread be neuer the holyer and were onely a signification as this author teacheth were no high mistery at all As for the things of the Sacrament to be in heauen the church teacheth so and yet the same thinges be indéede present in the sacrament also which is a mistery so deepe and darke from mans naturall capacitie as is onely to be be beleued supernaturally without asking of the question how wherof S. Chrisostom maketh an exclamation in this wise O great beneuolence of God towards vs he that sitteth aboue with the father at the same houre is holden here with the hands of all men and geueth himselfe to them that will claspe and embrace him Thus sayth Chrisostom confessing to be aboue and here the same things at once and not onely in mens brests but hands also to declare the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible Sacrament whereby Christ is present in the mids of our sences and so may be called sensibly present although mans sences can not comprehend and feel or tast of him in their proper nature But as for this Dionyse he doth without argumeÌ„t declare his fayth in the adoratioÌ„ he maketh of this SacrameÌ„t which is openly testified in his workes so as we need not to doubt what his fayth was As for this authors notes they be descant voluntary without the tenor part being be like ashamed to alleadge the text it self least his thrée notes might seeme fayned without ground as before in S. Clements epistle and therfore I will not trouble the reader with them Canterbury I Aske no more of the reader but to read my book and theÌ„ to iudge how much I am troubled with this author And why may not I cite the grek commentaryes for testimony of the truth Is this to be termed a callyng for ayd Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for ayde Is not your doing rather a caling for ayd when you be fayne to flye for succor to Martin Luther Bucer Melancthon Epinius Ionas Peter Marter and such other whom al the world knoweth you neuer fauored but euer abhorred their names May not this be termed a calling for ayd when you be driuen to such a straight and need that you be glad to cry to such men for helpe whom euer you haue hindered and defamed asmuch as lay in you to do And as for pleading of those wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally they be your owne termes and the termes wherein resteth the whole contention betweene you and me and should you be offended because I speak of those termes It appeareth now that you be loth to here of those wordes and would very gladly haue them put in silence and so should the variance betweene you and me clearely ended For if you will confesse that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament really corporally sensibly and naturally then you and I shal shake hands and be both earnest frends to the truth And yet one thing you do here confesse which is worthy to be noted had in memory that you read not in any old author that the body of Christ is really and sensibly in the sacrament And hereunto I adde that none of them say that he is the bread and wine corporally nor naturally No neuer no papist said that Christes body is in â—he sacrament naturally nor carnally but you alone who be the first auâ— or of this gros error which Smith himself condeÌ„neth and denieth that euer ChristiaÌ„ man so taught although some say that it is there really some substantially and some sensibly Now as concerning the high mistery which S. Denys speaketh of he declareth the same to be in the meruelous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures beyng made after his image and being his liuely temples and Christes misticall body and not in the vnreasonable and vnsensible and vnliuely creatures of bread and wine wherin you say the deep and darke mistery standeth But notwithstanding any holines or godlines wrought in the receauers of them yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselfes but be only tokens
let vs consider what speches of S. Ambrose this author bringeth forth wherewith to alter the truth of the very playne proper speech of S. Ambrose saying It is bread before the consecration after it is Christes body S. Ambrose as this author saith in an other place sayth thus Before the Benediction of the heauenly words it is called an other kind of thing but after the consecration is signifyed the body and bloud of Christ. And an other speach thus Before the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ and yet a third speech where the word call is vsed before and after both as thou reader maist sée in this authors booke in the 83. leafe Now good reader was there euer man so ouersene as this author is who seeth not S. Ambrose in these thre latter speaches to speake as playnely as in the first For in the last speach S Ambrose saith it is called bread before the consecration and called the body of Christ after the consecration And I would demaund of this author doth not this word call signify the truth that is bread in deed before the coÌ„secration which if it be so why shal not the same word cal signify also the very truth added to the wordes of the body of Christ after the consecration And likewise when he sayth speaking of the body of Christ the word signified or named which is as much as call The body of Christ is signifyed there for Christ sayd this is my body c. vsyng the outward signes of the visible creatures to signify the body bloud present not absent Was not Christ the true sonne of God because the angell said he shal be called the sonne of God But in these places of S. Ambrose to expresse plainely what he ment by calling he putteth that word call to the bread before the consecratioÌ„ aswell as to the body of Christ after the consecration thereby to declare how in his vnderstanding the word call signifieth as much truth in the thing where unto it is added after consecration as before and therfore as it is by S. Ambrose called bread before consecration signifâ—ing it was so indéed so it is called signifyed or named which thrée thus placed be all one in effect the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in deed agreable to the playne spech of S. Ambrose where he sayth It is bread before consecration and it is the body of Christ after consecration As touching the spirituality of the meat of Christes body I haue spoken before but where this author addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beyng oppressed with slepe of ignorance and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by the authority of Cyril Now let vs see what this author sayth to Chrysostome Caunterbury IT is not I that wrastle with S. Ambrose but you who take great payne to wrast his wordes cleane contrary to his intent and meaning But where you aske this question What can be more playne then these wordes of S. Ambrose It is bread before consecration and after it is Christes body These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so playne as you pretend but cleane contrary For what can be spokeÌ„ eyther more vnplayn or vntrue then to say of bread after consecration that it is the bodye of Christ vnles the same be vnderstand in a figuratiue spech For although Christes bodye as you say be there after consecration yet the bread is not his body nor his body is not made of itby your confession And therfore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christes body can not be true in playne spech And therfore S. Ambrose in the same place where he calleth it the body and bloud of Christ he sayth it is a figure of his body and bloud For these be his words Quod ex figura corporis sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christs And as for the word consecration I haue declared the signification therof according to the mind of the old authors as I will iustify And for the writing of Melancthon to Decolampadius you remayne still in your old error taking Myconius for Decolampadius And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament which Melancthon speaketh of is a sacramental change as the nature of a sacrameÌ„t requireth signifying how wonderfully almighty God by his omnipoteÌ„cy worketh in vs his liuely members and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine And the chaunge is in the vse and not in the elements kept and reserued wherein is not the perfection of a sacrament Therefore as water in the fonte or vessell hath not the reason and nature of a sacrament but when it is put to the vse of christening and then it is changed into the proper nature and kinde of a sacrament to signifye the wonderfull chaunge which almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be baptised therewith such is the chaunge of the breade and wine in the Lordes supper And therefore the bread is called Christes bodye after consecration as S. Ambrose sayth and yet it is not so really but sacramentally For it is neither Christes misticall body for that is the congregation of the faythfull dispersed abroad in the world nor hys naturall bodye for that is in heauen but it is the sacrament both of his true naturall body and also of his misticall body and for that consideration hath the name of his body as a sacrament or signe may beare the name of the very thing that is signified and represented therby And as for the foresayd books intituled to S. Ambrose if I ioyned Ambrose with Clement should say that the sayd bookes intiuled in the name of S. Ambrose de sacramentis de misterijs iniciandis were none of his I should say but as I thinke and as they do thinke that be men of most excellent learning and iudgement as I declared in my second book which speaketh of transubstantiation And so dooth iudge not onely Erasmus but also Melancthon whom you alleadge for authority when he maketh for your purpose suspecteth the same And yet I playnly denye not these bookes to be his for your pleasure to geue you asmuch aduauntage as you can aske and yet it auaileth you nothing at all But here I cannot passeouer that you be offended because I say that bread wine be called holy when they be put to an holy vse not that they haue any holines in them or be partakers of any holinesse or godlines I would fayne learn of Smith and you when the bread and wine be holy For before they be holowed or consecrated they be not holy by your teaching but be common bakers bread and wine of the tauerne And after the consecration there is neyther bread nor wine as you teach at what tyme then should the bread and wine be holy But the
nature must needs be vnderstād fyguratiuely by some similitude or propriety of one substance vnto an other and can in no wise be vnderstand properly and playnly without a figure And therfore when Christ is called the sonne of God or bread is called bread it is a most playne and proper spech but when Christ is called bread or bread is called Christ these can in no wise be formall and proper speches the substāces and natures of them being so diuers but must nedes haue an vnderstanding in figure signification or similitude as the very nature of all sacramentes require as al the old writers do playnly teach And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ his body bycause it is so in deed for then it were no figuratiue speach as all the old authors say it is And as for this word corporall you openly confessed your owne ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambheth when I asked you what corporall body Christ hath in the sacrameut whether he had distinction of members or no your answere was in effect that you could not tell And yet was that a wiser saying then you spake before in Cyril where you sayd that Christ hath onely a spirituall body and a spirituall presence and now you say he hath a corporall presēce And so you confoūd corporal spiritual as if you knew not what either of them ment or wist not or cared not what you sayd But now I will returne to my booke rehearse myne aunswere vnto S. Iohn Chrysostome which is this Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrisostome who in sound of words maketh most for the aduersaries of the truth but they that be familiar and acquanted with Chrisostomes manner of speaking how in all his writynges he is full of allusions schemes tropes and figures shall soone perceyue that he helpeth nothing their purposes as it shall well appeare by the discussing of those places which the Papistes do alleadge of him which be spicially two One is in Sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs And the other is De proditione Iudae And as touching the first no man can speake more playnly agaynst them then S. Iohn Chrisostome speaketh in that sermon Wherfore it is to be wondred why they should alleage hym for their partie vnlesse they be so blind in their opinion that they can se nothing nor discerne what maketh for them nor what against thē For there he hath these wordes When you come to these misteries speaking of the Lordes boord and holy communion do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God meaning of Christ. These be S. Iohn Chrisostome his owne wordes in that place Than if we receiue not the body of Christ at the hands of a man Ergo the body of Christ is not really corporally and naturally in the Sacrament and so geuen to vs by the Priest And then it followeth that all the Papistes be lyers because they fayne and teach the contrary But in this place of Chrisostome is touched before more at lēgth in answering to the Papistes Transubstantiation Wherfore now shall be answered the other place which they alleadge of Chrisostome in these wordes Here he is present in the sacramēt and doth cōsecrate which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper For it is not man which maketh of the bread and wine being set forth to be consecrated the body and bloud of Christ but it is Christ himselfe which for vs is crucified that maketh himselfe to be there present The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest but the consecration is by the vertue might grace of God himselfe And as this saying of God Increase be multiplied fill the earth once spoken by God tooke alwayes effect toward generation euen so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken doth throughout all churches to this present shall to his last comming geue force and strength to this sacrifice Thus farre they reherse of Chrisostomes words Which wordes although they sound much for the purpose yet if they be throughly cōsidered and conferred with other places of the same author it shal well appeare that he ment nothing lesse thē that Christes body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine but that in such sort he is in heauen onely and in our mindes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen to eate him there although sacramētally as in a signe and figure he be in the bread wine and so is he also in the water of Baptisme and in them that rightly receaue the bread wine he is in a much more perfection then corporally which should auayle them nothing but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power geuing them eternall lyfe And as in the first creatiō of the world all liuing creatures had their first life by gods onely word for God onely spake his word and all things were created by and by accordingly and after their creation he spake these wordes Increase and multiply and by the vertue of those wordes all thinges haue gendred increased euersince that tyme euen so after that Christ sayd Eat this is my body drinke this is my bloud Do this hereafter in remembraunce of me by vertue of these wordes and not by vertue of any man the bread and wine be so cōsecrated that whosoeuer with a liuely fayth doth eat that bread and drinke that wine doth spiritually eat drinke and feede vpon Christ sitting in heauen with his Father And this is the whole meaning of S. Chrisostome And therfore doth he so often say that we receaue Christ in baptisme And when he hath spoken of the receauing of him in the holy communion by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme without declaring any diuersity of his presence in the one from his presence in the other He sayth also in many places that We ascend into heauen and do eat Christ sitting there aboue And where S. Chrisostome and other Authors do speak of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes passing all mans wit senses and reason they meane not of the working of God in the water bread wine but of the maruaylous working of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramētes secretly inwardly and spiritually transforming them renuing feding comforting and nourishing them with his flesh and bloud through his most holy spirite the same flesh and bloud still remayning in heauen Thus is this place of Chrisostome sufficiently aunswered vnto And if any man require any more thē let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of Transubstantiation Winchester This author noteth in Chrisostome two places and bringeth them forth and in handling the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reprofe For where in the second booke
nourisheth the right beleuers Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier and thou shalt euidently perceiue that either he wil not or can not or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer and in my booke also by the receauing and feding vpon Christ spiritually But it is no maruaile that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ before they be borne a new and forsaking their papisticall leauen haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God then flesh bloud can teach them Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth that Christes body is corporally there where the visible formes of bread wine be of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture which teacheth vs to beleue professe that Christ as concerning his bodily presence hath forsaken the world is ascended into heauen shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud there is no mouth and teeth can serue but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes and speake very little And the cause why is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes Caparnaites that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity spirituall circumcition spirituall honger and thirst and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ but they hang all together so in the letter that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit which knowledge if that you had you should soone perceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made And where you peruert the order of the bookes setting the carte before the horse that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second saying that the naturall order of the matter so requireth here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes which is vnder the pretence coulour of order to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light For when they perceaue a window open wherby the light may shine in and the truth appeare then they busily go about to shut that window and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is and les light can be sene And when besides the darkenes of the matter they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes that he is become blind thē dare they make him iudge be the matter neuer so vntrue And no meruail for he is now becōe so blindfeld subiect vnto them that he must say what so euer they bid him be it neuer so much repugnāt to the euidēt truth In such sort it is in the matter of that sacramēt For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined that plaine wordes of the scripture the consent of aūcient writers the articles of our fayth the nature of a sacrament reason all sences making so euidently agaynst it therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation but they will alwayes beare men in hand that other matters must fyrst be examined as the late Bishop doth here in this place Now in the second place of Chrisostome where you say that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen which shall suffice for answere here also And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre here with vs in our handes truth it is that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment But that we shoud not think that he is corporally here with vs S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum saying Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man that we should therby take away the truth of his body And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body to be in two places at one tyme therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally and also naturally in the sacrament For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule But like as it is not to be thought that Quicquid est in deo est putandum vbique vt dens that whatsoeuer is in god is euery where as God is so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme euery where where his godhead is But Christ is sayth S. Augustine Vbique per id quod est deus in coelo autem per id quod est homo Euery where in that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence and the presence of his diuinitie of his grace of his truth of his maiestie and power is reall and effectuall in many places according to his worde Now as concerning your issue I refuse it not but say that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred and which our sauiour Christ ment and the old fathers speake of is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life Now if you can bring good testimony for you that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud and that it shall lyue for euer which neuer had lyfe and that Gods operation worke is more in domme creatures then in man then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you And when I heare your testimonies I shall make answer but before I here them I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne and beate the wind to no purpose Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alleadge sayth thus Christ geuing thankes dyd breake which also we doe adding thereto prayer And he gaue vnto them saying Take this is my body this that I do now geue and that which ye now do take For the bread is not a
example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this author teacheth then were the bread of Proposition figure of a figure and shadow of a shadow which is ouer great an absurditie in our religion Therfore there can not be a more playne proofe to shew that by S. Hieromes mynd Christes body is verely in the Sacrament and not figuratiuely onely then wheÌ„ he noteth Panes propositionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christes body in the Sacrament For as Tertulian sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis esses corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that answered vnto it wer not of truth which is the sence of Tertulians wordes And therfore S. Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certaynly playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this author sayth For S. Hierome affirmeth playnly Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although S. Hierom attributeth to the minister yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the author and worker notwithstanding by reason of the minestry in the church the doing is ascribed to manne as minister bycause Christ sayd Hoc facite after which speach saluation remission of sinne and the worke in other SacrameÌ„tes is attribute to the minister being neuerthelesse the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde bicause some be vniustly offended to heare that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findth fault before at the word making which religiousely heard and reuerently spoken should offend no man for man is but a minyster wherin he should not glory And Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread nor maketh him selfe so oft of bread a new body but sitting in heauen dooth as our inuisible Priest worke in the mistery of the visible pristhood of his church and maketh present by his omnipotencie his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuertion of the visible creatures of bread and wine as Emissen sayth into the same This author of this booke as thou reader mayst perceaue applieth the figure of the breades called Panes propositionis to the body of Christ to come where as S. Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore doth fashion his argument in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so much cleanes in them that should eat them that they might not eate of them which a day or two before had lyen with theyr wiues what cleanes is required in him that should make the body of Christ Wherby thou mayst se how this author hath reserued this notable place of S. Hierom to the later ende that thou shouldest in the ende as well as in the middest see him euidently snarled for the better remembrance Caunterbury TO these wordes of S. Hierome I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And now to adde some thing therunto I say that he meaneth not that Panis Propositionis be figures of the sacrament but of Christes very body And yet the same body is not onely in the sacrament figuratiuely but it is also in the true ministration therof spiritually present spirituallye eaten as in my booke I haue playnely declared But how is it possible that Caius Vlpian or Sceuola Batholus Baldus or Curtius should haue knowledge what is ment by the spirituall presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the spirituall eating of his flesh and bloud if they be voyde of a liuely fayth feeding and comforting theyr soules with their owne workes and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ. The meat that the Papistes liue by is indulgences and pardons and such other remission of sinnes as cometh all from the Pope which giueth no life but infecteth and poysoneth but the meate that the true Christian man lyueth by is Christ him selfe who is eaten onely by fayth and so eaten is life and spirite giuing that life that endureth and continueth for euer God graunt that we may learne this heauenly knowledge of the spirituall presence that we may spiritually taste and feede of this heauenly foode Now where you say that there canne not be a more playne proofe to shew that Christes body is verely in the sacrament and not figuratiuely onely than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christes body in the sacrament For as Tertulian sayth the other were not to be called a figure if that which aunswereth to it were not of truth Here your for is a playne fallax à non causa vt causa and a wonderous subtiltie is vsed therin For where Tertulian proueth that Christ had here in earth a very body which Martion denied bicause that bread was instituted to be a figure therof and there canne bee no figure of a thing that is not you alleadge Tertulians wordes as though he should say that Christes body is in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread whereof neyther Tertulian intreated in that place nor it is not required that the body should be corporally where the figure is but rather it should be in vayne to haue a figure when the thing it selfe is present And therfore you vntruely reporte both of S. Hierome and Tertulian For neyther of them both do say as you would gather of theyr wordes that Christes body is in the sacrament really and corporally And where you say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matier of bread either you be very ignoraunt in the doctrine of the sacrament as it hath bene taught these fiue hundred yeares or els you dissemble the matter Hath not this bene the teaching of the schole diuines yea of Innocent him selfe that the matter of this Sacrament is bread of wheat and wine of grapes Do they not say that the substaunce of bread is tourned into the substaunce of Christes flesh and that his flesh is made of bread And who worketh this but Christ him selfe And haue you not confessed all this in your booke of the Deuils sophistry why do you then deny here that which you taught before and which hath bene the common aproued doctrine of the Papistes so many yeares And bycause it should haue the more authorite was not this put into the masse bookes and reade euery yeare Dognum datur christianis quod in caâ—nem transit panis uinum in sanguinem Now seing that you haue taught so many yeares that the matter and substaunce of bread is not consumed to nothing but is chaunged and tourned into the body of Christ so that the body of Christ is made of it what meane you now to deny that Christ is made of the matier of bread Whan water was tourned into wine was not the wine made of the
not learned And whosoeuer misreporteth hym and hath neuer heard him may not be called so well Momus as Sicophanta whose property is to mysreporte thē whome thy neither see nor knowe Now resteth onely Damascene of whome I write thus But here Iohn Damascen may in no wise be passed ouer whome for is anctoritie the aduersaries of Christes trew naturall body do recken as a stout champion sufficient to defende all the whole matter alone But neither is the authorite of Damascene so greate that they may oppresse vs therby nor his wordes so playne for them as they boast and vntruly pretende For he is but a yong new author in the respecte of those which we haue brought in for our partie And in diuers poyntes he varieth from the most auncient authors if he meane as they expound him as when he sayeth that the bread and wine be not figures which all the olde authors call figures and that the bread and wyne consume not nor be auoyded downward which Origen and S. Augustine affirme or that they be not called the examples of Christes body after the consecration which shall manefestly appeare false by the Lyturgy ascribed vnto S. Basyll And moreouer the sayd Damascene was one of the Byshop of Romes chief proctours agaynst the Emperours and as it were his right hand to set abroad all idolatrye by his owne hand writing And therfore if he lost his hande as they say he didde he lost it by Goddes most righteous iudgemente whatsoeuer they fayne and fable of the myraculous restitution of the same And yet whatsoeuer the sayd Damescen writeth in other matters surely in this place which the aduersaries do alleadge he writeth spiritually and godly although the Papists eyther of ignoraunce mistake him or els willingly wrast him and writh him to theyr purpose cleane contrary to his meaning The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this That as Christ being both God and man hath in him two natures so hath he two natiuities one eternall and the other temporall And so likewise we being as it were double men or hauing euery one of vs two men in vs the new man and the old man the spirituall man and the carnall man haue a double natiuitie One of our first carnall father Adam by whome as by auncient inheritaūce cometh vnto vs maledictiō and euerlasting damnation and the other of our heauenly Adam that is to say of Christ by whome we be made heires of celestiall benediction and euerlasting glory and imortalitie And bicause this Adam is spirituall therfore our generation by him must be spirituall and our feeding must be likewise spirituall And our spirituall generation by him is playnly set forth in baptisme and our spirituall meat and food is set forth in the holy communion and supper of the Lord. And because our sightes be so feeble that we cannot see the spirituall water wherwith we be washed in baptisme nor the spirituall meat wherwith we be fed at the Lordes table Therfore to help our infermities and to make vs the better to see the same with a pure fayth our sauiour Christ hath set forth the same as it were before our eyes by sensible signes and tokens which we be dayly vsed and accustomed vnto And bycause the common custome of men is to wash in water therfore our spirituall regeneration in Christ or spirituall washing in his bloud is declared vnto vs in baptisme by water Likewise our spirituall norishmēt feeding in Christ is set before our eyes by bread wine bicause they be meates and drinkes which chiefly vsually we be fedde withal◠that as they feede the body so doth Christ with his flesh bloud spiritually feed the soule And therfore the bread and wine be called examples of Christes flesh and bloud and also they be called his very flesh and bloud to signifie vnto vs that as they feed vs carnally so doe they admonish vs that Christ with his flesh and bloud doth feed vs spiritually and most truely vnto euerlasting lyfe And as almighty God by his most mighty word and his holy spirite and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the beginning and euer sithens hath preserued them euen so by the same word and power he worketh in vs from tyme to tyme this meruailous spirituall generation and wonderfull spirituall nourishment and feeding which is wrought onely by God and is comprehended and receaued of vs by fayth And as bread and drincke by naturall nourishment be chaunged into a mannes body and yet the body is not chaunged but is the same that it was before so although the bread and wine be sacramētally changed into Christes body yet his body is the same and in the same place that it was before that is to say in heauen without any alteration of the same And the bread and wine be not so changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ that they be made one nature but they remayne still distinct in nature so that the bread in it selfe is not his flesh and the wine his bloud but vnto them that worthely eare and drincke the bread and wine to them the bread and wine be his flesh and bloud that is to say by things naturall and which they be accustomed vnto they be exaulted vnto things aboue nature For the sacramentall bread and wine be not bare and naked figures but so pithy and effectuous that who soeuer worthely eateth them eateth spiritually Christes flesh and bloud and hath by them euerlasting life Wherfore whosoeuer commeth to the Lordes table must come with all humilitie feare reuerence and puritie of lyfe as to receaue not onely bread and wine but also our sauiour Christ both God and man withall his benefites to the reliefe and sustentation both of theyr bodyes and soules This is briefly the summe and true meaning of Damascene concerning this matter Wherfore they that gather of him eyther the naturall presence of Christes body in the Sacraments of bread and wine or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament or that after the consecration there remayneth no bread nor wine nor other substaunce but onely the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ eyther they vnderstand not Damascene or els of wilfull frowardnes they will not vnderstād him which rather seemeth to be true by such colections as they haue vniustly gathered and noted out of him For although he say that Christ is the spirituall meat yet as in baptisme the holy ghost is not in the water but in him that is vnfaynedly baptised so Damascene ment not that Christ is in the bread but in him that worthely eateth the bread And though he say that the bread is Christes body and the wine his bloud yet he ment not that the bread considered in it selfe or the wine in it selfe being not receaued is his flesh and bloud but to such as by vnfayned fayth worthely receaue the bread and wine to such the bread and wine
are called by Damascene the body and bloud of Christ bicause that such persons through the working of the holy ghost be so knitte and vnited spiritually to Christes flesh and bloud and to his diuinite also that they be fedde with them vnto euerlasting life Furthermore Damascene sayth not that the sacrament should bee worshiped and adored as the Papists terme it which is playne idolatrye but that we must worship Christ God and man And yet we may not worship him in bread and wine but sittyng in heauen with his father and being spiritually within our selues Nor he sayth not that there remayneth no bread nor wine nor none other substaunce but only the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ but he sayth playnly that as a burning coale is not wodde only but fier and wodde ioyned together so the bread of the Communion is not bread only but bread ioyned to the diuinite But those that say that there is none other substaunce but the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ do not onely deny that there is bread and wine but by force they must deny also that there is either Christes diuinitie or his soule For if the flesh and bloud the soule and diuininitie of Christ be foure substances and in the sacrament be but two of them that is to say his flesh and bloud than where is his soule and diuinitie And thus these men diuide Iesus seperating his diuinitie from his humanitie Of whome S. Iohn sayth Whosoeuer deuideth Iesus is not of God but he is Antichrist And moreouer these men do so separate Christes body from his members in the sacramēt that they leaue him no mans body at all For as Damascene sayth that the distinctiō of members pertayne so much to the nature of mans body that where there is no such distinctiō there is no perfect mans body But by these papists doctrine there is no such distinction of members in the sacrament for either there is no head feete handes armes legges mouth eyes and nose at all or els all his head all feete all handes all armes all legges all mouth all eyes and all nose And so they make of Christes body no mans body at all Thus being confuted the Papists erroures aswell concerning Transubstanciation as the real corporal and naturall presence of Christ in the sacrament which were two principall poyntes purposed in the beginning of this worke Now it is tyme some thing to speake of the third errour of the papistes which is concerning the eating of Christes very body and drinking of his bloud Winchester Last of all the author bussieth himselfe with Damascene and goeth about to aunswer hym by making of a summe which summe is so wrong accompted that euery man that readeth Damascene may be auditour to controule it And this will I say Damascene writeth so euidently in the matter that Peter Martyr for a shift is fayne to finde fault in his iudgement and age and yet he is .viii. C. yeares olde at the least and I say at the least because he is relieued of summe halfe as old agayne And what so euer his iudgement were he writeth as Melancton sayth his testimony of the fayth of the Sacrament as it was in his time I would write in here Damasceus wordes to compare them with the summe collected by this author wherby to disproue his particulars playnly but the wordes of Damascene be to be redde translated already abrode As for the foure substances which this author by accompte numbreth of Christ myght haue bene left vnreckened by tale because amonge them that be faythfull and vnderstand truely wher soeuer the substaunce of Christes very body is there is also vnderstanded by concomitaunce to be present the substaunce of his soule as very man and also of the Godhead as very God And in the mater of the sacrament therfore contending with hym that woulde haue the substaunce of bread there it may be sayd there is in the Sacrament the onely substaunce of Christes bodye because the worde onely thus placed excludeth other straunge substaunces and not the substances which without contention be knowen and confessed vnite with Christes body And so a man may be sayd to be alone in his house when he hath no straungers although he hath a number of his owne men And Erasmus noteth how the euangilest writeth Christ to haue prayed alone and yet certayne of his disciples were there And if in a contention raysed whether the father and sonne were both killed in such a field or no I defended the father to haue bene onely killed there and therupon a wager layd should I lose if by profe it appeared that not onely the father but also three or fower of the fathers seruauntes were slayne but the sonne escaped And as in this speache the worde onely serued to exclude that was in contention and not to reduce the number to one no more is it in the speach that this author would reproue and therfore neded not to haue occupyed him selfe in the matter wherin I heard him once say in a good audiēce hym selfe was satisfied In which mynde I would he had continued and hauing so sclender stuffe as this is and the truth so euident agaynst him not to haue resuscitate this so often reproued vntruth wherin neuer hitherto any one could preuayle Caunterbury AS for Damascene needeth no further aunswer then I haue made in my former booke But I pray the reader that he will diligently examine the place and so to be an indifferent auditour betwixt vs two Now when you be called to accompt for the number of substaunces in the Sacramēt I perceaue by your wrangling that you be somewhat moued with this audite for bycause you be called to accompt And I can not blame you though it somewhat greeue you for it toucheth the very quicke And although I my selfe can right well vnderstand your numbers that when you name but one you meane fower yet you should haue considered before hand to whome your booke was written You wrote to playne simple people in the english tongue which vnderstande no further but one to be one and fower to be fower And therfore when you say there is but one and meane fower you attemper not your speach to the capacities of them to whome you write Now haue I aunswered to all your friuilous cauilations agaynst my thyrd booke and fortified it so strongly that you haue spent all your shotte and powder in vayne And I trust I haue eyther broken your peeces or pegged them that you shall be able to shoote no more Or if you shoote the shotte shall be so faynte that it shall not be able to perce through a paper leafe And the life I trust to doe to all the munition and ordinaunce layde agaynst my fourth booke THE CONFVTATION OF the fourth booke THus hauing perused the effect of the third booke I will likewise peruse the fourth and then shall follow
bread shall liue for euer This taught our sauiour Christ as well his disciples as the Iewes at Capernaum that the eating of his flesh and drincking of his bloud was not like to the eating of Manna For both good and bad did eate Manna but none do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud but they haue euerlasting lyfe For as his father dwelleth in him and he in his father and so hath life by his father so he that eateth Christes flesh and drinketh his bloud dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him and by Christ he hath eternall life What neede we any other witnes when Christ himselfe doth testifie the mater so playnly that who so euer eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath euerlasting life and that to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud is to beleue in him And who so euer beleueth in him hath euerlasting lyfe wherof it followeth necessarily that vngodly persons being limmes of the deuill do not eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud except the Papistes would say that such haue euerlasting life But as the diuell is the food of the wicked which he nourisheth in all iniquitie and bringeth vp into euerlasting damnatiō so is Christ the very foode of all them that be the liuely members of his body and them he nourisheth fedeth bringeth vp and cherisheth vnto euerlasting life And euery good and faythfull Christian man seleth in himselfe how he fedeth of Christ eating his flesh and drincking of his bloud For he putteth the whole hope and trust of his redemption and saluation in that onely sacrifice which Christ made vpon the Crosse hauing his body there broken and his bloud there shedde for the remission of his sinnes And this great benefite of Christ the faythfull man earnestly considereth in his mynd chaweth and digesteth it with the stomake of his hart spiritually receauing Christ wholy into him and giuing agayne him selfe wholy vnto Christ. And this is the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud the feeling wherof is to euery man the feling how he eateth and drincketh Christ which none euill man nor member of the deuill can do For as Christ is a spirituall meate so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spirituall part of vs and giueth vs spirituall and eternall lyfe and is not eaten swallowed digested with our teeth tongues throtes bellies Therfore sayth S. Ciprian he that drincketh of the holy cup remembring this benefite of God is more thirsty then he was before And lifting vp his hart vnto the liuing God is taken with such a singular hunger and apetite that he abhorreth all gally and bitter drinkes of sinne and all sauor of carnall pleasure is to him as it were sharp and sowre viniger And the sinner being conuerted receauing the holy misteries of the Lordes supper geueth thankes vnto God and boweth downe his head knowing that his sinnes be forgeuen and that he is made clean and perfect and his soule which God hath sanctified he rendreth to God agayne as a faythfull pledge and then he glorieth with Paule and reioyseth saying Now it is not I that liue but it is Christ that liueth within me These thinges be practised and vsed among faythful people and to pure myndes the eating of his flesh is no horror but honor and the spirit deliteth in the drinking of the holy and sanctifiing bloud And doing this we whet not our teeth to bite but with pure fayth we breake the holy bread These be the wordes of Ciprian And according vnto the same S. Augustine sayth Prepare not thy iawes but thy hart And in an other place he sayth why doest thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten But of this matter is sufficiently spoken before where it is proued that to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud be figuratiue speaches And now to returne to our purpose that onely the liuely members of Christ do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud I shall bring forth many other places of auncient authors before not mentioned Fyrst Origen writeth playnly after this maner The word was made flesh and very meat which who so eateth shall surly liue for euer which no euill man can eate For if it could be that he that continueth euill might eat the word made flesh seing that he is the word and bread of life it should not haue bene written Who so euer eateth this bread shall liue for euer These wordes be so playne that I need say nothing for the more clere declaration of them Wherfore you shall heare how Ciprian agreeth with him Cyprian in his sermon ascribed vnto him of the Lordes supper sayth The author of this tradition sayd that except we eat his flesh drincke his bloud we should haue no life in vs instructing vs with a spirituall lesson opening to vs a way to vnderstand so priuy a thing that we should know that the eating is our dwelling in him and our drincking is as it were an incorporation in him being subiect vnto him in obedience ioyned vnto him in our willes and vnited in our affections The eating therfore of this flesh is a certayne hunger and desire to dwell in him Thus writeth Cyprian of the eating and drinking of Christ ' And a litle after he sayth that none do eate of this lambe but such as be true Israelites that is to say pure christian men without colour or dissimulation And Athanasius speaking of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud sayth that for this cause he made mention of his ascentiō into heauen to plucke them from corporall phantasy that they might lerne hereafter that his flesh was called the celestiall meate that came from aboue and a spirituall food which he would geue For those thinges that I speake to you sayth he be spirit and life Which is as much to say as that thing which you se shal be slayne and giuen for the nourishment of the world that it may be distributed to euery body spiritually and be to all men a conseruation vnto the resurrectiō of eternall life In these wordes Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made mention of his ascension into heauen when he spake of the eating and drincking of his flesh and bloud The cause after Athanasius mynd was this that his hearers should not thinke of any carnal eating of his body with their mouthes for as concerning the presence of his body he should be taken from them and ascend into heauen but that they should vnderstād him to be a spirituall meate spiritually to be eaten and by that refreshing to giue eternall life which he doth to none but to such as be his liuely members And of this eating speaketh also Basilius that we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud being made by his incarnation and sensible lyfe partakers of his word and wisedome For his flesh and bloud he calleth
all his misticall conuersation here in his flesh and his doctrine consisting of his whole life pertayning both to his humanitie and diuinitie wherby the soule is nourished and brought to the contemplation of thinges eternall Thus teacheth Basilius how we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud which pertayneth only to the true and faythfull members of Christ. S. Hierom also sayth All that love pleasure more then God eate not the flesh of Iesu nor drincke his bloud Of the which himselfe sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe And in an other place S. Hierom sayth that heritikes do not eate and drincke the body and bloud of the Lord. And more ouer he sayth that heretiks eat not the flesh of Iesu whose flesh is the meat of faythfull men Thus agreeth S. Hierom with the other before rehersed that heretikes and such as follow worldly pleasures eate not Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud bicause that Christ sayd He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting life And S. Ambrose sayth that Iesus is the bread which is the meat of sainctes and that he that taketh this bread dyeth not a sinners death For this bread is the remission of sinnes And in other booke to him intituled he writeth thus This bread of life which came downe from heauen doth minister euerlasting life and who soeuer eateth this bread shall not dye for euer and is the body of Christ. And yet in an other booke set forth in his name he sayth on this wise He that did eate Manne dyed but he that eateth this body shall haue remission of his sinnes and shall not dye for euer And agayne he sayth As often as thou drinckest thou hast remission of thy sinnes These sentences of S. Ambrose be so playne in this matter that there nedeth no more but onely the rehersall of them But S. Augustine in many places playnly discussing this matter sayth He that agreeth not with Christ doth neither eate his body nor drinke his bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he receaue euery day the sacramēt of so hygh a matter And moreouer S. Augustine most playnly resolueth this matter in his booke De ciuitate Dei disputing agaynst two kindes of heretikes Wherof the one sayd that as many as were Christned and receaued the sacramēt of Christes body and bloud should be saued how so euer they liued or beleeued bycause that Christ sayd This is the bread that came from heauen that who so euer shall eate therof shall not dye I am the bread of lyfe which came from heauen who so euer shall eate of this bread shall liue for euer Therfore sayd these heretikes all such men must nedes be deliuered from eternall death and at length be brought to eternall life The other sayd that heretikes and scismatikes myght eate the sacrament of Christes body but not his very body bycause they be no members of his body And therfore they promised not euerlasting life to all that receaued Christes baptisme and the sacrament of his body but to all such as professed a true fayth although they liued neuer so vngodly For such sayd they do eate the body of Christ not onely in a sacrament but also in deede bycause they be members of Christes body But S. Augustine answering to both these heresies sayth That neither heretikes nor such as professe a true fayth in theyr mouthes and in theyr liuing shew the contrary haue eyther a true fayth which worketh by charitie and doth none euil or are to be counted among the members of Christ. For they can not be both members of Christ and members of the deuill Therfore sayth he it may not be sayd that any of them eate the body of Christ. For when Christ sayth he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him He sheweth what it is not sacramentally but indeed to eate his body and drincke his bloud which is when a man dwelleth so in Christ that Christ dwelleth in him For Christ spake those wordes as if he should say He that dwelleth not in me and in whom I dwell not let him not say or thincke that he eateth my body or drincketh my bloud These be the playne wordes of S. Augustine that such as liue vngodly although they may seme to eate Christes body bicause they eate the sacrament of his body yet in deed they neyther be members of his body nor do eate his body Also vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth that he that doth not eate his flesh and drincke his bloud hath not in him euerlasting lyfe And he that eateth his flesh and drincketh his bloud hath euerlasting lyfe But it is not so in those meates which we take to sustayne our bodyes For although without them we cannot liue yet it is not necessary that who so euer receaueth them shall liue for they may dye by age sicknes or other chaunces But in this meat and drincke of the body and bloud of our Lord it is otherwise For both they that eate and drincke them not haue not euerlasting lyfe And contrariwyse who so euer eate and drincke them haue euerlasting life Note and ponder well these wordes of S. Augustine that the bread and wine and other meates drinckes which nourish the body a man may eate and neuerthelesse dye but the very body and bloud of Christ no man eateth but that hath euerlasting life So that wicked men can not eate nor drincke them for then they must nedes haue by them euerlasting life And in the same place S. Augustine sayth further The sacramēt of the vnitie of Christes body bloud is takē in the Lordes table of some men to lyfe of some mē to death but the thing it selfe wherof it is a sacramēt is takē of all men to lyfe of no man to death And more ouer he sayth This is to eate that meate and drincke that drincke to dwell in Christ and to haue Christ dwelling in him And for that cause he that dwelleth not in Christ in whome Christ dwelleth not without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh nor drincketh his bloud although carnally and visibly with his teeth he byte the Sacrament of his body and bloud Thus writeth S. Augustine in the xxvj homely of S. Iohn And in the next homely following he sayth thus This day our sermon is of the body of the Lord which he sayd he would geue to eat for eternall life And he declared the maner of his gift and distribution how he would geue his flesh to eate saying He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him This therfore is a token or knowledge that a man hath eaten and drunken that is to say if he dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in him If he cleaue so to Christ that he is not seuered from him This therfore Christ
yet for the tyme of the receauing it hath the licour in it And how can Christ departe from an vnpenitent sinner as you say he doeth if he haue him not at all And because of myne ignoraunce I would fayne leran of you that take vpon you to be a man of knowledge how an euill man receauing Christes very body and whole Christ God and man as you say an euell man doth and Christes body being such as it cannot be deuided from his spirite as you say also how this euell man receauing Christes spirite should be an euell man for the tyme that he hath Christes spirit within him Or how can he receaue Christes body and spirite according to your saying and haue them not in him for the tyme he receaueth them Or how can Christ enter into an euell man as you confesse and be not in him into whome he entreth at that present tyme These be matters of your knowledge as you pretend which if you can teach me I must confesse myne ignoraunce And if you cannot for so much as you haue spoken them you must confesse the ignoraunce to be vpon your owne part And S. Paule sayth not as you vntruely recite him that in him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation but that he eateth and drincketh condemnation And where you say that S. Paules wordes playnly import that those did eate the very body of Christ which did eate vnworthely euer still you take for a supposition the thing which you should proue For S. Paule speaketh playnly of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not one word of eating of the body and drincking of the bloud of Christ. And let any indifferent reader looke vpon my questions and he shall see that there is not one word answered here directly vnto them except mocking and scorning be taken for aunswere And where you deny that of your doctrine it should follow that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell you can not deny but that your owne teaching is that Christ entreth into euell men when they receaue the sacrament And if they be his temple into whome he entreth then must euell men be his temple for the tyme they receaue the sacrament although he tary not long with them And for the same tyme they be euell men as you say and so must nedes be the temple of the deuell And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching that at one tyme a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the deuell And in your figure of Christ vpon earth although he taryed not long with euery man that receaued him yet for a tyme he taried with them And the word of God tarieth for the tyme with many which after forget it and kepe it not And then so must it be by these examples in euell men receauing the sacrament that for a tyme Christ must tary in them although that tyme be very short And yet for that tyme by your doctrine those euell men must be both the temples of God and of Beliall And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authoritie of S. Paule it is no small contumely and iniury to S. Paule to asscribe your fayned and vntrue glose vnto him that taught nothing but the truth as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mentiō of the eating and drincking of the bread and cuppe but not one word of the eating and drincking of Christes body and bloud Now followeth in my booke my answer to the Papistes in this wise But least they should seme to haue nothing to say for them selues they alleadge S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth where he sayth He that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh and bloud as it is manifest to euery man that will reade the text For these be the wordes of S. Paule Let a man examin him selfe and so eat of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body In these wordes S. Paules mynd is that for asmuch as the bread and wine in the Lordes supper do represent vnto vs the very body and bloud of our sauiour Christ by his owne institution and ordinance therfore although he sit in heauen at his fathers right hand yet should we come to this misticall bread and wine with fayth reuerence purite and feare as we would do if we should come to see and receaue Christ him selfe sensibly present For vnto the faythfull Christ is at his own holy table presēt with his mighty spirite grace and is of them more fruitfully receaued then if corporally they should receaue him bodely present and therfore they that shall worthely com to this Gods boord must after due triall of them selues consider first who ordeined this table also what meat and drincke they shall haue that come therto and how they ought to behaue them selues therat He that prepared the table is Christ him selfe The meat and drincke wherwith he fedeth them that come therto as they ought to do is his own body flesh and bloud They that com therto must occupy theyr myndes in considering how his body was broken for them and his bloud shed for theyr redemption and so ought they to approch to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart and godlynes of mynd as to the table wherin Christ hym selfe is giuen And they that come otherwise to this holy table they come vnworthely and do not eat drincke Christes flesh and bloud but eat and drincke theyr own damnation bicause they do not duely consider Christes very flesh and bloud which be offred there spiritually to be eaten and drinken but dispising Christes most holy supper do come therto as it were to other common meates drinckes without regarde of the Lordes body which is the spirituall meat of that table Winchester In the .97 leafe and the second columne the Author beginneth to trauerse the wordes of S. Paule to the Corinthians and would distinct vnworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament receyued which can not be For our vnworthines can not alter the substance of Gods sacrament that is euermore all one howsoeuer we swarue from worthynes to vnworthynes And this I would aske of this Author why should it be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when he is taught yf this authors doctrine be true that it is not there at all If the bread after this authors teaching be but a figure of Christes body it is then but as Manna was the eating wherof vnworthily and vnfaythfully was no gift of Christes body Erasmus noteth these wordes of S. Paule to be gylty of
picture that was in the originall before And I meruayle you be not ashamed to alleadge so vayne a matter agaynst me which in dede is not in my booke and if it were yet were it nothing to the purpose And in that Catechisme I teach not as you do that the body and bloud of Christ is conteined in the sacrament being reserued but that in the ministration therof we receaue the body and bloud of Christ whervnto if it may please you to adde or vnderstand this word spiritually thē is the doctrine of my Catechisme sound and good in all mens eares which know the true doctrine of the sacraments As for Emissen you agree here with me that he speaketh not of any receauing of Christes body and bloud with our mouthes but only with our hartes And where you say that you haue entreated before how the inuisible priest with his secret power doth conuert the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud I haue in that same place made answere to those wordes of Emissene but most playnly of all in my former booke the xxv leafe And Emissene sayth not that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament and therof you be not ignoraunt although you doe pretend the contrary which is somewhat worse then ignoraunce And what this word corporall meaneth I am not ignorant Mary what you meane by corporall I know not and the opening therof shall discusse the whole matter Tell therfore playnly without dissimulation or colored wordes what manner of body it is that Christ hath in the Sacrament Whether it be a very and perfect mans body with all the members therof distinct one from an other or no For that vnderstand I to be a mans corporall body that hath all such partes without which may be a body but no perfect mans body So that the lacke of a finger maketh a lacke in the perfection of a mans body Mary if you will make Christ such a body as bread and cheese is wherin euery part is bread and cheese without forme and distinction of one part from an other I confesse myne ignoraunce that I know no such body to be a mans body Now haue I shewed myne ignoraunce declare now your wit and learning For sure I am that Christ hath all those partes in heauen and if he lacke them in the Sacramēt then lacketh he not a litle of his perfectiō And then it can not be one body that hath partes and hath no partes And as concerning the wordes of Emissen calling the aulter I reuerend aulter those wordes proue no more the reall presence of Christ in the aulter then the calling of the font of Baptisme A reuerend font or the calling of mariage Reuerend Matrimony should conclude that Christ were corporally present in the water of Baptisme or in the celebratiō of matrimony And yet is not Christ clearly absent in the godly administration of his holy supper nor present onely in a figure as euer you vntruely report me to say but by his omnipotent power he is effectually present by spirituall nourishment and feeding as in Baptisme he is likewise present by spirituall renuing and regenerating Therfore where you would proue the corporall presence of Christ by the reuerence that is to be vsed at the aulter as Emissene teacheth with no lesse reuerence ought he that is baptised to come to the font then he that receaueth the Cōmunion commeth to the aulter And yet is that no profe that Christ is corporally in the font And what so euer you haue here sayd of the comming to the aulter the like may be sayd of comming to the font For although Christ be not corporally there yet as S. Hierome sayth if the Sacraments be violated then is he violated whose Sacramētes they be Now followeth after in my booke the maner of adoration in the Sacranent Now it is requisite to speake some thing of the maner and forme of worshipping of Christ by them that receaue this sacramēt least that in the stede of Christ himselfe be worshipped the sacrament For as his humanity ioyned to his diuinity and exalted to the right hand of his father is to be worshipped of all creatures in heauen earth and vnder the earth euen so if in the stead therof we worship the signes and sacraments we commit as great idolatry as euer was or shall to the worldes ende And yet haue the very Antichristes the subtilest enemyes that Christ hath by theyr fine inuentions and crafty scolasticall diuinity deluded many simple soules and brought them to this horrible idolatry to worship thinges visible and made with theyr owne handes perswading them that creatures were their Creatour theyr God and theyr maker For els what made the people to runne from theyr seates to the aulter and from aulter to aulter and from sakering as they called it to sakering peeping tooting and gasing at that thing which the priest held vp in his handes if they thought not to honor that thing which they saw What moued the priestes to lift vp the sacrament so hye ouer theyr heades or the people to cry to the priest Hold vp hold vp and one man to say to an other Stoupe downe before or to say This day haue I seene my maker And I cannot be quiet except I see my maker once a day What was the cause of all these and that as well the priest as the people so deuoutly did knocke and kneele at euery sight of the sacrament but that they worshiped that visible thing which they saw with theyr eyes and tooke it for very God For if they worshiped in spirit onely Christ sitting in heauen with his father what neded they to remoue out of theyr seates to toote and gase as the Apostles did after Christ when he was gone vp into heauē If they worshiped nothing that they sawe why did they rise vp to see Doubtlesse many of the simple people worshiped that thing which they saw with theyr eyes And although the subtill Papistes do colour and cloke the matter neuer so finely saying that they worship not the sacraments which they see with theyr eyes but that thing which they beleue with their fayth to be really and corporally in the sacraments yet why do they then runne from place to place to gase at the things which they see if they worship them not giuing therby occasion to them that be ignorant to worship that which they see Why doe they not rather quietly sit still in their seates and moue the people to do the like worshiping God in hart and in spirite than to gadde about from place to place to see that thing which they confesse them selues is not to be worshipped And yet to eschew one inconuenience that is to say the worshipping of the sacrament they fall into an other as euell and worship nothing there at all For they worship that thing as they say which is really and corporally and yet inuisibly
himselfe in his owne wordes But that S. Augustine sayth touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the Sacrament without wresting or writhing may be agreed in couenient vnderstanding with the doctrine of Transubstantiation and therfore is an authority familiar with those writers that affirme Transubstantiation by expresse wordes out of whose quiuer this author hath pulled out his bolt and as it is out of his bow sent turneth backe and hitteth himselfe on the forehead and yet after his fashion by wrong and vntrue translation he sharpened it somewhat not without some punishment of God euidently by the way by his owne wordes to ouerthrow him selfe In the second columne of the 27. leafe and the first of the 28. leafe this author maketh a processe in declaration of heresies in the person of Christ for conuiction wherof this author sayth the olde fathers vsed arguments of two examples in eyther of which examples were two natures togither the one not perishing ne confounding the other One example is in the body and soule of man An other example of the Sacrament in which be two natures an inward heauenly and an outward earthly as in man there is a body and a soule I leaue out this authors owne iudgement in that place and of thée O reader require thine whether those fathers that did vse both these examples to the confutation of heretikes did not beleeue as apeareth by the processe of their reasoning in this poynt did they not I say beleeue that euen as really and as truely as the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truely is the body of Christ which in the Sacrament is the inward inuisible thing as the soule is in the body present in the Sacrament for els and the body of Christ were not as truely and really present in the Sacrament as the soule is in mans body that argument of the Sacrament had not two thinges present so as the argument of the body and soule had wherby to shew how two thinges may be togither without confusion of eyther ech remayning in his nature for if the teaching of this author in other partes of this booke were true than were the Sacrament like a body lying in a traunce whose soule for the while were in heauen and had no two thinges but one bare thing that is to say bread and bread neuer the holier with signification of an other thing so farre absent as is heauen from earth and therfore to say as I probably thinke this part of this second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of this author when he minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Transubstantiation onely and to striue for bread onely which not withstanding the new enterprise of this author to deny the reall presence is so fierce and vehement as it ouerthroweth his new purpose ere he cōmeth in his order in his booke to entreate of For there can no demonstration be made more euident for the catholike fayth of the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then that the truth of it was so certaynly beleued as they tooke Christes very body as verely in the sacrament euen as the soule is present in the body of man Caunterbury WHen you wrote this it is like that you had not considered my third booke wherin is a playne and direct answer to all that you haue brought in this place or els where concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament And how slender proofes you make in this place to proue the reall presence because of the Sacrifice euery man may iudge being neyther your argument good nor your antecedent true For S. Augustine sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ is the sacrifice of the church and if he had so sayd it inferreth not this conclusion that the body of Christ should be really in the bread and his bloud in the wine And although S. Augustine sayth that bread is Christes body yet if you had well marked the 64.65 66. leaues of my booke you should there haue perceaued how S. Augustine declareth at length in what manner of speach that is to be vnderstand that is to say figuratiuely in which speach the thing that signifieth and the thing that is signified haue both one name as S. Ciprian manifestly teacheth For in playne speach without figure bread is not the body of Christ by your owne confession who do say that the affirmation of one substance is the negation of an other And if the bread were made the body of Christ as you say it is then must you needes cōfesse that the body of Christ is made of bread which before you sayd was so foolish a saying as were not tollerable by a scoffer to be deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And seeing that the bread is not adnihilate and consumed into nothing as the schoole authors teach then must it needes follow that the body of Christ is made of the matter of bread for that it is made of the forme of bread I suppose you will not graunt And as touching the second place of S. Augustine he sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ be really in the Sacrament but that in the Sacrifice of the church that is to say in the holy administration of the Lordes supper is both a Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sacrament the Sacrament being the bread and wine and the thing signified and exhibited being the body and bloud of Christ. But S. Augustine sayth not that the thing signified is in the bread and wine to whome it is not exhibited nor is not in it but as in a figure but that it is there in the true ministration of the Sacrament present to the spirite and fayth of the true beleuing man and exhibited truely and indeede and yet spiritually not corporally And what neede any more euident proofes of S. Augustines mynd in this matter how bread is called Christes body then S. Augustines owne wordes cited in the same place where the other is de consecratione dist 2. Hoc est quod dicimus These be S. Augustines wordes there cited Sicut coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum re uera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significanti misterio sic Sacramentum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh after a manner is called the body of Christ where in very deede it is a sacrament of Christes body that is to say of that body which being visible palpable mortall was put vppon the crosse And as that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes
a fall as you shall neuer be able to stand vpright agayne in this matter And my shaftes be shot so straight agaynst you and with such a force that they perse through shilde haburgen in such sort that all the harnes you haue is not able to withstand them or to make one arrow to start backe although to auoyde the stroke you shift your place seeking some meane to flye the fight For when I make mine argument of Transubstantiation you turne the matter to the reall presence like vnto a surgeon that hath no knowledge but when the head is wounded or sore he layth a playster to the heele Or as the prouerbe sayth Interrogatus de alijs respondet de caepis when you be asked of garlicke you answer of onions And this is one prety sleight of sophistry or of a subtill warrier when he seeth him selfe ouermatched and not able to resist then by some policy quite to put of or at the least to delay the conflict and so do you commonly in this booke of Transubstantiation For when you be sore pressed therin than you turne the matter to the reall presence But I shall so straytly pursue you that you shall not so escape For where you say that the fathers which vsed the examples of the Sacrament and of the body and bloud of Christ to shew the vnity of two natures in Christ did beleue that as really and as truely the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the Sacrament the fathers neither sayd nor beleued as you here report but they taught that both the Sacrament and the thing therby represented which is Christes body remayne in their proper substaunce and nature the signe being here and the thing signified being in heauen and yet of these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church But it is not required that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the signe and figure as the soule is in the body bicause there is no such vnion of person nor it is not required in the soule and body that they should be euer togither for Christes body and soule remayned both without eyther corruption or Transubstantiation when the soule was gone downe into hell and the body rested in the sepulcher And yet was he than a perfect man although his soule was not than really present with the body And it is not so great a meruayle that his body should be in heauen and the sacrament of it here as it is that his body should be here and his soule in hell And if the Sacrament were a man and the body of Christ the soule of it as you dreame in your traunse then were the Sacrament not in a traunse but dead for the tyme whilest it were here and the soule in heauen And like scoffing you might make of the Sacrament of Baptisme as you doe in the Sacrament of Christes body that it lyeth here in a traunse when Christ being the life therof is in heauen And where you thinke that my second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of me when I minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Trāsubstantiation onely you haue no probatiō of your thought but still you remayne in your dreames traunses and vayne phantasies which you haue vsed throughout your booke so that what so euer is in the bread and wine there is in you no Transubstantiation nor alteration in this thing at all And what auayleth it you so often to affirme this vntruth that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament as the soule of man is present in the body except you be like to them that tell a lye so often that with often repeating they think men beleue it and sometyme by often telling they beleue it them selues But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soule of man to proue therby the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament but to proue the two natures of the godhead and the manhoode in the person of Christ. Lette vs now discusse the minde of Chrisostome in this matter whome I bring thus in my booke S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth against the pestilēt errour of Apolinaris which affirmed that the Godhead and manhod in Christ were so mixed and confounded togither that they both made but one nature Agaynst whome S. Iohn Chrisostome writeth thus When thou speakest of God thou must consider a thing that in nature is single without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with such like And when thou speakest of man thou meanest a nature that is weake subiect to hunger thirst weeping feare sweating and such like passions which can not be in the diuine nature And when thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures togither in one persone who is both passible and impassible Passible as concerning his flesh and impassible in his deite And after he concludeth saying Wherfore Christ is both God and man God by his impassible nature and man bicause he suffered He himselfe being one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned togither which be not of one substance but ech of them hath his properties distinct from the other And therfore remayneth there two natures distinct and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord although the nature of the bread remayne still in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of Gods sonne so likewise here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of S. Chrisostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecration the nature of bread remayneth still although it haue an higher name and be called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eate the supernaturall bread of the body of Christ who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sitteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Winchester S. Chrisostomes wordes in deede if this author had had them eyther truely translated vnto him or had taken the paynes to haue truly translated them himselfe which as Peter Martyr sayth be not in print but were found in Florence a copy wherof remayneth in the archdeacon or Archbishop of Caunterburies handes or els if this author had reported the wordes as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyrs booke wherin some poynt the translator in English semeth to haue attayned by gesse the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr vttereth it himselfe if eyther of this had bene done the matter should haue seemed for so much the more playne But
if you deny you know whose spirite yon haue But your trust is altogither in obscure speaches wherwith you trust so to darken the matter that no man shall vnderstand it least that if they vnderstand it they must needes perceaue your ignorance and error But when you promise to come to the purpose as to say the truth all that you sayd before is clearly without purpose but when you promise I say now at length to come to the purpose your answere is nothing to the purpose of S. Chrisostoms mynd for he made not his resemblance as you say he did onely to shew the remayning of the accidents which you call the properties but to shew the remayning of the substances with all the naturall properties therof That as Christ had here in earth his diuinity and humanity remayning euery of them with his naturall properties the substance of his godhead being a nature single without composition without conuersion inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible and such like for these be Chrisostomes owne wordes and the substance of his humanity being a feble nature subiect to hunger thyrst weeping feare sweating and such passions so is it in the bread and Christes body that the bread after sanctification or consecration as you call it remayneth in his substance that it had before and likewise doth the body of Christ remayne still in heauen in his very true substance wherof the bread is a Sacrament and figure For els if the substance of the bread remayned not how could Chrisostome bring it for a resemblance to proue that the substance of Christes humanity remayneth with his diuinity Mary this that you say had bene a gay lesson for the Manichees to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents therof and yet is none in deede that then by this similitude they might say likewise that Christ appeared a man by all the accidences and properties of a man and yet he was none in deede And to make an ende of this author your vayne comment will not serue you to call the accidents of bread the nature of bread except you will alow the same in the Manichees that the nature of Christes body is nothing els but the accidences therof Now followeth Gelasius of the same matter Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius writing agaynst Eutiches and Nestorius of whome the one sayd that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other affirmed cleane contrary that he was very God but not man But agaynst these two heinous heresies Gelasius proueth by most manifest scriptures that Christ is both God and man and that after his Incarnation remayneth in him as well the nature of his Godhead as the nature of his manhod so that he hath in him two natures with their naturall properties and yet is he but one Christ. And for the more euident declaration hereof he bringeth two examples the one is of man who being but one yet he is made of two partes hath in him two natures remayning both togither in him that is to say the body the soule with their naturall properties The other example is of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which sayth he is a godly thing and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be there still Note well these wordes agaynst all the Papistes of our tyme that Gelasius which was Bishop of Rome more then a thousand yeares passed writeth of this Sacrament that the bread and wine cease not to be there still as Christ ceased not to be God after his incarnation but remayned still perfect god as he was before Winchester Now followeth to answere to Gelasius who abhorring both the hereses of Eutiches and Nestorius in his treatise agaynst the Eutichians forgetteth not to compare with theyr errour in extremity in the one side the extreame errour of the Nestorians on the other side but yet principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians with whome he was specially troubled These two heresies were not so grosse as the author of this booke reporteth them wherin I will write what Uigilius sayth Inter Nestorij ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non testoris se dissipatoris non pastoris sed praedatoris sacrilegum dogma Eutichetis ne foriam detestabilem sectam ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit vt vtrumque sine vtriusque periculo plerique vitare non possint dum si quis Nestorij per fidiam damnat Eutichetis puratur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietatem destruit Nestorij arguitur dogma erigere These be Uigilius wordes in his first booke which be thus much in English Betwene the abominable teaching of Nestorius sometyme not ruler but waster not pastor but pray searcher of the church of Constantinople and the wicked and detestable sect of Eutiches the craft of the deuils spoyling so facioned it selfe that men could not auoyd any of the secrets without danger of the other So as whiles any man condemneth the falsenes of Nestorian he may be thought fallen to the errour of the Eutichian and whiles he destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichian and whiles be destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichians heresie he may be challenged to releeue the teaching of the Nestorian This is the sentence of Uigilius by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtill conueyed without so playne contradiction as this author eyther by ignorāce or of purpose fayneth as though the Nestorian should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the Eutichian cleane contrary very God but not man For if the heresies had bene such Uigilius had had no cause to speake of any such ambiguity as he noteth that a man should hardly speake agaynst the one but he might be suspected to fauor the other And yet I graunt that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God bicause they would two distinct different natures to make also two distinct persons and so as it were two Christs the one onely man and the other onely God so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate nor as Gregory Nazianzene sayth man deitate for so he is termed to say The Eutichians as S. Augustine sayth reasoning agaynst the Nestorians became heretiques themselues and bicause we confesse truely by fayth but one Christ the sonne of God very God The Eutichians say although there were in the virgins wombe before the adunation two natures yet after the adunation in that mistery of Christes incarnation there is but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fansye transfused and so confounded wherupon by implication a man might gather the nature of humanity not to remayne in Christ after the adunation in the virgins wombe Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in his proces vttereth a catholike meaning against them both but he directeth speciall arguments of the two natures in man
maner of wayes by tooth and by nayle to shake him of First you would shake him of by this pretēce that he vseth his two Argumentes of the two examples of man and the Sacrament agaynst the Eutichians onely But Gelasius will not so easely leaue his hold For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutichians declaring by these two examples how two differēt natures may remaine in Christ and that the integritie of Christ can not be except both the different natures remaine in their properties which cōdemneth both the foresayd heresies that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ the Eutichians his diuinitie and the Nestorians his humanitie And yet if he had vsed these examples agaynst the Eutichians onely they byte you as sore as if they were vsed agaynst them both For if he conclude by these two examples agaynst the Eutichians as you say hee doth that the integritie of Christ can not be but both natures different that is to say his manhode and Godhead must remaine in their propertie then must it nedes be so in the examples also And then as Christ had in him two natures with their naturall properties neither perishing but both remainyng and as man hath in him two natures the soule and the body both remainyng still so must in the Sacrament also the nature of bread and wine remaine without Transubstantiation or corruption of any of the natures accordyng to the sayd wordes of Gelasius Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be And Gelasius bringeth not this Image and similitude to that purpose that you would draw it that is to say to expresse the maner of Christs presēce in the Sacramēt but to expresse the maner of two natures in Christ that they both so remaine that neither is corrupted or transubstantiated no more then the bread and wine be in the Sacrament And by this all men may see that Gelasius hath fastened his teeth so surely that you can not so lightly cast him of with a shake of your chayne And if he ment to expresse the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament as you fayne he doth that the maner is onely by fayth wherof he speaketh not one word yet are you nothyng at libertie thereby but held much more faster thē you were before For Gelasius speaketh of the action of the mystery Christes flesh and bloud be present in the action of the mystery onely by fayth therfore can they not be present in the bread or wine reserued which haue no fayth at all And presence by fayth onely requireth no reall materiall and and corporall presence For by fayth is Christ present in Baptisme and by fayth Abraham saw him the holy Fathers did eate his flesh and drincke his bloud before he was borne And Christ humbling him selfe to take vpon him our mortall nature hath exalted vs to the nature of his deitie making vs to reigne with him in his immortall glory as it were Gods And this sayth Gelasius God worketh in vs by his Sacramentes per quae diuinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini that is to say by the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be associate vnto the diuine nature and yet ceasseth not the substaunce or nature of bread and wine to be So that the Sacrament not beyng altered in substaunce we be altered and go into the diuine nature or substaunce as Gelasius termeth it beyng made partakers of Gods eternitie And therfore when he speaketh of the goyng of the Sacraments into the diuine substaunce he meaneth not that the substaunces of the Sacraments go into the substaunce of God which no creature can do but that in the action of that mystery to them that worthely receaue the Sacramentes to them they be turned into diuine substaunce through the working of the holy Ghost who maketh the godly receauers to be the partakers of the diuine nature and substaunce And that this was the intent meanyng of Gelasius appeareth by two notable sentences of him wherof one is this Surely sayth he the Image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrate in the action of the mysterie The other is that by the Sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature he sayth not that the Sacramentes be but that we be made partakers of the nature of Christes Godhead And if he should meane as you haue most vntruely altered both his wordes sence at your pleasure not that the godly receiuers but that the substaunce of bread and wine should go into the diuine substaunce then were not they chaunged into his humanitie but into his deitie and so were the bread and wine deified or at the least made partakers of the diuine nature and immortalitie But for asmuch as Gelasius sayth that the two natures in Christ remaine in like case as the natures of the sacraments remayne for he maketh his argument altogither of the remayning of the natures by the verbe permanere and the participle permanens then as you say that the integrity of Christ can not be except both his natures different remayne in their properties so can not the integritie of the sacrament be except the two natures of bread and wine remayne in their properties For els seeing that the remayning of the natures is in the Sacrament as it is in Christ as Gelasius sayth then if in the Sacraments remayne but the accidents and apearance of bread and wine and not the substances of them how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine proue the two substances and natures of Christ to remayne Might it not rather be gathered that onely the appearance of Christes humanity remayneth in accidents and not the substance of it selfe as Martion sayth as you say it is in the sacrament or els that Christes humanity is absorpted vp by his diuinity and confounded therwith as the Eutichians say that the bread and wine is by the body and bloud of Christ But the catholique fayth hath taught from the beginning according to holy scripture that as the image or sacrament be two diuers natures and different remayning in their properties that is to say bread and wine so likewise in the person of Christ remayne two natures his diuinity and his humanity And I pray you what danger is it to say that Christes body is in the sacramentall bread but as in a figure should that emply that his body is in his person but as in a figure That should be euen as good an argument as this Christ was in the brasen serpent but in a figure ergo he is now in heauen but in a figure For the forme of argumentation is all one in the one and the other And if Christ be in vs by vertue and efficacie although in the sacraments representing
faythfull people in the blessed Sacrament or supper of the Lord It is a thing worthy to be considered and well wayed what moued the Schoole authors of late yeares to defend the contrary opinion not onely so far from all experience of our sences and so farre from all reason but also cleane contrary to the olde church of Christ and to Godes most holy word Surely nothing moued them therto so much as did the vayne fayth which they had in the church and sea of Rome For Ioannes Scotus otherwise called Duns the subtillest of all the schoole authors intreating of this matter of Transubstantiation sheweth playnly the cause therof For sayth he the wordes of the Scripture might be expounded more easely and more playnly without Transubstantiation but the church did choose this sense which is more hard being moued therto as it seemeth chiefly bicause that of the Sacramentes men ought to hold as the holy churh of Rome holdeth But it holdeth that bread is transubstantiate or turned into the body and wine into the bloud as it is shewed De summa Trinitate fide Catholicae Firmiter credimus And Gabriell also who of all other wrote most largely vpon the Canon of the Masse sayth thus It is to be noted that although it be taught in the scripture that the body of Christ is truely conteined and receaued of christen people vnder the kindes of bread wine yet how the body of Christ is there whether by conuersion of any thing into it or without conuersion the body is there with the bread both the substance and accidence of bread remayning there still it is not found expressed in the Bible Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth as it is written De haereticis Ad abolendum And that church holdeth and hath determined that the bread is trāsubstantiated into the body of Christ and the wine into his bloud Therfore is this opinion receaued of all them that be catholike that the substance of bread remayneth not but really and truely is tourned transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the body of Christ. Thus you haue heard the cause wherfore this opinion of Transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among christen people that is to say bicause the church of Rome hath so determined although the contrary by the Papistes owne confession appeare to be more easy more true and more according to the Scripture But bicause our english papistes who speake more grossely herein then the Pope himselfe affirming that the naturall body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine can not nor dare not ground their fayth concerning transubstantiation vpon the church of Rome which although in name it be called most holy yet in deede it is the most stinking dongehill of all wickednes that is vnder heauen and the very sinagoge of the deuill which whosoeuer followeth can not but stumble and fall into a pit ful of erroures Bicause I say the English papistes dare not now stablish their fayth vpon that foundation of Rome therfore they seeke Figge leaues that is to say vayne reasons gathered of their owne braynes and authorities wrested from the intent and minde of the authors wherwith to couer and hide their shamefull errours Wherfore I thought it good somwhat to trauayle herein to take away those figge leaues that their shamefull errours may playnly to euery man appeare The greatest reason and of most importance and of such strength as they thinke or at the least as they pretend that all the world can not answere therto is this Our sauiour Christ taking the bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body Now say they as sone as Christ had spoken these wordes the bread was straight way altered and changed and the substāce therof was conuerted into the substance of his precious body But what christen eares canne paciently heare this doctrine that Christ is euery day made a new and made of an other substance than he was made of in his mothers wombe For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother now by these papistes opinion he is made euery day of the nature and substance of bread and wine which as they say be turned into the substance of his body and bloud O what a meruaylous Metamorphosis and abhominable heresie is this to say that Christ is dayly made a new and of a new matter wherof it followeth necessarely that they make vs euery day a new Christ and not the same that was borne of the virgine Mary nor that was crucified vpon the crosse and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper which was borne and crucified as it shall be playnly proued by these arguments folowing First thus If Christes body that was crucified was not made of bread but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread as the papistes say than Christes body that was eaten in the supper was not the same that was crucified For if they were all one body than it must needes follow that either Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread or els that his body that was crucified was made of bread And in like manner it followeth If the body of Christ in the Sacrament be made of the substance of bread and wine and the same body was conceaued in the Virgines wombe than the body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was made of bread and wine Or els turne the argument thus The body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was not made of bread and wine but this body of Christ in the Sacrament is made of bread and wine than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceaued in the virgines wombe An other argument Christ that was borne in the Virgines wombe as concerning his body was made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother but Christ in the Sacrament is made of an other substance and so it followeth that he is an other Christ. And so the Antichrist of Rome the chiefe author of all idolatrie would bring faythfull christen people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgine Mary through the operation of the holy ghost and suffered for vs vpon the crosse to worship an other Christ made of bread and wine through the consecration of Popish priestes which make themselues the makers of God For say they the priest by the wordes of consecration maketh that thing which is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper and that say they is Christ himselfe both God and man and so they take vpon them to make both God and man But let all true worshipers worship one God one Christ once corporally made of one onely corporall substance that is to say of the blessed virgin Mary that once dyed and rose once
ghostly enemies the subtill and puisant wicked spirites and diuels The same manner of speach vsed also S. Peter in his first epistle saying That the apparaile of women should not be outwardly with brayded here and setting on of gold nor in putting on of gorgious apparayle but that the inward man of the hart should be without corruption In which manner of speach he intended not vtterly to forbid all broyding of here all gold and costly apparell to all women for euery one must be apparayled according to their condition state and degree but he ment hereby clerely to condemne all pride and excesse in apparayle and to moue all women that they should study to decke their soules inwardly with all vertues and not to be curious outwardly to decke and adourne their bodyes with sumptuous apparayle And our sauiour Christ himselfe was full of such maner of speaches Gather not vnto you sayth he treasure vpon earth willing therby rather to set our mindes vppon heauenly treasure which euer indureth than vppon earthly treasure which by many sundry occasions perisheth and is taken away from vs. And yet worldly treasure must needes be had and possessed of some men as the person tyme and occasion doth serue Likewise he sayd When you be brought before kinges and princes thinke not what and how you shall answer Not willing vs by this negatiue that we should negligently and vnaduisedly answere we care not what but that we should depend of our heuenly father trusting that by his holy spirite he will sufficiently instruct vs of answer rather then to trust of any answer to be deuised by our owne witte and study And in the same maner he spake when he sayd It is not you that speake but it is the spirite of God that speaketh within you For the spirite of God is he that principally putteth godly wordes into our mouthes and yet neuerthelesse we do speake according to his mouing And to be short in all these sentences following that is to say Call no man your father vpon earth Let no man call you lord or master Feare not them that kill the body I came not to send peace vpon earth It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand You shall not worship the father neyther in this mountnor in Ierusalem I take no witnes at no man My doctrine is not mine I seeke not my glory In all these negatiues our sauiour Christ spake not precisely and vtterly to deny all the foresayd thinges but in comparison of them to prefer other thinges as to prefer our father and Lord in heauen aboue any worldly father lord or master in earth and his feare aboue the feare of any creature and his word and gospell aboue all worldly peace Also to prefer spirituall and inward honoring of God in pure hart and mynd aboue locall corporall and outward honour and that Christ preferred his fathers glory aboue his owne Now for as much as I haue declared at length the nature and kind of these negatiue speaches which be no pure negatiues but by comparison it is easye hereby to make answer to S. Iohn Chrisostom who vsed this phrase of speach most of any author For his meaning in his foresayd Homily was not that in the celebration of the Lordes supper is neyther bread nor wine neither priest nor the body of Christ which the Papistes themselues must needes confesse but his intent was to draw our mindes vpward to heauen that we should not consider so much the bread wine and priest as we should consider his diuinity and holy spirite giuen vnto vs to our eternall saluation And therfore in the same place he vseth so many tymes these wordes Thinke and thinke not willing vs by these wordes that we should not fixe our thoughts and myndes vpon the bread wine priest nor Christes body but to lift vp our hartes higher vnto his spirite and diuinity without the which his body auayleth nothing as he sayth himselfe It is the spirite that giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing And as the same Chrisostome in many places moueth vs not to consider the water in baptisme but rather to haue respect to the holy ghost receaued in baptisme and represented by the water euen so doth he in this homily of the holy communion moue vs to lift vp our myndes from all visible and corporall things to thinges inuisible and spirituall In so much that although Christ was but once crucified yet would Chrisost haue vs to thincke that we see him dayly whipped and scourged before our eyes and his body hanging vpon the Crosse and the speare thrust into his side and the most holy bloud to flow out of his side into our mouthes After which manner S. Paule wrote to the Galathians that Christ was paynted and crucified before their eyes Therfore fayth Chrisostome in the same homily a litle before the place rehersed What doest thou O man diddest not thou promise to the prist which sayd Lift vp your myndes and hartes and thou diddest answere We lift them vp vnto the Lord Art not thou ashamed and afrayd being at that same houre found a liar A wonderfull thing The table is set forth furnished with Gods misteries the Lambe of God is offered for thee the priest is carefull for thee spirituall fier cometh out of that heauenly table the angels Seraphin be there present couering their faces with vi winges All the angelicall power with the priest be meanes aud intercestors for thee a spirituall fyer cometh downe from heauen bloud in the cup is druncke out of the most pure side vnto thy purification And art not thou ashamed afrayd and abashed not endeuoring thy selfe to purchase Gods mercy O man doth not thyne owne conscience condemne thee There be in the weeke 168. houres and God asketh but one of them to be giuen wholy vnto him and thou consumest that in worldly busines in trifling and talking with what boldnes then shalt thou come to these holy misteries O corrupt conscience Hitherto I haue rehersed S. Iohn Chrisostomes wordes which do shew how our myndes should be occupyed at this holy table of our Lord that is to say withdrawen from the consideration of sensible thinges vnto the contemplation of most heauenly and godly thinges And thus is answered this place of Chrisostom which the Papists tooke for an insoluble and a place that no man was able to answere But for further declaration of Chrisostoms mynd in this matter read the place of him before rehersed fol. 327. and 343 Winchester Answering to Chrisostome this author complayneth as he did in Ciprian of malicious leauing out of that which when it is brought in doth nothing empayre that went before Chrisostome would we should consider the secret truth of this mistery where Christ is the inuisible Priest and ministreth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest wherof
drinke very wine so we lift vp our hartes vnto heauen and with our fayth wee see Christ crucified with our spirituall eyes and eat his flesh thrust thorow with a speare and drinke his bloud springing out of his side with our spirituall mouthes of our fayth And as Emissene sayd when we go to the reuerend aultar to feede vpon spirituall meat with our fayth we looke vpon him that is both God and man wee honour him we touch him with our minds we take him with the hands of our hartes and drinke him with the draught of our inward man So that although we see and eat sensibly very bread and drinke very wine spiritually eat and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud yet may wee not rest there but lift vp our mindes to his deity without the which his flesh auaileth nothing as he sayth himself Further auÌ„swere needeth not to any thing that you haue here spoken For euery learned reader may see at the first shew that all that you haue spoken is nothing els but very triflyng in wordes Now followeth S. Ambrose Yet there is an other place of S. Ambrose which the Papists thinke maketh much for their purpose but after due examination it shall playnely appeare how much they be deceiued They alleadge these wordes of S. Ambrose in a booke intituled De ijs qui initiantur misterijs Let vs proue that there is not that thing which nature formed but which benediction did consecrate and that benedictioÌ„ is of more strength then nature For by the blessing nature it selfe is also chaunged Moyses held a rodde he cast it from him and it was made a serpent Agayn he took the serpent by the tayle and it was turned agayne into the nature of a rodde Wherefore thou seest that by the grace of the prophet the nature of the serpent and rod was twise thaunged The flouds of Egypt ran pure water and sodenly bloud began to brust out of the vaines of the springes so that men could not drinke of the floud but at the prayer of the Prophet the bloud of the floud went away and the nature of water came agayne The people of the Hebrues were compassed about on the one syde with the Egyptians and on the other side with the sea Moyses lifted vp his rod the water deuided it selfe and stood vp like a wall and betwene the waters was left a way for them to passe on foot And Iordan agaynst nature turned backe to the head of his spring Doth it not appeare now that the nature of the Sea flouds or of the course of fresh water was chaunged The people was dry Moyses touched a stone and water came out of the stone Did not grace her worke aboue nature to make the stone to bring forth the water which it had not of nature Marath was a most bitter floud so that the people being dry could not drinke thereof Moyses put wood into the water and the nature of the water lost his bitternes which grace infused did sodenly moderate In the tyme of Heliseus the prophet an axe head fell from one of the Prophets seruauntes into the water he that lost the yron desired the prophet Heliseus helpe who put the helue into the water and the iron swam aboue Which thing we know was done aboue nature for yron is heuier then the liquor of water Thus we perceiue that grace is of more force then nature and yet hetherto we haue rehersed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets Now if the blessing of a man bee of such valew that it may chaunge nature what do we say of the consecration of God wherein is the operation of the wordes of our sauiour Christ For this Sacrament which thou receiuest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Helias was of such power that it could bring fyre down from heauen shall not the word of Christ be of that power to chaunge the kindes of the elementes Of the making of the whole world thou hast red that God spake and the thinges were done he commaunded and they were created The word then of Christ that could of no things make things that were not can it not chauÌ„ge those thinges that be into that thing which before they were not For it is no les matter to geue to thinges new nature then to alter natures Thus far haue I rehearsed the woâ—â—es of S. Ambrose if the sayd book be his which they that be of greatest learning and iudgemeÌ„t do not thinke by which wordes the Papists would proue that in the supper of the Lord after the words of Consecration as they be commonly called there remayneth neither bread nor wine because that S. Ambrose sayth in this place that the nature of the bread and wine is chaunged But to satisfy their mindes let vs graunt for their pleasure that the foresayd booke was S. Ambrose owne worke yet the same booke maketh nothing for their purpose but quite agaynst them For he sayth not that the substaunce of bread and wine is gone but he sayth that their nature is chaunged that is to say that in the holy communion we ought not to receiue the bread and wine as other common meates and drinkes but as thinges cleane chaunged into a higher estate nature and condition to be taken as holy meates and drinkes whereby we receiue spirituall feeding and supernaturall nourishment from heauen of the very true body and bloud of our sauior Christ through the omnipotent power of God and the wonderful working of the holy ghost Which so well agreeth with the substaunce of bread and wine still remayning that if they were gone away and not there this our spiritual feeding could be taught vnto vs by them And therefore in the most part of the examples which S. Ambrose alleadgeth for the wonderfull alteration of natures the substances did still remayne after the nature and properties were chaunged As when the water of Iordane contrary to his nature stood still like a wale or flowed agaynst the streame towardes the head and spring yet the substaunce of the water remained the same that it was before Likewise the stone that aboue his nature and kinde flowed water was the self same stone that it was before And the floud of Marath that chaunged his nature of bitternesse chaunged for all that no part of his substaunce No more did that yron which contrary to his nature swam vpon the water lose thereby any part of the substaunce thereof Therefore as in these alterations of natures the substances neuertheles remayned the same that they were before the alterations euen so dooth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lords supper and be naturally receiued and disgested into the body notwithstanding the sacramentall mutation of the same into the bodye and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the supernaturall spirituall and explicable eating and drinking feeding and disgesting of the
body simulation and dissimulation wherin when you haue well practised your selfe in all your booke thorow at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue betweene Chrysostome Theodoret and me But Chrysostome Theodoret and I shall agree well enough for they tell not what in no wise may be but what was commonly vsed that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered what I wrote in my booke concerning figuratiue speaches and negatiues by cōparisō which you also haue allowed you should haue well perceiued your labor here spēt all in vaine For in all figures and sacramentes the signes remayning in their owne proper natures chaunge neuertheles their names and be called by the names of the more high and excellent thinges which they signify And both Chrysostome and Theodoret shew a cause thereof which is this that we should not rest in the sight of the sacramentes and figures but lift vp our mindes to the thinges that be thereby represented And yet in the sacramentes is neither simulation nor dissimulation except you will call all figuratiue speaches simulation and say that Christ simuled when he sayd he was a vine a dore a herdman the light of the world and suche like speaches But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit being now so sore trauailed with impugning of the truth to deuise a prety mery dialog of Quoth he and quoth he And if I were disposed to dally and trifle I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation of quoth he and quoth you euen betwene you and Christ. But as I haue declared before all thinges which be exalted to an hier dignity be called by the names of their dignity So muche the many times their former names be forgotten and yet neuertheles they be the same thinges that they were before although they be not vsually so called As the surnames of Kinges and Emperours to how many be they knowen or how many doe call them thereby but euery man calleth them by their royall and imperiall dignities And in like maner is it of fygures and sacramentes sauing that their exaltation is in a figure and the dignities royall and imperiall be reall and indeed And yet he should not offend that should call the princes by their original names so that he did it not in contempt of their estates And no more should he offend that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified And therefore Theodoret sayth not that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread and that he offendeth that so calleth it for he calleth it bread himselfe but with this addition of dignity calling it the bread of life which it signifieth As the cap of maintenāce is not called barely and simply a cap but with addition of maintenaunce And in like manner we vse not in common speach to call bread wine and water in the sacraments simple and common water bread and wine but according to that they represent vnto vs we call them the water of baptisme the water of life sacramentall water sacramentall and celestiall bread and wine the bread of lyfe the drinke that quencheth our thirst for euer And the cause Theodoret sheweth why they be so called that we hearing those names should lift vp our mindes vnto the thinges that they bee called and comfort our selues therewithall And yet neither in the sacraments iu the cap of maintenaunce nor in the imperiall or royall maiesties is any simulation or dissimulation but all be playn speaches in common vsage which euery man vnderstandeth But there was neuer man that vnderstood any author further from his meaning then you do Theodoret and Chrysostome in this place For they ment not of any reall calling by chaungyng of substances but of a sacramentall chaunge of the names remaining the substaunces For Theodoret sayth in playne wordes that as Christ called bread his body so he called his body corne and called himselfe a vine Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corne or he into a vine And yet this must needes follow of your saying if Christes calling were a putting away of the former substance according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation But that Theodoret ment not of any such chaunging of substances but of chaunging of names he declareth so playnely that no man can doubt of his meaning These be Theodorets owne wordes Our Sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body and yet sayth he they kept their former substaunce fashion and figure And the cause wherfore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of hys body to dignify so earthly a thing by so heauenly a name Theodoret sheweth to be this that the godly receiuers of the Sacrament when they heare the heauenly names should lift vp their mindes from earth vnto heauen and not to haue respect vnto the bread outwardly only but principally to looke vpon Christ who with his heauenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly But there was neuer such vntrueth vsed as you vse in this author to hide the trueth and to set forth your vntrueth For you alter Theodoretes wordes and yet that suffiseth not but you geue such new and straunge significations to wordes as before was neuer inuented For where Theodoret sayth that the sacramentes remayne you turne that into the visible matter and then that visible matter as you take it must signify accidents And where Theodoret sayth in playne termes that the substaunce remayneth there must substaunce also by your saying signify accidentes which you call here outward nature cōtrary to your own doctrine which haue taught hetherto that substaunce is an inward nature inuisible and insensible And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the trueth nor with your selfe in other places And all these cantelless and false interpretations altering of the words and corrupting of the sence both of all authors and also of scripture is nothing els but shameles shiftes to deceiue simple people and to draw them from the olde Catholicke fayth of Christes Churche vnto your newe Romish errors deuised by Antichrist not aboue foure or fiue hundred yeares passed And where you say that in the sacrament in euery part both in the heauenly earthly part is an whole perfect truth Now is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament if there be no bread there at all but the color and accidents of bread For if there be none other truth in the heauēly part of the sacrament then is not Christ there at all but onely his qualities and accidentes And as concerning your vniust gathering of mine owne wordes vpon S. Augustine I haue aunswered
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
neither reason learnyng nor fayth beareth that Christes body beyng onely in bread should gyue life vnto a man So that if it were an Article of our faith to beleue that Christ is present in the formes of bread and wine it were an vnprofitable Article seyng that his being in the bread should profit no man Irenee therefore meaneth not of the beyng of Christ in the bread and wyne but of the eatyng of him And yet he meaneth not of corporall eating for so Christ sayth him selfe that his flesh auayleth nothing but spirituall eatyng by fayth Nor he speaketh not of spirituall eatyng in receauyng of the Sacrament onely for then our lyfe should not be eternall nor endure no longer then we be eating of the sacrament for our spirituall life cōtinueth no lōger thē our spirituall feedyng And then could none haue lyfe but that receaue the Sacramēt and all should haue perished that dyed before Christes Supper and institutiō of the Sacrament or that dye vnder age before they receiue the Sacrament But the true meaning of Irenee Hilary Cyprian Cyrill and other that treated of this matter was this that as Christ was truely made man and crucified for vs and shed his bloud vpon the Crosse for our redemption now reigneth for euer in heauen so as many as haue a true fayth and belefe in him chawyng their cuddes and perfectly remembryng the same death and passion which is the spirituall eatyng of his flesh and drinkyng of his bloud they shall reigne in euerlastyng lyfe with him For they spiritually and truely by faith eate his flesh and drinke his bloud whether they were before the institution of the Sacrament or after And the beyng or not beyng of Christes body and bloud really and corporally in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine neither maketh nor marreth nor is to no purpose in this matter But for confirmation of this our fayth in Christes death and passion for a perpetuall memory of the same hath Christ ordeined this holy Sacrament not to be kept but to be ministred among vs to our singular comfort that as outwardly and corporally we eate the very bread and drinke the very wine and call them the body and bloud of Christ so inwardly and spiritually we eate drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally he is in heauen and shall be vntill the last Iudgement when he shall come to Iudge both the quicke and the dead And in the Sacrament that is to say in the due ministration of the Sacrament Christ is not onely figuratiuely but effectually vnto euerlastyng lyfe And this teachyng impugneth the heresies of the Ualentinians Arrians and other heretickes and so doth not your fayned doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine and that vngodly and wicked men eate and drinke the same which shall be cast away from the eternall lyfe and perish for euer And for further aunswere to Hilary I referre the Reader to myne other aunswere made to him before And for S. Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete if there be no bread and wine in the Sacrament their Argumentes serue for the heretickes purpose and cleane directly agaynst them selues For their entent agaynst the heretickes is to proue that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soule and a perfect body and to be perfect God and perfect man As to the full perfection of the Sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine and the perfect body and bloud of Christ. So that now turnyng the Argument if there be no perfect bread and wine as the Papistes falsely surmise then may the heretickes cōclude agaynst the Catholicke fayth and conuince Chrisostome Gelasius Theodorete with their own weapon that is to say with their own similitude that as in the Sacramēt lacketh the earthly part so doth in Christ lacke his humanitie And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine and yet is none in deede so shall they argue by this similitude that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and bloud and yet was there none in very deede And thus by your deuilish Trāsubstantiation of bread and wine do you trāsubstantiate also the body and bloud of Christ not conuincyng but confirmyng most haynous heresies And this is the conclusion of your vngodly fayned doctrine of transubstantiation And where you would gather the same cōclusion if Christes flesh and bloud be not really present it seemeth that you vnderstand not the purpose and intent of these Authors For they bring not this similitude of the Sacrament for the reall presence but for the reall beyng That as the Sacrament consisteth in two partes one earthly an other heauenly the earthly part beyng the bread and wine and the heauenly the body and bloud of Christ and these partes be all truely and really in deede without colour or simulation that is to say very true bread and wine in deede the very true body and bloud of Christ in deede euē likewise in Christ be two natures his humanitie and earthly substaunce and his diuinitie and heauēly substaunce and both these be true natures and substaunces without colour or dissemblyng And thus is this similitude of the Sacrament brought in for the truth of the natures not for the presence of the natures For Christ was perfect God and perfect man whē his soule went downe to hell and his body lay in the graue bycause the body and soule were both still vnited vnto his diuinitie and yet it was not required that his soule should be present with the body in the sepulture no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the Sacrament but as the soule was then in hell so is his body now in heauen And as it is not required that where so euer Christes diuinitie is there should be really and corporally his manhode so it is not required that where the bread and wyne be there should be corporally his flesh and bloud But as you frame the Argument agaynst the heretickes it serueth so litle agaynst them that they may with the same frame and engine ouerthrow the whole Catholicke Church For thus you frame the Argument As the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth not alter the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie Marke well now good Reader what foloweth hereof As the presence of Christes body in this mysterie doth not alter say you the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie But the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures as the Papistes say that the substaunces of bread and wyne be extinguished and there remayneth no substaūce but of the body of Christ Ergo likewise in the
body that shal be giuen for you I answer according to Cirils mynd vpon the same place that Christ alone suffered for vs all and by his woundes were we healed he bearing our sinnes in his body vpon a tree and being crucified for vs that by his death we might liue But what need I M. Smith to labor in answering to your question of the tyme when your question in it selfe contayneth the aunswere appoynteth the tyme of Christ giuing himselfe for the life of the world when you say that he gaue himselfe for vs to death which as you confes skant three lines before was not at his supper but vpon the crosse And if you will haue none other giuing of Christ for vs but at his supper as your reason pretendeth or els it is vtterly naught then surely Christ is much bound vnto you that haue deliuered him from all his mocking whipping scourging crucifying and all other paynes of death which he suffered for vs vpon the crosse and bring to passe that he was giuen onely at his supper without bloud or payne for the life of the world But then is all the world litle beholding vnto you that by deliuering of Christ from death will suffer all the world to remayne in death which can haue no life but by his death AFter the gospell of S. Ihon M. Smith aleadgeth for his purpose S. Paule to the corinthians who biddeth euery man to examine him selfe before he receaue this sacrament for he that eateth and drinketh it vnworthely is gilty of the body and bloud of Christ eating and drinking his owne damnation bicause he discerneth not our lordes body Here by the way it is to be noted that D. Smith in reciting the words of S. Paule doth alter them purposely commonly putting this word sacrament in the steede of these wordes bread and wine which wordes he semeth so much to abhorre as if they were toades or serpents bicause they make agaynst his Transubstantiation where as S. Paule euer vseth those wordes and neuer nameth this word Sacrament But to the matter What need we to examine our selues sayth D. Smith when we shall eate but common bread and drincke wine of the grape Is a man gilty of the body and bloud of Christ which eateth and drinketh nothing els but onely bare bread made of corne and meare wine of the grape Who sayth so good syr Do I say in my booke that those which come to the Lordes table do eate nothing els but bare bread made of corne nor drinke nothing but meare wine made of grapes How often do I teach and repeate agayne and agayne that as corporally with our mouthes we eate and drincke the sacramentall bread and wine so spiritually with our hartes by fayth do we eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud and do both feed and liue spiritually by him although corporally he be absent from vs and sitteth in heauē at his fathers right hand And as in baptisme we come not vnto the water as we come to other common waters when we washe our handes or bath our bodies but we know that it is a misticall water admonishing vs of the great and manifold mercies of God towards vs of the league and promise made betwene him and vs and of his wonderfull working and operation in vs. Wherfore we come to that water with such feare reuerence and humility as we would come to the presence of the father the sonne and the holy ghost and of Iesus Christ himselfe both God and man although he be not corporally in the water but in heauen aboue And who soeuer cōmeth to that water beyng of the age of discretiō must examine himselfe duely least if hee come vnworthely none otherwise then hee would come vnto other commō waters he be not renewed in Christ but in steede of saluation receaue his damnation Euen so it is of the bread and wine in the Lordes holy supper Wherfore euery man as S. Paule sayth must examine himselfe when he shall aproche to that holy table and not come to gods borde as he would do to common feastes and bankets but must consider that it is a misticall table where the bread is misticall and the wine also misticall wherin we be taught that we spiritually feed vpon Christ eating him and drincking him and as it were sucking out of his side the bloud of our redemption foode of eternall saluation although he be in heauen at his fathers right hand And whosoeuer cōmeth vnto this heauenly table not hauing regarde to Christes flesh bloud who should be there our spirituall foode but commeth therto without fayth feare humility reuerence as it were but to carnall feeding he doth not there feed vpon Christ but the deuill doth feede vpon him and deuoureth him as he did Iudas And now may euery man perceaue how fondly and falsly M. Smith concludeth of these wordes of S. Paule that our Sauiour Christes body and bloud is really and corporally in the sacrament AFter this he falleth to rayling lying and sclaundering of M. Peter Martir a man of that excellent learning and godly liuing that hee passeth D. Smith as farre as the sunne in his cleare light passeth the moone being in the Eclipse Peter Martyr sayth he at his first coming to Oxford when he was but a Lutherian in this matter taught as D. Smith now doth But when he came once to the Court saw that doctrine misliked them that might do him hurt in his liuing he anone after turned his tippet and sang an other song Of M. Peter Martyr his opinion and iudgement in this matter no man can better testify than I. For as much as hee lodged within my house long before he came to Oxford and I had with him many conferences in that matter and know that he was then of the same mynd that he is now and as hee defended after openly in Oxford and hath written in his booke And if D. Smith vnderstode him otherwise in his Lectures at the beginning it was for lacke of knowledge for that then D. Smith vnderstoode not the matter nor yet doth not as it appeareth by this folish and vnlearned booke which he hath now set out No more than he vnderstood my booke of the Cathechisme and therfore reporteth vntruly of me that I in that booke did set forth the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament Unto which false report I haue aunswered in my fourth booke the eight chapiter But this I confesse of my selfe that not long before I wrot the sayd Cathechisme I was in that error of the real presence as I was many yeares past in diuers other errors as of Transubstantiation of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priestes in the Masse of pilgrimages purgatory pardons and many other superstitions and errors that came from Rome being brought vp from youth in them and nouseled therin for lacke of good instruction from my youth the outragious fluds of Papisticall errors at
that tyme ouerflowing the world For the which and other mine offences in youth I do dayly pray vnto God for mercy and pardon saying Delicta inuentutis meae ignorantias meas ne memineris Domine Good Lord remember not mine ignorances and offences of my youth But after it had pleased God to shew vnto me by his holy word a more perfect knowledge of his sonne Iesus Christ from tyme to tyme as I grew in knowledge of him by little and little I put away my former ignorance And as God of his mercy gaue me light so through his grace I opened myne eyes to receaue it and did not wilfully repugne vnto God and remayne in darkenes And I trust in gods mercy and pardon for my former errors bicause I erred but of frailnes and ignoraunce And now I may say of my selfe as S. Paule sayd When I was like a babe or childe in the knowledge of Christ I spake like a childe and vnderstood like a child But now that I come to mans estate and growing in Christ through his grace and mercy I haue put away that childishnes Now after that D. Smith hath thus vntruely belyed both me and master Peter Martir he falleth into his exclamations saying O Lord what man is so mad to beleue such mutable teachers which chaūge their doctrine at mens pleasure as they see aduauntage and profit They turne and will turne as the winde turneth Do you not remember M. Smith the fable how the olde crab rebuked her young that they went not straight forth and the common experience that those that look a squint sometimes find fault with them that look right You haue turned twise retracted your errours and the third time promised and breaking your promise ran away And find you fault with me and M. Peter Martyr as though we for mens pleasures turne like the winde as we see aduauntage Shall the wethercocke of Paules that turneth about with euery wind lay the fault in the church say that it turneth I will not here aunswere for my selfe but leaue the iudgement to God who seeth the bottome of all mens hartes and at whose onely iudgement I shall stand or fall sauing that this I will say before God who is euery where present and knoweth all thinges that be done that as for seeking to please men in this matter I thinke my conscience cleare that I neuer sought herein but onely the pleasure and glory of God And yet will I not iudge my selfe herein nor take D. Smith for my iudge but will refer the iudgement to him that is the rightfull iudge of all men But as for D. Peter Martyr hath hee sought to please men for aduauntage who hauing a great yearly reuenue in his owne countrey forsooke all for Christes sake and for the truth and glory of God came into straunge countries wher he had neither land nor frendes but as God of his goodnes who neuer forsaketh them that put their trust in him prouided for him BUt after this exclamation this papist returneth to the matter saying Tell me why may not Christes body be as well in the sacrament in heauē both at once as that his body was in one proper place with the bodye of the stone that lay still vpō his graue whē he rose from death to life as his body was in one proper place at once with the body of the doore or gate whē the same being shut he entred into the house where the Apostles were Make you these two thinges all one M. Smith diuers bodies to be in one place and one body to be in diuers places If Christs body had bene in one place with the substaūce of the stone or doore and at the same time thē you might well haue proued thereby that his body may as well be in one place with the substāce of bread wine But what auayleth this to proue that his body may be in diuers places at one time which is nothing like to the other but rather cleane contrary Marry when Christ arose out of the sepulchre or came into the house when the dores were shut if you can proue that at the same time he was in heauen then were that to some purpose to proue that this dodye may bee corporally in heauen and earth both at one tyme. And yet the controuersy here in this matter is not what may bee but what is God can do many thinges which he neither doth nor will doe And to vs his will in thinges that appear not to our sences is not known but by his word Christes body may be aswell in the bread and wine as in in the dore and stone and yet it may be also in the dore and stone and not in the bread and wine But if we will stretch out our faith no further thē Gods word doth lead vs neither is Christs body corporally present in one proper place with the bread and wine nor was also with the stone or doore For the Scripture sayth in no place that the body of Christ was in the doore or in the stone that couered the Sepulchre but it sayth playnly that an Aungell came downe from heauen and remoued away the stone from the Sepulchre the womē that came to see the Sepulchre foūd the stone remoued away And although the Gospell say that Christ came into the house when the doore was shut yet it sayth not that Christes body was within the doore so that the doore and it occupyed both but one place But peraduenture M. Smith will aske me this question How could Christ come into the house the doore being shut except he came through the doore that his body must be in the doore To your wise questiō M. Smith I will aunswere by an other question Could not Christ come aswell into the house whē the doore was shut as the Apostles could go out of prison the doore beyng shut Could not God worke this thyng except the Apostles must go through the doore occuyy the same place that the doore did Or could not Christ do so much for his own selfe as he did for his Apostles But M. Smith is so blynd in his owne phantasies that he seeth not how much his owne examples make agaynst him selfe For if it be lyke in the Sacrament as it was in the stone and doore and Christes body was in one propre place with the body and substaunce of the stone and doore then must Christes body in the Sacramēt be in one propre place with the body and substaunce of bread and wine And so he must then confesse that there is no Transubstantiation THen from the doore and sepulchre Doct. Smith commeth to the Reuelations of Peter and Paule which saw Christ as he sayth bodily vpon earth after his Ascention Whiche declareth that although Christ departed hence at the tyme of his Ascention into heauen and there sitteth at the right hand of his father yet he
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
serue God and dwell in hym and haue him euer dwellyng in you What can be so heauy a burden as an vnquiet conscience to be in such a place as a man can not be suffered to serue God in Christes true Religion I lye be loth to depart from your kin and frendes remember that Christ calleth them his mother sisters and brethren that do his Fathers will Where we finde therefore God truely honored accordyng to his will there we can lacke neither frend nor kin If you be loth to depart for slaunderyng of Gods word remember that Christ when his houre was not yet come departed out of his countrey into Samaria to auoyde the malice of the Scribes and Phariseis and commaunded his Apostles that if they were pursued in one place they should flye to an other And was not Paule let downe by a basket out at a window to auoyde the persecution of Areta And what wisedome and policie he vsed from tyme to tyme to escape the malice of his enemies the Actes of the Apostles doe declare And after the same sorte did the other Apostles albeit wheÌ„ it came to such a poynt that they could no longer escape daunger of the persecutours of Gods true Religion than they shewed them selues that their flyeng before came not of feare but of godly wisedome to doe more good that they would not rashly without vrgent necessitie offer them selues to death whiche had bene but a temptation of God Yea when they were apprehended and could no longer auoyde then they stoode boldly to the profession of Christ then they shewed how litle they passed of death how much they feared God more then men how much they loued and preferred the eternall life to come aboue this short and miserable lyfe Wherfore I exhort you aswell by Christes commaundement as by the example of him and his Apostles to withdraw your selfe from the malice of your and Gods enemyes into some place where God is most purely serued which is no slauÌ„dering of the truth but a preseruyng of your selfe to God and the truth and to the societie and comfort of Christes litle flocke And that you will doe do it with speede least by your owne follie you fall into the persecutours handes and the Lord send his holy spirite to lead and guide you where soeuer you goe and all that be godly will say Amen T. C. A short Table or Index after the order Alphabeticall notyng the place or page of euery principall matters comprised in this Booke A. ABrahams will is called a sacrifice 85 Accidentes remoued there is no difference of substaunce 275 Adoration confuted .2 238 Aduerbes in lye 161 AEpinus 3â—9 15 Articles sixe not consented vnto by diuerse learned men 252 Authours for doctrine how to be read 127 B. BAptisme iniured by the Papistes 9. 20. 30. why ordayned in water .38 the water how chaunged therein 330 Berengarius 6. 7 Bertram his booke 6.77 Body of Christ whether a beast or byrd may eate it 66. whether ill men eate it .68 215. his eaten three maner of wayes .70 whether it hath proper formes quantities in the Sacrament .72 whether it be made of bread .79 looke Bread is not the sacrifice .87 to eate it is a figuratiue speach .111 looke eatyng how it is carnall .183 whether it be made of the matter of bread .203 what maner of body it is .238 is not the substaunce of the visible Sacrament 260 This is my Body how expounded 104. 121 Looke Sacramentes and the word Christ. Our Bodyes how they shal be spirituall is the resurrection 183 Bonauentura 53 Bread in the SacrameÌ„t is not holy but an holy token .3.186.156 yet is no bare token .4.10.92.207 but is deliuered from his bare name .291 to whoÌ„ it is but a bare token .10 how it is a chaunged in the Sacrament .330 341. the conuersion therof into Christes body is spirituall .325 how it is Christes body .292 and fleshe .20 why called Christes flesh .133 why it is Christes body to the receauer .208 what foode it is to the worthy receauer .333 it remayneth but bread after sanctification .263 it beyng broken how Christ may be sayd to be whole in euery part therof 350 Breakyng signifieth the whole vse of the Supper 260 Bucer 15 C. CAllyng is not makyng 346.107 Chaunge of thynges remoueth not substaunces 345 Christ how present in the Sacrament .4.5.8.49 124. how eaten in the Sacrament .8.10.18.20 22. how he is verely geuen in it .19 what it is to dwell in hym .23 he called the materiall bread his body .24 euill men eate him not .25 he meant not to make the bread his body .25 his ambiguous speaches not alwayes opened in the EuaÌ„gelistes .33 be excelleth all corporall foode .37 he is not corporally on earth .43 but in heauen .49 95. 142. Papistes say hee goeth no further then the stomacke .53 he is not receiued with the mouth .55 how long he taryeth with the receiuer .57 Papistes say he is whole in euery part of bread .63 but once offered .87 the dedication of his will to dye was not a propitiatory sacrifice .85 his intercession is no sacrifice for sinne .89 hee is in his Supper as in his assembly .93 how he is with vs also gone froÌ„ vs .102 his calling is not makyng .246.107 his glorified body hath his forme quaÌ„tities .129 he vseth figuratiue speaches .136 how he is in our handes .456 how he dwelleth in vs naturally .168 169. how vnited vnto vs .166 192. 175. he is verely truely present in the Sacrament .192 how we eate his sensible flesh that was Crucified .234 to be honored in heaueÌ„ not in the SacrameÌ„t .245 239. his humanitie proued by visible conuersatioÌ„ .278 his substauÌ„ce in Baptisme and the Supper how .289 he is ioyned to the bread as the holy Ghost is ioyned to the water .327 his wordes chaunge the kyndes of elementes .341 his sacrifice propitiatory what it is .370.372 and the effect of his sacrifice 391 Looke the word Sacrament and Sacrifice Church of God how it dayly offereth Christ. 89.90 Churche which is to be followed .380 and whiche Church can not erre 405 Church of Rome a stepmother .12 13. the mother of Transubstantiation .15 looke Transubstantiation Clemens Epistles fayned 146 Communion a short introduction thereunto 380 Confusion of Natures what it is 321 Consecration what it is .184 the Papistes vary in it 262. Conuersion two wayes 107 Conuersion of earthly creatures into Christes substaunce how 187 Corporall thynges haue two Natures 363 Cuttill the nature therof 19 D. DOctrine wantyng generall successe is not therfore vntrue 7 E. EAtyng signifieth beleuyng 31 Eatyng spirituall how it is 40.218 Eatyng of Christes body three maner of wayes 70.214 Eatyng of Christes body is a spirituall speach 113. 118 Eatyng of Christes flesh what it is 163.217 Euill men eate not Christes body 68. 215. 216 F. FAyth Catholique what as Winchester sayth .4 how grounded by the
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
Chrisostome would by his wordes put vs in remembrance not denying therby the visible ministry no more then he doth in his other wordes deny the visible forme of bread and yet would not that we should looke only vpon that but whether fayth directeth vs that is to say vpon the very body of Christ there inuisibly present which fayth knoweth and knoweth it to be there the very body and there therfore to be no bread which bread this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth But touching the priest S. Chrisostomes wordes do by no meane teach vs that there is no visible priest but to thinke that the body of Christ is deliuered of Christes handes which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible as fayth doth the substance inuisible of bread in the Sacrament The one saying in Chrisostome is a godly exhortation according to the truth the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth we be not taught that the priest is Christ but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christes body And then the question in the wordes of Chrisostome Seest thou bread is as much to say as remembrest the fayth as being one of the faythfull that know which terme S. Augustine vsed And then Chrisostome to confirme our fayth in so high a mistery declareth how we should thinke Christ to deliuer his body him selfe as a thing farre exceding mans power to do it And with other heauenly wordes setteth forth the greatnes of that mistery which be wordes of godly and good meditation conuenient for so high a matter to adorne it accordingly which bicause they be holsome and meete allegories wherwith to draw and lift vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes we may not therby esteeme the substance of that mistery to be but in allegory Here in steed of a solution the author filleth three whole leaues with profe of that is not necessary how a deniall by cōparison is not vtterly a deniall which is in deed true And as one was answered at Cambridge when he pressed the responsall What say ye to myne argument which was not in deede of his making The responsall left his Latin and told the opponent before all his country friendes in playne English It is a good argument syr quoth he but nothing to the purpose And so is the intreating of this matter of deniall by comparison good but nothing to the purpose here and it is an obseruation that requireth good iudgement or els may therby be induced many absurdities Chrisostom as I sayd before speaking to the Christen man seemeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no. For if he seeth bread he seeth not with fayth which seeth the body of Christ there present and so no bread If the christen man thinke of passage through him of the celestiall foode he hath therin no spirituall thought such as fayth engendreth and therfore sayth Chrisostome absit here in these wordes of Chrisostom is no deniall with comparison and therfore this author myght haue spared his treatise in these thrée leaues For in those wordes when Chrisostome sayth Thinke not thou receauest the body of Christ by a man There this author neglecteth his owne rule as in his third booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those S. Chrisostoms wordes we receaue not the body of Christ at all seing Chrisostome sayth we may not thinke we receaue it by man So little substantially is this matter handled as a man might say here were many accidentall wordes without a substance or miracle how strange soeuer the same seeme to this author otherwise Caunterbury I Complayned not of your crafty handling of Chrisostome without a iust cause for when you had alleadged the wordes that seemed to make for your purpose you left out the wordes that make clearly agaynst you or which wordes at the least would open all the whole matter And yet the wordes which you leaue out follow immediately the wordes by you alleadged And where to discusse this whole matter you say in the beginning that Chrisostome doth not deny the visible minister no more then he doth the visible forme of bread here at the first chop you vse an other pollicie not much commendable altering pretely the wordes of Chrisostom making of bread the forme of bread For Chrisostome speaketh of bread and wine and not of the formes and accidents of them And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister and so is the priest nothing els but the puppy of a priest And then the communicants receaue no bread of the priest but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest For Chrisostome speaketh in like forme of wordes of the bread as he doth of the priest with these wordes thinke not Thinke not that thou seest bread thinke not that thou receauest of a priest And therfore if this forme of speach exclude the substance of bread it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest And if the priest remayne still not withstanding that speach then may the bread remayne also with the same speach And if your argument be good there is Christes body ergo there is no bread then may I conclude in the same forme of reasoning there is bread ergo there is not Christes body And so this author maketh nothing for you but ouerthroweth your foundation cleane both of transubstantiation and of the reall presence But to make the mind of Chrysostome somewhat more playne he teacheth them that come to that holy mistery with what things their minds should be chiefly occupyed not about earthly and visible thinges but about thinges celestiall and inuisible and not to consider so much what we see with our eies as what we beleue in our hartes not so much what wee receiue bodily as what we receiue spiritually And he teacheth not onelye what we should thinke we receiue but also of whome we should thinke to receiue it saying When you come to the misteries do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God but that you receiue fyre by the Aungell Seraphin The thing that we receiue sayth he is not the body of God and the person of whome we receiue is not a man like as before immediately he sayd that the thing which we see is not bread Now if it be not bread in deed that is seen then it is not the body of Christ indeed that is receiued nor he is not a priest indeed of whom we receiue it And on the other syde if it be the very body of Christ that is receiued and a very man of whom it is receiued then it is very bread in deed that is seene And where becommeth then your Transubstantiation But to declare brieflye and playnelye the very trueth according to the minde of Chrisostome as we see with our eyes and eat with our mouthes very bread and see also and