he had with his Apostles the night before his death at which time as Mathew sayth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cup and when hee had geuen thankes he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke hence forth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day whē I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome This thing is rehearsed also of S. Marke in these wordes As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and sayd Take eate this is my body and taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he sayd to them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many verely I say vnto you I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine vntill that daye that I drinke it new in the kingdome of God The Euangelist S. Luke vttereth this matter on this wise When the houre was come he sate down and the twelue Apostles with hym And he said vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer For I say vnto you hēceforth I will not eat of it any more vntil it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he toke the cuppe and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you For I say vnto you I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill the kingdome of God come And he toke bread and when hee had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body which is geeuen for you This doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he toke the cup saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud which is shedde for you Hitherto you haue herd all that the euangelistes declare that Christ spake or did at his last supper concerning thinstitutiō of the communion and sacramēt of his body and bloud Now you shall here what S. Paul sayth concerning the same in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians where he writeth thus Is not the cuppe of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we breake a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread one body For we al are partakers of one bread and one cuppe And in the eleuenth he speaketh on this manner That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed toke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cuppe when Supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drinke it in remembrance of me for as oft as you shal eate this bread and drinke this cup you shew forth the Lords death til he come Wherfore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cuppe vnworthely shal be gilty of the body bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine him selfe and so eat of the bread and drinke of the cuppe For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you many doe sleepe By these wordes of Christ rehearsed of the Euangelistes and by the doctrine also of Saint Paule which he confesseth that he receaued of Christ two thinges specially are to be noted First that our Sauiour Christ called the materiall bread which he brake his body the wine which was the fruit of the vine his bloud And yet he spake not this to the intent that men should thinke that the material bread is his very body or that his very body is materiall bread Neither that wine made of grapes is his very bloud or that his very bloud is wine made of grapes But to signifie vnto vs as S. Paul sayth that the cuppe is a communion of Christes bloud that was shed for vs and the bread is a communion of his flesh that was crucified for vs. So that although in the truth of his humain nature Christ be in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father yet whosoeuer eateth of the bread in the Supper of the Lord according to Christes institution and ordinaunce is assured of Christes own promise and testament that he is a member of his body and receaueth the benefites of his passion which he suffered for vs vpon the crosse And likewise he that drinketh of that holy cuppe in the Supper of the Lord according to Christes institution is certified by Christes legacy and testament that he is made partaker of the bloud of Christ which was shed for vs. And this ment S. Paule when he sayth is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the can bread which we breake a cōmunion of the body of Christ so that no man contēne or lightly esteeme this holy cōmuniō except he contēne also Christs body and bloud and passe not whether he haue any felowship with him or no. And of those men S. Paule saith that they eate and drink their own damnation because they esteme not the body of Christ. The second thing which may be learned of the forsaid wordes of Christe and S. Paule is this that although none eateth the body of Christ and drinketh hys bloud but they haue eternall life as apereth by the wordes before recited of S. Iohn yet both the good and the bad doe eate and drynke the bread and wine which be the Sacramentes of the same But beside the Sacramentes the good eate euerlasting life the euill euerlasting death Therfore S. Paule sayth Who soeuer shall eate of the bread or drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthely he shal be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Here S. paul saith not that he that eateth the bread or drinketh the cup of the Lord vn worthely eateth drinketh the body bloud of the Lord but is gilty of the body bloud of the Lord. But what he eateth drynketh S. Paul declareth saying he that eateth drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh his own dānatiō thus is declared the sum of al that scripture speketh of the eating drinking both of the body bloud of Christ also of the sacramēt of the same And as these thinges be most certaynly true
because they be spoken by Christ hym selfe the auctor of all truth and by hys holy Apostle S. Paule as he receaued them of Christ so all doctrines contrary to the same be moste certaynly false and vntrue and of al Christen men to be eschued because they be contrary to Gods word And all doctrine concerning this matter that is more then this which is not grounded vpon Gods word is of no necessity neither ought the peoples heads to be busied or their consciences troubled with the same So that thinges spoken and done by Christ and written by the holy Euangelists and S Paule ought to suffice the fayth of Christian people as touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper and holy communion or sacrament of his body and bloud Which thing being well considered and wayed shall be a iust occasion to pacifie and agree both parties as well them that hetherto haue contemned or lightly esteemed it as also them which haue hetherto for lacke of knowledge or otherwise vngodly abused it Christ ordeyned the Sacrament to moue and stirre all men to frendshippe loue and concord and to put away all hatred variance and discord and to testifie a brotherly and vnfained loue between all them that be the members of Christ But the deuil the enemy of Christ and of all his members hath so craftely iugled herein that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy Sacrament God graunt that al contention set aside both the parties may come to this holy communiō with such a liuely faith in Christ and such an vnfained loue to all Christes members that as they carnallye eate with their mouthes this Sacramentall bread and drink the wine so spiritually they may eate and drink the very flesh and bloud of Christ which is in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of his father And that finally by his meanes they may enioy with him the glory and kingdome of heauen Amen Winchester Now let vs consider the tertes of the Euangelistes and S. Paul which be brought in by the Author as followeth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cuppe and when he had geuen thanks he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and said Take eate this is my body And taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruite of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingedome of God When the houre was come he sate downe and the twelue Apostles with him and he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer for I say vnto you henceforth I wil not eate of it any more vntill it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you for I say vnto you I wil not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntil the kingdome of God come And he tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body whith is geuen for you this doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he tooke the cup saying This cuppe is the new testament in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup. That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cup when supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherefore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cup vnworthely shall be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine himselfe and so eate of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you and many doe sléepe After these tertes brought in the author doth in the 4. chap. begin to trauers Christes intent that he intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receaue that worthely be members of Christes body The catholick church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man hath from the beginning of these textes of scripture confessed truely Christes intent and effectuall miraculous worke to make the bread his body and the wine his bloud to be verely meate and verely drinke vsing therin his humanitie wherewith to féede vs as he vsed the same wherewith to redéeme vs and as he doth sanctifie vs by his holy spirite so to sanctifie vs by his holy diuine flesh and bloud and as life is renued in vs by the gift of Christes holy spirite so life to be increased in vs by the gift of his holy flesh So as he that beléeueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beliefe which is Baptisme receaueth really Christes spirite And likewise he that hauing Christes spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud Doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes very body and bloud And therfore Christ in the institution of this Sacrament sayd deliuering that he consecrated This is my body c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud c. And although to mannes reason it séemeth straunge that Christ standing or sitting at the table should deliuer them his body to be eaten Yet when we remember Christ to be very God we must graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in our thoughtes all imaginations how it might be and consider Christes
foūd this matter so fully prooued that he neither is nor neuer shal be able to answere thereto For I haue alleadged the scripture I haue alleadged the consent of the old writers holy fathers and martirs to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud For the Euangelistes speaking of the Lords supper say that he took bread blessed it brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body and of the wine he sayd Take this deuide it among you drinke it this is my bloud I haue alleadged Irene saying that Christ confessed bread to be his body and the cup to be his bloud I haue cyted Tertulliā who sayth in many places that Christ called bread his body I haue brought in for the same purpose Cyprian who sayth that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he named his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes I haue written the wordes of Epiphanius which be these that Christ speakinge of a loafe which is round in fashion and can neither see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierom writing ad Hedibiam sayth that Christ called the bread which he brake his body And S. Augustine sayth that Iesus called meate his body and drinke his bloud And Cyrill sayth more plainly that Christ called the peeces of bread his body And last of all I brought forth Theodorete whose saying is this that when Christe gaue the holy mysteries he called bread his body and the cuppe mixt with wine and water he called his bloud All these Authors I alleadged to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud Which because they speak the thinge so plainly as nothing can be more and Smith seeth that he can deuise nothinge to answere these Authors like a wily fox he stealeth away by them softly as he had a flea in his eare saying nothing to all these authors but that they proue not my purpose If this be a sufficient answere let the Reader be iudge for in such sort I could make a short answere to Smithes whol booke in this one sentence that nothing that he sayth proueth his purpose And as for proofes of his saying Smith hath vtterly none but onely this fond reason That if Christ had called bread his body then should bread haue been crucified for vs because Christ added these words this is my body which shal be geuē to death for you If such wise reason shall take place a man may not take a loafe in his hand made of wheate that came out of Danske and say this is wheate that grew in Danske but it must follow that the loafe grew in Danske And if the wife shall say this is butter of my own cow Smith shall proue by this speach that her mayd milked butter But to this fantasticall or rather frantike reason I haue spoaken more in mine aunswere to Smithes preface How be it you haue taken a wiser way then this graunting that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud but adding thereto that Christs calling was making Yet here may they that be wise learn by the way how euil fauoredly you and Smith agree among your selues And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answere vnto the Authors by me alleadged in this parte I may iustly require that for lacke of answere in time and place where he ought to haue answered he may be condemned as one that standeth mute And being condemned in this his chiefe demur he hath after nothing to answere at al. For this foundation being ouerthrown all the rest falleth down withall Wherefore now will I returne to aunswere you in this matter which is the last of the euident and manyfest vntruthes wherof you appeach me I perceaue here how vntoward you be to learn the truth being brought vp all your life in Papisticall errors If you could forget your law which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth and specially the Canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of Gods word you should be much more apte to vnderstand and receaue the secretes of holy scripture But before those scales fall from your sawlish eyes you neither can nor will perceaue the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christes body bloud But yet I shall doe as much as lyeth in me to teach and instruct you as occasion shall serue so that the fault shall be either in your euill bringing vp altogether in popery or in your dulnes or frowardnes if you attaine not true vnderstanding of this matter Where you speake of the miraculous workinge of Christ to make bread his body you must first learne that the bread is not made really Christes body nor the wine his bloud but sacramētally And the miraculous working is not in the bread but in them that duely eate the bread and drink that drink For the marueylous worke of God is in the feeding and it is Christen people that be fed and not the bread And so the true confession and beleefe of the vniuersall Church from the beginning is not such as you many times affirme but neuer can proue for the Catholicke church acknowledgeth no such diuision betweene Christes holy flesh and his spirite that life is renued in vs by his holy spirite and increased by his holy flesh but the true fayth confesseth that both be done by his holy spirite and flesh iointly together as well the renouation as the increace of our life Wherfore you diminish here the effect of baptisme wherin is not geuen only Christes spirite but wholl Christ. And herein I will ioyne an issue with you And you shall finde that although you thinke I lacke law where with to follow my plea yet I doubt not but I shall haue helpe of Gods word inough to make al men perceiue that you be but a simple diuine so that for lacke of your proofes I doubt not but the sentence shall be geuen vpon my side by all learned and indifferent iudges that vnderstand the matter which is in controuersy betweene vs. And where you say that we must represse our thoughtes and imaginations and by reason of Christes omnipotency iudge his intent by his wil it is a most certayne truth that Gods absolute and determinate wil is the chiefe gouernour of all thinges and the rule wherby all things must be ordered and therto obey But where I pray you haue you any such will of Christ that he is really carnally corporally naturally vnder the formes of bread and wine There is no such will of Christ set forth in the scripture as you pretend by a false vnderstanding of these wordes this is my body Why take you then so boldly vpon you to say that this is Christs will and intent when you haue no warrant in scripture to beare you It is not a sufficient
other visible sacrament of spirituall nourishment in bread and wine to the intent that as much as is possible for man we may see Christ with our eyes smell hym at our nose taste hym with our mouthes grope hym with our handes and perceiue hym with all our senses For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into our eares so likewise these elementes of water bread and wyne ioyned to Gods word do after a sacramentall maner put Christ into our eyes mouthes handes and all our senses And for this cause Christ ordeyned baptisme in water that as surely as we se feele and touch water with our bodyes and be washed with water so assuredly ought we to beleue when we be baptised that Christ is veryly present with vs and that by him we be newly borne agayne spiritually and wafhed from our sinnes and grafted in the stocke of Christes owne body and be apparailed clothed and harnessed with hym in such wise that as the deuill hath no power agaynst Chryst so hath he none agaynst vs so long as we remayne grafted in that stocke and be clothed with that apparell and harnessed with that armour So that the washing in water of baptisme is as it were shewing of Christ before our eyes and a sensible touching feelyng and gropyng of hym to the confirmation of the inwarde fayth which we haue in hym And in like maner Christ ordeined the sacrament of hys bodye and bloud in bread and wine to preach vnto vs that as our bodyes be fed nourished and preserued with meate and drynke so as touching our spirituall life towardes God we be fed nourished and preserued by the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ and also that he is such a preseruation vnto vs that neither the deuils of hell nor eternall death nor sinne can be able to preuayle agaynst vs so long as by true and constant faith we be fed and nourished with that meate and drynk And for this cause Christ ordeined this sacrament in bread and wine whiche we eate and drynke and be chiefe nutrimentes of our body to thintent that as surely as we see the bread and wine with our eyes smell them with our noses touch them with our handes and taste them with our mouthes so assuredlye ought we to beleue that Christ is a spirituall lyfe and sustinaunce of our soules like as the sayd bread and wine is the foode and sustinance of our bodyes And no lesse ought we to doubt that our soules be fed and liue by Christ then that our bodies be fed and liue by meate and drinke Thus our sauiour Christ knowing vs to be in this world as it were but babes and weakelinges in fayth hath ordeyned sensible signes and tokens whereby to allure and drawe vs to more strength and more constant fayth in hym So that the eatyng and drynkyng of thys sacramentall bread and wine is as it were shewing of Christe before our eies a smellyng of hym with our noses felyng and gropyng of hym with our handes and an eatyng chawing digestyng and feedyng vpon hym to our spirituall strength and perfection Fiftely it is to be noted that although there be many kindes of meates and drinkes which feede the body yet our Sauiour Christ as many auncyent authors write ordayned this sacrament of our spiritual feding in bread and wine rather then in other meates and drynkes because that bread and wine doe most liuely represent vnto vs the spirituall vnion and knot of all faythful people as well vnto Christ as also amonges them selues For like as bread is made of a great number of grains of corne ground baken and so ioyned together that therof is made one lose And an infinite number of grapes be pressed togither in one vessell and thereof is made wine likewise the whole multitude of true christen people spiritually ioyned first to Christ and then among them selues togither in one fayth one baptisme one holy spirite one knot and bond of loue Sixtly it is to be noted that as the bread and wine whiche we doe eate be turned into our fleshe and bloud and be made our very fleshe and very bloud and so be ioyned and myxed with our fleshe and bloud that they be made one whole body togither euen so be all faythfull christians spiritually turned into the body of Christ and so be ioyned vnto Christe and also togither amonge them selues that they doe make but one misticall body of Christe as S. Paule sayth We be one bread and one body as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. And as one lofe is giuen among many men so that euery one is partaker of the same lofe and likewise one cup of wine is distributed vnto many persons wherof euery one is partaker euen so our Sauiour Christ whose flesh and bloud be represented by the misticall bread and wine in the Lords Supper doth geue him selfe vnto al his true members spiritually to feede them nourish them and to geue them continuall life by him And as the branches of a tree or member of a body if they be dead or cut of they neither liue nor receaue any nourishment or sustinance of the body or tree so likewise vngodly and wicked people which be cut of from Christes misticall body or be dead members of the same doe not spiritually feede vpon Christes body and bloud nor haue any life strength or sustentation thereby Seuenthly it is to be noted that where as nothing in this life is more acceptable before God or more pleasant vnto man thē christen people to liue together quietly in loue and peace vnity and concord this Sacrament doth most aptly and effectuously moue vs thereunto For when we be made all partakers of this one table what ought we to thinke but that we be all members of one spirituall body wherof Christ is the head that we be ioyned together in one Christ as a great number of graynes of corne be ioyned together in one loafe Surely they haue very hard and stony hartes which with these thinges be not moued and more cruell and vnreasonable be they then bruit beastes that cannot be perswaded to be good to their christen brethren and neighboures for whom Christ suffered death when in this Sacrament they be put in remēbrāce that the Sonne of God bestowed his life for his enemies For we see by daily experience that eating and drinking together maketh frendes and continueth frendshippe much more then ought the table of Christ to moue vs so to doe Wilde beastes and birdes be made gentile by geuing them meate and drinke why then should not christen men waxe meeke and gentle with this heauenly meate of Christ Hereunto we be stirred and moued as well by the bread and wine in this holy Supper as by the wordes of holy Scripture recited in the same Wherefore whose hart soeuer this holy Sacrament Communion and Supper of Christ wil not kindle with loue vnto his
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
so no certayntie of any true body to be in Christ This reason had been more fitte to be made by a man that had lost both his witte and reason For in this place Tertullian must needes be so vnderstand that by the body of Christ is vnderstand the figure of his body because Tertullian so expoundeth it him selfe And must it be always so bicause it is here so Must euer Christes body be taken for a figure bicause it is here taken for a figure as Tertullian sayth Haue you so forgotten your Logike that you will make a good argument à particulari ad vniuersale By your owne manner of argumentation bicause you make a naughty argumēt here in this place shall I conclude that you neuer make none good Surely this place of Tertullian as you haue handled it is neither secret nor manifest poynt eyther of learning witte or reason but a meere sophistication if it be no worse What other papistes haue aunswered to this place of Tertullian I am not ignoraunt nor I am sure you be not so ignoraunt but you know that neuer none aunswered as you do But your answer varieth as much from all other papists as yours theyrs also do varie from the truth Here the reader may note by the way how many fowle shiftes you make to auoyd the saying of Tertullian First you say that bread was a figure in the prophets mouth but not in Christes wordes Second that the thing which the prophet spake of was not that which Christ spake of Third that other haue aunswered this place of Tertullian before Forth that you call this matter but a wrangling argument Fift that if Tertulian call bread a figure yet he termeth it not onely figure These be your shiftes Now let the reader looke vpon Tertullians playn wordes whyche I haue rehearsed in my booke and then let him iudge whether you meane to declare Tertullians mynd truely or no. And it is not requiset for my purpose to proue that bread is onely a figure for I take vpon me there to proue no more but that the bread is a figure representing Christes body and the wine his bloud And if breade be a figure and not onely a figure than must you make bread both the figure and the truth of the figure Now heare what other authors I do here alleadge And saynt Ciprian the holy marter sayth of this matter that Christs bloud is shewed in the wine and the people in the water that is mixt with the wine so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spirituall commixtion and ioyning of vs vnto Christ. By which similitude Ciprian ment not that the bloud of Christ is wine or the people water but as the water doeth signifie and represent the people so doeth the wine signify and represent Christs bloud and the vniting of the water and wine together signifieth the vniting of Christian people vnto Christ himselfe And the same saynt Ciprian in an other place writing here of sayth that Christ in his last supper gaue to his apostles with his owne handes bread and wine which he called his flesh and bloud but in the crosse he gaue his very body to be wounded with the handes of the souldiours that the apostles might declare to the world how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and bloud of Christ. And the manner he straight wayes declareth thus that those things which do signifye and those thinges which be signified by them may be both called by one name Here it is certain by saynt Ciprians mind wherfore and in what wise bread is called Christes flesh and wine his bloud that is to say because that euery thing that representeth and signifieth an other thing may be called by the name of thing which it signifieth And therfore Saynt Iohn Chrisostom sayth that Christ ordayned the table of his holy supper for this purpose that in that sacramēt he should dayly shew vnto vs bread and wine for a similitude of his body and bloud Saynt Hierom likewise sayth vpon the gospell of Mathew that Christ took bread which comforteth mans hart that he mght represent thereby his very body and bloud Also Saynt Ambrose if the booke be his that is intituled De his qui misterijs initianter sayth that before the consecration an other kind is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified Christ sayd his bloud beefore the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration is signified the bloud of Christ. And in his booke De sacramentis if that be also his he writeth thus Thou doost receiue the sacrament for a similitud of the flesh and bloud of Christ but thou doost obtayne the grace and vertue of his true nature And receiuing the bread in that foode thou art partaker of his godly substaunce And in the same booke he sayth As thou hast in baptisme reciued the similitude of death so likewise dost thou in the sacramēt drink the similitude of Christes precious bloud And agayne he sayeth in the sayd booke The priest sayth Make vnto vs this oblation to be acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ. And vpon the epistle of Saynt Paule to the Corinthians he sayth that in eating and drinking the bread and wine we doe signifie the flesh and bloud which were offered for vs. And the olde tastament he sayeth was instituted in bloud because that bloud was a witnes of gods benefite in signification and figure wherof we take the mistical cup of his bloud to the tuitiō of our body soule Of these places of saynt Chrisostom saynt Hierom and saynt Ambrose it is cleare that in the sacramentall bread and wine is not rially and corporally the very naturall substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ but that the bread and wine be similitudes misteries and representations significations sacramentes figures and signes of his body and bloud and therfore be called and haue the name of his very body flesh and bloud Winchester Ciprian shal be touched after when we speake of him agayn Chrisostom shall open himselfe hereafter playnly Saynt Hierom speaketh here very pithely vsing the word represent which signifieth a true reall exhibision for saynt Hierom speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an onely figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure the inuisible part is a truth which saynt Hierom sayth is here represented that is to say made present which onely signification doth not Saynt Ambrose shall after declare himselfe and it is not denied but the authors in speaking of the sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude token but those speaches exclude not the veritie and truth of the body and bloud of Christ for no approued author hath this exclution to say an onely signe an only token an
learne vs And yet these sayd wordes limit not the mistery of the supper for as much as that mistery of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud extendeth further then the supper and continueth so long as we be liuely membres of Christes body For none feede nor be nourished by him but that be liuely members of his body and so long and no longer feede they of him then they be his true membres and receaue life from him For feeding of him is to receaue life But this is not that inuisible sacrament which you say S. Augustin speaketh of in sermone Domini in monte the iij booke For he calleth there the dayly bread which we continually pray for eyther corporall bread and meate which is our dayly sustenaunce for the body or els the visible sacrament of bread and wine or the inuisible sacrament of gods word and cōmaundementes of the which sacramentes gods word is dayly heard and the other is dayly seene And if by the inuisible sacrament of goddes word S. Augustine ment our norishment by Christes flesh and bloud than be we nourished with them as well by gods word as by the sacrament of the lordes supper But yet who so euer tolde you that S. Augustine wrote this in the iij. booke de sermone Domini in monte trust him not much hereafter for he dyd vtterly deceaue you For S. Augustine wrote no more but .ij. bookes de sermone Domine in monte and if you can make iij. of ij as you do here and one of iiij as you dyd before in the substances of Christ you be a meruailouse auditour and then had all men neede to beware of your accomptes least you deceaue them And you cannot lay the fault here in the Printer for I haue seen it written so both by your own hand and by the hand of your secretary Now when you haue wrangled in this matter as much as you can at length you confesse the truth that who so feedeth vpon Christ spiritually must needes be a good man for only good men be membres of Christes misticall body which spirituall eating is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessarelye to be good And therfore it must be and is a certaine conclusion that onely good menne doe eate and drinke the bodye and bloude of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to lyfe This you write in conclusion and this is the very doctrine that I teache and in the same tearmes marry I adde therto that the eating of Christes body is a spirituall eating and the drinking of his bloud is a spirituall drinkyng and therfore no euill man can eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud as this my forth booke teacheth and is necessary to be writen For although neither good nor euell men eate Christes body in the sacrament vnder the visible signes in the which he is not but sacramentally yet the good feede of him spiritually being inhabiting spiritually within them although corporally he be absent and in heauen but the euell men neither feede vpon him corporally nor spiritually from whom he is both the sayd wayes absent although corporally they eate and drinke with theyr mouthes the sacramentes of his body and bloud Now where you note here three manner of eatinges and yet but two manner of eatinges of Christ this your noting is very true if it be truly vnderstand For there be in dede three maner of eatinges one spirituall onely an other spiritual and sacramentall both together the third sacramentall only and yet Christ him selfe is eaten but in the first two manner of waies as you truely teache And for to set out this distinctiō somewhat more playnly that playne menne may vnderstand it it may thus be tearmed That there is a spirituall eating only when Christ by a true fayth is eaten without the sacrament Also there is an other eating both spirituall and sacramental when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth and Christ him selfe is eaten with a true fayth The third eating is sacramentall only when the sacrament is eaten and not Christ himselfe So that in the fyrst is Christ eaten without the sacrament in the seconde he is eaten with the sacrament and in the thirde the sacrament is eaten without him and therfore it is called sacramentall eating onely bycause onely the sacramente is eaten and not Christ himselfe After the two first maner of wayes godly men do eate who feede and liue by Christ the thirde manner of wayes the wicked do eate and therfore as S. Augustine sayth they neither eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud although euery day they eat the sacrament therof to the condemnation of theyr presumption And for this cause also S. Paule sayth not He that eateth Christes body and drinketh his bloud vnworthely shall haue condemnation and be gilty of the Lordes body but he sayth he that eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely shal be giltie of the Lordes body and eateth and drinketh his owne damnation bycause he estemeth not the Lordes body And here you committe two fowle faultes One is that you declare S. Paule to speake of the body and bloud of Christ when he spake of the bread and wine The other fault is that you adde to S. Paules wordes this word there and so buylde your worke vpon a foundation made by your owne selfe And where you say that if my doctrine be true neyther good men nor euill eate but the sacramentall bread it can be none other but very frowardnes and mere wilfulnes that you will not vnderstand that thinge which I haue spoken so playnly repeted so many tymes For I say that good men eat the Lordes body spiritually to theyr eternall nourishment where as euyl men eat but the bread carnally to their eternall punishment And as you note of S. Augustine that baptisme is very well called health and the sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in which God gyueth health and lyfe if we worthely vse them so is the sacramentall bread very well called Christes body and the wine his bloud as in the ministration wherof Christ geueth vs his flesh and bloude if we worthely receaue them And where you teach how the workes of God in them selues be alway true and vniforme in all men without diuersitie in good and euill in worthy and vnworthy you bring in this misticall matter here clearly without purpose or reason farre passyng the capacitie of simple readers onely to blinde their eyes withall By which kynde of teaching it is all one worke of God to saue and to damne to kill and to gyue lyfe to hate and to loue to elect and to reiect and to be short by this kinde of doctrine God and all his workes be one without diuersite eyther of one worke from an other or of his workes from his substaunce And by this meanes it is all one worke of God in baptisme and in the Lordes supper
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
our Lordes body to proue the presence of Christes body there who compareth such an offender to the Iewes that did shed Christes bloud maliciously as those do prophane it vnprofitably in which sense the Grke commentaries do also expound it And where this author bringeth in the wordes of S. Paule as it were to poynt out the matter Let a man examine him selfe and so eate of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth vnworthely c. these wordes of examining and so eatyng declare the thing to be ordered to be eaten and all the care to be vsed on our side to eate worthely or els S. Paule had not sayd and so eat And when S. Paule sayth Eate iudgement and this Author well remember him selfe he must call Iudgement the effect of that is eaten and not the thing eaten for iudgment is neyther spirituall meat nor corporall but the effect of the eating of Christ in euyll men who is saluation to good and iudgement to euell And therfore as good men eating Christ haue saluation so euill men eating Christ haue condemnation and so for the diuersite of the eaters of Christes body followeth as they be worthy and vnworthy the effect of condemnation or lyfe Christes sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that sacrament bring alwayes one And what so euer this author talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles Caunterbury AS touching myne aunswere here to the wordes of S. Paule you would fayne haue them hid with darkenesse of speach that no man should see what I meane For as Christ sayd Qui male agit odit lucem and therfore that which I haue spoken in playne speach you darken so with your obscure termes that my meaning can not be vnderstand For I speake in such playne termes as all men vnderstand that when S. Paule sayd he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh his owne damnation in that place he spake of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not of the corporall eating and drincking of Christes flesh and bloud These my playne wordes you do wrape vp in these darke termes that I would distinct the vnworthy eating in the substaunce of the Sacrament receaued Which your wordes vary so farre from myne that no man can vnderstand by them my meaning except you put a large comment therto For I distinct the vnworthy eating none otherwise then that I say that when S. Paule speaketh of vnworthy eating he maketh mencion of the vnworthy eating of the bread and not of the body of Christ. And where you aske me this question why it should be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when it is not there at all There is in my booke a full and playne answere vnto your question alredy made as there is also to your whole booke So that in making of my booke I did foresee all things that you could obiect agaynst it In so much that here is not one thing in all your book but I can shew you a sufficient answer therto in one place or other of my former booke And in this your question here moued I referre the reader to the wordes of my booke in the same place And where you say that if the bread be but a figure it is lyke Manna as concerning the materiall bread truely it is like Manna but as concerning Christ him selfe he sayd of him selfe Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer And as concerning Erasmus and the greke commentaries neyther of them sayth vppon the place of S. Paule as you alleage them to say And what soeuer it pleaseth you to gather of these wordes examining and so eating yet S. Paules wordes be very playne that he spake not of the eating of the very body of Christ but of the eating of the materiall bread in the sacrament which is all one whether the good or euyll eate of it And all the care is on our syde to take heede that we eate not that bread vnworthely For as the eating of the bread vnworthely not of Christ him selfe who can not be eaten vnworthely hath the effect of iudgemēt and damnacion so eating of the same bread worthely hath the effect of Christes death and saluation And as he that eateth the bread worthely may be well sayd to eate Christ and life So he that eateth it vnworthely may be sayd to eate the diuell and death as Iudas did into whom with the bread entred Satan For vnto such it may be called mensa daemoni orum non mensa Domini not Gods bourd but the diuels And so in the eaters of the bread worthely or vnworthely followeth the effect of euerlasting lyfe or euerlasting death But in the eating of Christ himselfe is no diuersite but whosoeuer eateth him hath euerlasting lyfe For asmuch as the eating of him can be to none dampnation but saluation because he is lyfe it selfe And what so euer you bable to the contrary is but meare fables deuised without goddes word or any sufficient ground Now foloweth myne aunswer vnto such authors as the Papistes wrast to theyr purpose But here may not be passed ouer the answer vnto certayne places of auncient authors which at the first shew seeme to make for the Papistes purpose that euill men do eate and drincke the very flesh and bloud of Christ. But if those places be truely and throughely wayed it shall appeare that not one of them maketh for theyr errour that euill men do eat Christes very body The first place is of S. Augustine Contra Cresconium Grammaticum where he sayth that although Christ him selfe say He that eateth not my flesh and drinketh not my bloud shall not haue life in him yet doth not his Apostels teach that the same is pernicious to them which vse it not well for he sayth Whosoeuer eateth the bread and drincketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. In which wordes S. Augustine semeth to conclude that aswel the euill as the good doe eate the body and bloud of Christ although the euill haue no benefite but hurt therby But consider the place of S. Augustine diligently and then it shall euidently appeare that he ment not of the eating of Christes body but of the Sacrament therof For the intēt of S. Augustine there is to proue that good thinges auayle not to such persons as do euill vse them and that many thinges which of them selues be good and be good to some yet to other some they be not good As that light is good for whole eyes and hurteth sore eyes that meate which is good for some is euill for other some One medecine healeth some and maketh other sicke One harnes doth arme one and combreth another one coate is meete for one and to straight for an other And after other examples
at the last S. Augustine sheweth the same to be true in the Sacramētes both of Baptisme and the Lordes body which he sayth do profite onely them that receaue the same worthely And the wordes of S. Paule which S. Augustine citeth do speake of the Sacramentall bread and cup and not of the body and bloud And yet S. Augustine called the bread and the cup the flesh and bloud not that they be so in deed but that they signifie as he sayth in an other place cōtra Maximinum In Sacramentes sayth he is to be considered not what they be but what they shew For they be signes of other thinges being one thing and signifiing another Therfore as in baptisme those that come faynedly and those that come vnfaynedly both be washed with the sacramētal water but both be not washed with the holy ghost and clothed with Christ so in the Lordes supper both eate and drincke the sacramentall bread and wine but both eate not Christ him selfe and be fed with his flesh and bloud but those onely which worthely receaue the Sacrament And this aunswere wil serue to another place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes where he sayth that Iudas receyued the body and bloud of the Lord. For as S. Augustine in that place speaketh of the Sacrament of Baptisme so doth he speake of the Sacramēt of the body and bloud which neuerthelesse he calleth the body and bloud bycause they signifie and represent vnto vs the very body flesh and bloud Winchester And yet he goeth about bycause he will make all thing clere to answer such authors as the papistes he sayth bring for theyr purpose And first he beginneth with S. Augustine who writeth as playnly agaynst this authors mynd as I would haue deuised it If I had no conscience of truth more then I see some haue and myght with a secret wish haue altered S. Augustine as I had lift And therfore here I make a playne Issue with this author that in the searching of S. Augustine he hath trusted his man or his frende ouer negligently in so great a matter or he hath willingly gone about to deceaue the reader For in the place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes alleadged here by this author which he would with the rest assoyle S. Augustine hath these format wordes in Latin Corpus dominum sanguis domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus Qui manducat indigne indicium sibi manducat bibit Which wordes be thusmuch in English It was neuerthelesse the body of our Lord and the bloud of our Lord also vnto them to whome the Apostles sayd He that eateth vnworthely eateth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe These be S. Augustines wordes who writeth notably and euidently that is was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receaued vnworthely declaring that theyr vnworthines doth not alter the substance of that sacrament and doth vs to vnderstand therwith the substaunce of the Sacrament to be the body and bloud of Christ and neuerthelesse so though the receauers be vnworthy wherin this author is so ouerseene as I thinke there was neuer learned man before the durst in a commōwealth where learned men be publish such an vntruth as this is to be answered in a tongue that all men knew Yet Peter Martyr wrot in Latin and reioyseth not I think to haue his lyes in English I will bring in here an other place of S. Augustin to this purpose Illud etiam quod ait Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo quo modo intellecturisumus Nunquid etiamillos sic poterimus accipere de quibus dixit Apostolus quod indicium sibi manducent bibant quum ipsant carnem manducent ipsum sanguinem bibant Nūquid Iudas Magistri venditor traditor impius quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis sanguinis eius cum ceteres discipulis sicut apertius Lucas Euangelista declarat manducaret biberat mansit in Christo aut Christus in eo Multi denique qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant sanguinem bibunt vel quum manducauerint biberint apostate fiunt nunquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eis Sed profecto est quidem modus manducandi illam carnem bibendi illum sanguinem quomodo qui manducauerit biberit in Christo manet Christus in eo Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo quem modum vtique ipse videbat quando ista dicebat The English of these wordes is this That same that he also sayth Who eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him how shall we vnderstand it May we vnderstand also them of whom the Apostle speake that they did eat to themselues and drincke iudgement when they did eate the same flesh and drincke the same bloud the flesh it selfe the bloud it selfe Dyd not Iudas the wicked seller and betrayer of his master when he dyd eate and drincke as Lucas the Euangilest declareth the firste Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes dwell in Christ and Christ in him Fynally many that with a fayned hart eate that flesh and drincke the bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken become aposratates do not they dwell in Christ or Christ in them But vndoubtedly there is a certayne manner of eating that flesh drincking that bloud after which manner whosoeuer eateth and drincketh dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him Therfore not in whatsoeuer maner any man eateth the flesh of Christ and drincketh the bloud of Christ he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him but after a certayn maner which maner he saw when he sayd these wordes This is the sense of S. Augustines saying in Latine wherby appeareth the fayth of S. Augustin to be in the sacrament to be eaten and drōken the very body and bloud of Christ which for the substaunce of the sacrament euill men receaue as good men do that is to say as S. Augustine doth poynt it out by his wordes the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ with such an expression of speach as he would exclude all difference that deuise of figure might imagine and therfore sayth Ipsam carnem ipsum sanguinem which signifie the selfe same in dede not by name onely as the author of the booke would haue S. Augustine vnderstanded and when that appeareth as it is most manifest that Iudas receaued the same being wicked that good men do how the same is before the recept by godes omnipotencie present in the visible sacrament and so not receaued by the onely instrument of fayth which in euill men is not liuely but by the instrument of the mouth
wherin it entreth with the visible element and yet as S. Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth bycause the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receaueth by such a maner of eating as wicked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effect to ensue of the diuersitie of the eating and not of any diuersitie of that which is eaten whether the good man or euill man receaue the sacrament If I would here encombre the reader I could bring forth many mo places of S. Augustine to the confusion and reprofe of this Authors purpose and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me that I way not S. Augustine I thinke good to alleadge and bring forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touching S. Augustine who vnderstandeth S. Augustine clere contrary to this author as may playnly appeare by that the sayd Bucer writeth in few wordes in his epistle dedicatory of the great worke he sent abroad of his enarrarations of the gospelles where his iudgement of S. Augustine in this poynt he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem domini sumsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse The sense in English is this How often writeth he speaking of S. Augustine Iudas also to haue receaued the selfe body and bloud of our Lord No man thefore by the authoritie of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue before alleadged him and gathereth therof a conclusion that no man can by the fathers sayinges proue Christ to be absent in the holy supper And therfore by Bucers iudgement the doctrine of this Author can be in no wise catholique as dissenting from that hath ben before taught and beleued whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world and by me here alleadged I cannot tell and whether he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hath taught in his latter iudgement with a great protestation that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth wherin because he semed to dissent from his frendes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes haue an imitation of an elder saying and be thus much to say Socrates is my frend truth is my best beloued and the church most regarded And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament after he knew al that Zuinglius Decolampadius could say in the matter And here I will leaue to speake of Bucer and bring forth Theodoretus a man most extolled by this author who sayth playnly in his commentaries vpon S. Paule how Christ deliuered to Iudas his precious body and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrament to be the truth So as this author can haue no foundatiō vpon eyther to maintayne his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke which his wordes playnly impugn S. Hierom in his commentaries vpon the prophet Malachie hath first this sentence Polluimus panem id est corpus Christi quando indigne accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we com vnworthy to the aulter and being filthy drincke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth men filthy drincke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same S. Hierom sayth Polluit Christi misteria indigne accipiens Corpus eius sanguinem He that vnworthely receaueth the body and bloud of Christ defileth the misteries Can any wordes be more manifest and euident to declare S. Hieroms mind how in the visible sacrament men receaue vnworthely which be euell men the body and bloud of Christ Caunterbury IN this poynt I will ioyne a playne issue with you that I neyther willingly goe about to deceaue the reader in the serching of S. Augustine as you vse to do in euery place nor I haue not trusted my man or frende herein as it semeth you haue done ouermuch but I haue diligently expended and wayed the matter my selfe For although in such waightie matters of scripture and aunciēt authors you must nedes trust your men without whom I know you can doe very litle being brought vp from your tender age in other kindes of study yet I hauing exercised my selfe in the study of scripture and diuinitye from my youth wherof I geue most harty laudes and thankes to God haue learned now to goe alone and do examine iudge and write all such waighty matters my selfe although I thanke God I am neyther so arrogant nor so wilfull that I will refuse the good aduise counsailie and admonition of any man be he man or master frende or foe But as concerning the place alleadged by you out of S. Augustine let the reader diligently expend myne whole aunswer to S. Augustine and he shall I trust be fully satisfied For S. Augustine in his booke De baptismo contra Donatistas as I haue declared in my booke speaketh of the morsell of bread and sacrament which Iudas also dyd eate as S. Augustine sayth And in this speach he considered as he writeth Contra Maximinū not what it is but what it signifieth and therfore he expresseth the matter by Iudas more playnly in an other place saying that he did eate the bread of the Lord not the bread being the Lord as the other Apostles dyd signifying therby that the euell eate the bread but not the Lord himselfe As S. Paule sayth that they eate and drincke Panem calicem Domini the bread and the cup of the Lord and not that they eate the Lord himselfe And S. Augustine sayth not as you faine of him that the substaunce of this sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ but the substaunce of this sacrament is bread and wine as water is in the sacramēt of Baptisme and the same be all one not altered by the vnworthines of the receauors And although S. Augustine in the wordes by you recited call the sacrament of Christes body and bloud his body and bloud yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament therof and yet is it called the body and bloud of Christ as sacraments haue the names of the thinges wherof they be sacraments as the same S. Augustine teacheth most playnly ad Bonifacium And I haue not so far ouershot my selfe or bene ouersene that I would haue atempted to publish this matter if I had not before hand excussed the whole truth therin from the botome But bicause I my selfe am certayne of the truth which hath bene hid these many yeares and persecuted by the Papistes with fyer and fagot and should be so yet still if you might haue your owne will and bicause also I am desirous that all my contrey men of England vnto whome I haue no smale cure and charge to
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
neighboures and cause him to put out of his hart all enuy hatred and malice and to graue in the same all amity frendshippe and concord he deceaueth him selfe if he thinke that he hath the spirite of Christ dwelling within him But all these foresayd godly admonitions exhortations and comforts doe the Papistes as much as lyeth in them take away from all christen people by their transubstantiation For if we receaue no bread nor wine in the holy Communion then all these lessons and comfortes be gone which we should learne and receaue by eating of the bread and drinking of the wine and that fantasticall imagination geueth an occasion vtterly to subuert our wholl faith in Christ. For seeing that this Sacrament was ordeyned in bread and wine which be foodes for the body to signifie and declare vnto vs our spirituall foode by Christ then if our corporal feeding vpon the bread and wine be but fantasticall so that there is no bread nor wine there in deede to feede vpon although they appeare there to be then it doth vs to vnderstand that our spirituall feeding in Christ is also fantastical and that in deede we feede not of him which sophistry is so deuilish and wicked and so much iniurious to Christ that it could not come from any other person but only from the Deuill himselfe and from his specyall minister Antichrist The eight thing that is to be noted is that this spiritual meat of Christs body and bloud is not receaued in the mouth and digested in the stomack as corporall meates and drinkes commonly be but it is receaued with a pure hart and a sincere fayth And the true eating and drinking of the said body and bloud of Christ is with a constant and liuely faith to beleeue that Christ gaue his body and shed his bloud vpon the crosse for vs and that he doth so ioyne and incorporate him selfe to vs that he is our head and we his members and flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones hauing him dwelling in vs we in him And herein standeth the wholl effecte and strength of this Sacrament And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hartes by his holy Spirit confirmeth the same outwardly to our eares by hearing of his worde and to our other sences by eating and drinking of the Sacramentall bread and wine in his holy Supper What thing then can be more comfortable to vs then to eate this meate drinke this drinke whereby Christ certifieth vs that we be spiritually truely fed and nourished by him and that we dwell in him and he in vs. Can this be shewed vnto vs more plainly then when he sayth him selfe He that eateth me shall liue by me Wherefore who so euer doth not contemne the euerlasting life how can he but highly esteeme this Sacrament how can he but imbrace it as a sure pledge of his saluation And when he seeth godly people deuoutly receaue the same how can he but be desirous oftentimes to receaue it with them Surely no man that well vnderstandeth and diligently wayeth these thinges can be without a great desire to come to this holy Supper All men desire to haue Gods fauour and when they know the contrary that they be in his indignation and cast out of his fauour what thing can comfort them how be their minds vexed what trouble is in their consciences all Gods creatures seeme to be against them and doe make them afrayd as thinges being ministers of Gods wrath and indignation towardes them and rest or comforte can they finde none neither within them nor without them And in this case they doe hate as well God as the Deuill God as an vnmercifull and extreeme Iudge and the Deuill as a most malicious and cruell tormentor And in this sorrowfull heauines holy Scripture teacheth them that our heauenly Father can by no meanes be pleased with thē again but by the Sacrifice and death of his only begotten Sonne whereby God hath made a perpetuall amity and peace with vs doth pardon the sinnes of them that beleue in him maketh them his children and geueth them to his first begotten Sonne Christ to be incorporate into him to be saued by him and to be made heires of heauen with him And in the receauing of the holy Supper of our Lord we be put in remembrance of this his death and of the wholl mistery of our redemption In the which Supper is made mention of his testament and of the aforesaid communion of vs with Christ and of the remission of our sinnes by his Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Wherfore in this Sacrament if it be rightly receaued with a true faith we be assured that our sinnes be forgiuen and the league of peace and the Testament of God is confirmed betwene him and vs so that who so euer by a true fayth doth eate Christs flesh and drink his bloud hath euerlasting life by him Which thing whē we feele in our hartes at the receauing of the Lords supper what thing can be more ioyfull more pleasaunt or more comfortable vnto vs. All this to be true is most certayne by the wordes of Christ him selfe whē he did first institute his holy Supper the night before hys death as it appeareth as well by the wordes of the Euangelistes as of S. Paule Do this sayth Christ as often as you drinke it in remembraunce of me And S. Paule sayth As often as you eate this bread and drinke this cup you shall shew the Lordes death vntill he come And agayne Christ sayd This cup is a newe testament in myne own bloud which shall be shed for the remission of sinnes This doctrine here recyted may suffice for all that be humble and Godlye and seeke nothing that is superfluous but that is necessary and profitable And therfore vnto such persons may be made here an ende of this booke But vnto them that be contentious Papistes and Idolaters nothing is inough And yet because they shall not glory in their subtill inuentions and deceiuable doctrine as though no man were able to aunswere them I shall desire the readers of patience to suffer me a litle while to spende some time in vayne to confute their most vaine vanities And yet the time shal not be al together spent in vain for thereby shall more clearely appeare the light from the darcknes the truth from false sophisticall subtilties and the certaine worde of God from mens dreames and phantasticall inuentions ALthough I neede make no further aunswere but the rehearsall of my wordes yet thus much will I aunswere that where you say that I speake some wordes by the way not tollerable if there had bene any suche they should not haue fayled to be expressed and named to their reproche as other haue bene Wherfore the reader may take a day with you before he beleue you when you reproue me for vsing some intollerable wordes and in conclusion name not one of them And as
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
he is but beleeue them not And S. Peter saith in the Actes that heauen must receaue Christ vntill the time that all thinges shall be restored And S. Paule writing to the Colossians agreeth hereto saying Seeke for thinges that be a-aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father And Saint Paul speaking of the very Sacrament saith As often as you shall eate this bread and drinke this cuppe shew forth the Lordes death vntill he come Till he come saith Saint Paule signifying that he is not there corporally present For what speech were this or who vseth of him that is already present to say vntill he come For vntill he come signifieth that he is not yet present This is the catholicke faith which we learne from our youth in our common Creede and which Christ taught the Apostles followed and the Martirs confirmed with their bloud And although Christ in his humain nature substantially really corporally naturally and sensibly be present with his Father in heaueÌ„ yet Sacramentally and Spiritually he is here present For in water bread and wine he is present as in signes and Sacramentes but he is in deede Spiritually in those faithfull christian people which according to Christes ordinaunce be baptized or receaue the holy communion or vnfainedlye beleeue in him Thus haue you heard the second principall article wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of Gods word and from the Catholick faith Now the third thing wherein they vary is this The Papistes say that euill and vngodly men receaue in this Sacrament tâ—â— very body and bloud of Christ and eate and drinke the self same thing that the good and godly men doe But the truth of Gods word is contrary that all those that be godly members of Christ as they corporally eate the bread and drinke the wine so spiritually they eate and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud And as for the wicked members of the Deuill they eate the Sacramental bread and drinke the SacrameÌ„tall wine but they doe not spiritually eate Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud but they eate and drinke their own damnation The fourth thing wherein the Popish priestes dissent froÌ„ the manifest word of God is this They say that they offer Christ euery day for remission of sinne and distribute by their Masses the merits of Christs passion But the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists doe say that Christ himselfe in his own person made a sacrifice for our sinnes vpon the Crosse by whose woundes all our diseases were healed and our sinnes pardoned and so did neuer no priest man nor creature but he nor he dyd the same neuer more then once And the benefit hereof is in no mannes power to gyue vnto any other but euery man must receaue it at Christes handes himselfe by his own fayth and beliefe as the Prophet saieth Here Smith findeth him selfe much greeued at two false reports wherwith he saith that I vntruely charge the Papists One when I write that some say that the very naturall body of Christ is in the Sacrament naturally and sensibly which thing Smith vtterly denieth any of them to say and that I falsely lay this vnto their charge And moreouer it is very false saith he that you lay vnto our charges that we say that Christes body is in the Sacrament as it was borne of the virgin and that it is broken and torne in peeces with our teeth This also Smith saith is a false report of me But whether I haue made any vntrue report or no let the bookes be iudges As touching the first the Bishop writeth thus in his booke of the Deuils sophistry the 14. leafe Good men were neuer offended with breaking of the hoost which they daily saw being also perswaded Christes body to be present in the Sacrament naturally and really And in the 18. leafe he saith these words Christ God and man is naturally present in the Sacrament And in ten or twelue places of this his last booke he saith that Christ is present in the SacrameÌ„t naturally corporally sensibly and carnally as shall appeare euidently in the reading therof So that I make no false reporte herein who report no otherwise then the â—apistes haue written and published openly in their bookes And it is not to be passed ouer but worthy to be noted how manifest falshoode is vsed in the printing of this Bishoppes booke in the 136. leafe For where the Bishoppe wrote as I haue two coppies to shew one of his own hand and another exhibited by him in open court before the Kinges Commissioners that Christes body in the Sacrament is truely present therfore really present corporally also and naturally The printed booke now set abroad hath changed this word naturally and in the stede therof hath put these wordes but yet supernaturally corrupting and manifestly falsefying the Bishops booke Who was the Author of this vntrue acte I cannot certainly define but if coniectures may haue place I think the Bishop himselfe would not commaund to altar the booke in the printing and then set it forth with this title that it was the same booke that was exhibited by his own hand for his defence to the kinges maiesties commissioners at Lamhith And I thinke the Printer being a French man would not haue enterprised so false a deed of his own head for that which he should haue no thanks at all but be accused of the Author as a falsifier of his booke Now for as much as it is not like that either the Bishop or the Printer would play any such pranks it must then be some other that was of counsell in the printing of the booke which being printed in Fraunce whether you be now fled from your own natiue countrey what person is more like to haue done such a noble acte then you who being so full of craft and vntruth in your own countrey shew your selfe to be no changeling where soeuer you become And the rather it seemeth to me to be you then any other person because that the booke is altred in this word naturally vpoÌ„ which word standeth the reproofe of your saying For he saith that Christ is in the Sacrament naturally and you deny that any man so saith but that Christ is there supernaturally Who is more like therefore to change in his booke naturally into supernaturall then you whom the matter toucheth and no maÌ„ els but whether my coniectures be good in this matter I will not determine but referre it to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader Now as concerning the second vntrue report which I should make of the Papistes I haue alleadged the wordes of Berengarius recantation appointed by Pope Nicholas the 2. and written De consecrat dist 2. which be these that not only the Sacraments of bread and wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ are sensibly handeled of the Priest in the Altar broaken and torne with the teeth of
wherupoÌ„ we might coÌ„clude that Christ did in this mortal life but in one particular momeÌ„t of time offer him self to the father to what purpose you bring forth this momeÌ„t of time I caÌ„not tell for I made no meÌ„tâ—on therof but of the day of his death the scripture saith plainly that as it is ordained for euerye man to dye but once so Christe was offered but once And saith further that sinne is not forgeueÌ„ but by effusioÌ„ of bloud therefore if Christ had ben offered many times he should haue dyed many times And of any other offering of Christes body for sin the scripture speaketh not For although S. Paul to the PhillippiaÌ„s speaketh of the humiliatioÌ„ of Christ by his incarnatioÌ„ so to worldly miseries afflictioÌ„s eueÌ„ vnto death vpoÌ„ the crosse yet he calleth not euery humiliatioÌ„ of Christ a sacrifice oblatioÌ„ for remissioÌ„ of sin but onely his oblatioÌ„ vpoÌ„ good Fryday which as it was our perfect redeÌ„ptioÌ„ so was it our perfect recoÌ„ciliatioÌ„ propitiatioÌ„ satisfactioÌ„ for sinne And to what purpose you make here a long processe of our sacrifices of obedience vnto Gods coÌ„mauÌ„demeÌ„ts I caÌ„not deuise For I declare in my last booke that all our whole obedience vnto Gods will a commauÌ„demeÌ„ts is a sacrifice acceptable to God but not a sacrifice propitiatory for the sacrifice Christ onely made and by that his sacrifice all our Sacrifices be acceptable to God without that none is acceptable to him And by those sacrifices al christeÌ„ people offer theÌ„selues to God but they offer not Christ again for sin for that did neuer creature but Christ him self alone nor he neuer but vpoÌ„ good Fryday For although he did institute the night before a remeÌ„brance of his death vnder the SacrameÌ„ts of bread wine yet he made not at that time the sacrifice of our redeÌ„ptioÌ„ satisfaction for our sinnes but the next day following And the declaration of Christ at his last supper that he would suffer death was not the cause wherfore Ciprian sayd that Christ offered himselfe in his supper For I reade not in any place of Ciprian to my remeÌ„brance any such wordes that Christ offered himselfe in his supper but he saith that Christ offered the fame thing whiche Melchisedech offered And if Ciprian say in any place that Christ offered himself in his supper yet he sayd not that Christ did so for this cause that in his supper he declared his death And therfore here you make a deceitful fallax in sophistry pretending to shew that thing to be a cause which is not the true cause in deede For the cause why Ciprian and other olde authors say that Christ made an oblation and offering of him selfe in his last supper was not that he declared there that he would suffer death for that he had declared many times before but the cause was that there he ordained a perpetuall memory of his death which he would all faithfull christeÌ„ people to obserue froÌ„ time to time remembring his death with thankes for his benefites vntill his comming again And therfore the memoriall of the true sacrifice made vpon the crosse as S. Augustine saith is called by the name of a sacrifice as a thing that signifyeth an other thing is called by the name of the thing which it signifyeth although in very deede it be not the same And the long discourse that you make of Christes true presence and of the true eating of him and of his true assisting vs in our doing of his commaundement all these be true For Christes flesh bloud be in the sacrament truely present but spiritually and sacramentally not carnally and corporally And as he is truely present so is he truely eaten and dronken and assisteth vs. And he is the same to vs that he was to them that saw him with their bodely eyes But where you say that he is as familiare with vs as he was with theÌ„ here I may say the French terme which they vse for reuerence sake Saue vostre grace And he offered not him selfe then for them vpon the crosse and now offereth himself for vs daily in the Masse but vpon the crosse he offered him selfe both for vs and for them For that his one sacrifice of his body than onely offered is now vnto vs by fayth as auailable as it was then for them For with one sacrifice as S. Paul saith he hath made perfect for euer them that be sanctifyed And where you speake of the participation of Christes flesh and bloud if you meane of the sacramentall participatioÌ„ onely that therby we be ascertayned of the regeneration of our bodies that they shall liue and haue the fruition of God with our soules for euer you be in an horrible errour And if you meane a spirituall participation of Christes body and bloud then all this your processe is in vaine and serueth nothing for your purpose to proue that Christes flesh and bloud be corporally in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine and participated of them that be euill as you teach which be no whit therby the more certain of their saluation but of their damnation as S. Paul saith And although the holy supper of the Lord be not a vain or phantasticall supper wherein thinges should be promised which be not performed to them that worthely come thereunto but Christes flesh and bloud be there truely eaten and dronken in deede yet that misticall supper can not be without misteries and figures And although wee feede in deede of Christes body and drinke in deed his bloud yet not corporally quantitatiuely and palpably as we shal be regenerated at the resurrection and as he was betrayed walked here in earth and was very man And therfore although the thinges by you rehearsed be all truely done yet all be not done after one sort and fashion but some corporally and visibly some spiritually and inuisibly And therfore to al your comparisons or similitudes here by you rehearsed if there be geuen to euery one his true vnderstanding they may be so graunted all to be true But if you will linke all these together in one sort and fashioÌ„ and make a chaine thereof you shall farre passe the bondes of wanton reason making a chaine of golde and copper together confounding and mixing together corporall and spiritual heauenly and earthly thinges and bring all to very madnes and impiety or plaine and manifest heresy And because one single error pleaseth you not shortly after you linke a number of errors almost together in one senteÌ„ce as it were to make an whole chaine of errors saying not onely that Christes body is verely present in the celebratioÌ„ of the holy supper meaning of corporal presence but that it is also our very sacrifice and sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world and that it is the onely sacrifice of the church and that it is the pure aud cleane
only similitude or an only signification which is the issue with this author Canterbury HEre you shift of S. Ciprian and Chrisostom with fayre promise to make answer to them hearafter who aproue playnly my saying that the bread representeth Christes body and the wine his bloud and so you aunswer here only to S. Hierom. In aunswering to whom you wer loth I se well to leaue behind any thing that might haue any colour to make for you that expound this word represent in S. Hierom to signifie reall exhibition Here appeareth that you can when you list change the signification of wordes that can make vocare to signifie facere and facere to signifie sacrificare as you do in your last booke And why should you not than in other wordes when it wil serue for like purposes haue the like libertie to change the signification of words when you list And if this word represent in saynt Hieroms wordes signifie reall exhibition then did Melchisedech really exhibit Christes flesh bloud who as the same saynt Hierom sayth did represent his flesh and bloud by offering bread and wine And yet in the lordes supper ryghtly vsed is Christes body exhibited in dede spiritually and so really if you take really to signifie only a spirituall and not a corporall and carnall exhibition But this reall and spirituall exhibition is to the receiuers of the sacrament and not to the bread and wine And mine issue in this place is no more but to proue that these sayings of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speaches signifying that the bread representeth Christes body and the wine his bloud which for as much as you confesse ther neded no great contention in this poynt but that you would seme in wordes to vary where we agre in the substance of the matter and so take occasion to make a longe booke where a short would haue serued And as for the exelucion onely many of the authors as I proued before haue the same exclusiue or other wordes equiualent therto And as for the sacramentall signes they be onely figures And of the presence of Christes body your selfe hath this exclusiue that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present and I say he is but spiritually present Now followeth Saynt Augustine And yet S. Augustine sheweth this matter more clearly and fully then any of the rest specially in an epistle which he wrot ad Bonifacium where he sayth that a day or two before good Friday we vse in common speach to say thus To morow or this day .ij. dayes Christ suffered his passiō Where in very dede he neuer suffered his passion but once and that was many yeares passed Likewise vpon Easter day we say This day Christ rose from death Where in very dede it is many hundreth yeares sithens he rose from death Why then do not men reproue vs as lyars when we speake in this sort But bicause we call these dayes so by a similitude of those dayes wherin these thinges were done in dede And so it is called that day which is not that day in dede but by the course of the yeare it is a like day And such thinges be sayd to be done that day for the solemne celebration of the sacramēt which thinges indede were not done that day but long before Was Christ offered any more but once And he offered him selfe and yet in a sacrament or representation not onely euery solemne feast of Easter but euery day he is offered to the people so that he doth not lye that sayth He is euery day offered For if sacramentes had no some similitude or likenes of those thinges whereof they be Sacramentes they could in no wise be sacramentes And for their similitude and likenes commonly they haue the name of the thinges wherof they be sacramentes Therfore as after a certayne maner of speach the sacramēt of Christes body is Christs body the sacrament of Christes bloud is Christes bloud so likewise the sacrament of fayth is fayth And to beleue is nothing els but to haue fayth And therfore when we answer for yong children in their baptisme that they beleue which haue not yet the minde to beleue we answer that they haue fayth bicause they haue the sacrament of fayth And we say also that they tourne vnto God because of the sacrament of conuersion vnto God for that answer pertayneth to the celebration of the sacramēt And likewise speaketh the Apostle of baptisme saying that by Baptisme we be buryed with him into death he sayth not that we signifie buriall but he sayth playnly that we be buried So that the sacramēt of so great a thing is not called but by the name of the thing it selfe Hitherto I haue rehersed the answer of S. Augustine vnto Boniface a learned bishop who asked of him how the parentes and frendes could answer for a yong babe in baptisme and say in his person that he beleueth conuerteth vnto God when the child can neither do nor think any such thinges Wherunto the answer of S. Augustine is this that for as much as baptisme is the sacrament of the profession of our fayth and of our conuersion vnto God it becometh vs so to answer for yong children comming therunto as to the sacramēt apertayneth although the children indeed haue no knowledge of such thinges And yet in our sayd answers we ought not to be reprehended as vayn men or lyers forasmuch as in common speach we vse dayly to call sacramētes and figures by the names of the thinges that be signified by them although they be not the same thing indede As euery Goodfriday as often as it returneth from yeare to yeare we call it the day of Christes passion and euery Easter day we call the day of his resurrection and euery day in the yeare we say that Christ is offered and the sacrament of his body we call it his body and the sacrament of his bloud we call it his bloud and our baptisme S. Paul calleth our buriall with Christ. And yet in very dede Christ neuer suffered but once neuer arose but once neuer was offered but once nor in very dede in baptisme we be not buried nor the sacrament of Christes body is not his body nor the sacrament of his bloud is not his bloud But so they be called bicause they be figures sacramentes and representations of the thinges them selfe which they signifie and whereof they beare the names Thus doth saynt Augustine most playnly open this matter in his epistle to Bonifacius Of this maner of speach wherin a signe is called by the name of the thing which it signifieth speaketh S. Augustine also right largely in his questions super Leuiticum contra Adamantium declaring how bloud in scripture is called the soule A thing which signifieth sayth he is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth as it is writen in the scripture The vij
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
any reall and corporall conuersion of bread and wine vnto Christs body and bloud nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same but he speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wine and of a spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptisme as the same Eusebius playnly there declareth as he is in the Lordes table Which is not carnally and corporally but by fayth and spiritually But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstatiation Winchester This author sayth that Emissen is shortly aunswered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he sayth as Hylary was aunswered and Cyrill But els there can no short or long aunswere confound the true playne testimony of Emissen for the common true faith of the church in the Sacrament Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saying thus This is my bodye And aâ—ayne repeating the same sanctificatioÌ„ This is my bloud Wherfore as at the beck of him commauÌ„ding the heightes of heauens the depenes of the floudes and largenes of landes were founded of nothing by like power in spirituall Sacraments where vertue commaundeth the effect of the trueth serueth These bee Emissenes wordes declaring his fayth playnely of the Sacrament in such termes as can not be wrested or writhed who speaketh of a turning conuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body bloud he sayth not into the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud whereby he should meane a only sacramental conuersion as this author would haue it but he sayth into the substance of Christs body bloud to be in the sacrameÌ„t For the words substance and truth be of one strength shew a difference froÌ„ a figure wherein the truth is not in dede preseÌ„t but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle this Emissen represseth mans carnall reason and socoureth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of this world which were brought forth out of tyme by Emissene if Christes bodye were not in substaunce present as Emissenes wordes bee but in figure onely as this author teacheth And where this authour coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in eyther he putteth himselfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these misteries be both great and mans regeneration in baptisme is also a mistery and the secret worke of God and hath a great meruayle in that effect yet it differeth from the mistery of the sacrament touching the maner of Christes presence and the working of the effect also For in baptisme our vnion with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole Trinitie there working as author in whose name the sacrament is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body indede but in hope onely that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in baptisme bene buried with christ so we be assured to be partakers of his resurection And so in this sacrament we be vnite to Christes manhod by this deuinite But in the sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie which mistical vnion representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorification wherin body and soule shall in the generall resurection by a maruailous regeneration of the body be made both spirituall the speciall pledge wherof we receaue in this sacrament and therfore it is the sacrament as Hilary sayth of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious then the body and the nature of the godhead in Christ more excellent then the nature of man in him glorified and in baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passion and bloud Christes godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respectes the excelency of baptisme is great yet bicause the mistery of the sacrameÌ„t of the alter where Christ is present both man and God in the effectuall vnitie that is wrought betwene our bodies our soules and Christes in the vse of this sacrament signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurection which shall be the end and consumatioÌ„ of all our felicitie This sacrament of perfect vnitie is the mistery of our perfect estate when body and soule shal be all spirituall and hath so a degre of excelencie for the dignitie that is estemed in euery end and perfection wherfore the word spirituall is a necessary word in this sacrament to call it a spirituall foode as it is indede for it is to worke in our bodyes a spirituall effect not onely in our soules and Christes body and flesh is a spirituall body and flesh and yet a true body and very flesh And it is present in this sacrament after a spirituall maner graunted and taught of all true teachers which we should receaue also spiritually which is by hauing Christ before spiritually in vs to receaue it so worthely Wherfore like as in the inuisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnall but all spirituall taking the word carnall as it signifieth grossely in mans carnall iudgement So where the receiuers of that foode bring carnall lustes or desires carnall fansies or imaginations with them they receaue the same preciens foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condemnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christian fayth of the very presence of Christes body And this sufficeth to wipe out that this Author hath spoken of Emissen agaynst the truth Caunterbury I Haue so playnly aunswered vnto Emissene in my former booke partly in this place and partely in the second parte of my booke that he that readeth ouer those two places shall see most clearly that you haue speÌ„t a greate many of wordes here in vayne and nede no further answer at all And I had then such a care what I sayd that I sayd nothing but according to Emissenus owne mind and which I proued by his owne wordes But if you finde but one word that in speach soundeth to your purpose you sticke to that word tooth and nayle caring nothing what the authors meaning is And here is one great token of sleight and vntruth to be noted in you that you write diligently euery word so long as they seme to make with you And when you come to the very place
figure onely of Christes body but it is chāged into the very body of Christe For Christ sayth The bread which I will geue you is my flesh Neuertheles the flesh of Christ is not seene for our weakenes but bread and wine are familiar vnto vs. And surely if we should visibly see flesh and bloud we could not abide it And therfore our lord bearing with our weakenes doth retayn and kepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wine but he doth turne the very bread and wine into the very flesh and bloud of Christ. These be the wordes which the papistes do cite out of Theophilus vpon the gospell of S. Mark But by this one place it appeareth euidently eyther how negligent the Papistes be in searching out and examining the sayinges of the authors which they alleadge for theyr purpose on els how false and deceitfull they be which willingly and wittingly haue made in this one place and as it were with one breth two loud and shamefull lyes The first is that because they would geue the more authoritie to the wordes by them alleadged they like false poticaries that fell quid pro quo falsefy the authors name fathering such sayings vpon Theophilus Alexandrinus an old and auncient author which were in deed none of his wordes but were the wordes of Theophilactus who was many yeares after Theophilus Alexandrinus But such hath euer bene the Papisticall subtelties to set forth theyr owne inuentions dreames and lyes vnder the name of antiquitie and auncient authors The second lye or falsehod is that they falsely the authors wordes and meaning subuerting the truth of his doctrine For where Theophilactus according to the catholike doctrine of auncient authors sayth that almighty God condescending to our infirmitie reserueth the kind of bread and wine and yet turneth them into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud They say that he reserueth the formes and apparaunces of bread and wine and turneth them into the veritie of his flesh and bloud so turning and altering kindes into formes and apparaunces and vertue into veritie that of the vertue of the flesh and bloud they make the veritie of his flesh and bloud And thus they haue falsefied as well the name as the wordes of Theophilactus turning veritie into playne and flatte falsitie But to sette forth playnly the meaning of Theophilactus in this matter As hot and burning yron is yron still and yet hath the force of fyer and as the flesh of Christ still remayning flesh geueth life as the flesh of him that is good so the sacramentall bread and wine remayne still in theyr proper kindes and yet to them that worthely eate and drink them they be tourned not into the corporall presence but into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud And although Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ and the drinking of his very bloud and not onely of the figures of them and of the conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet he meaneth not of a grosse carnall corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud for so not onely our stomackes would yern and our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh to drincke his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite or auayle vs but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread calling the bread not onely a figure but also the body of Christ geuing vs by these wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eat corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drink his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable Winchester Now followeth as it is intitled Theophilact being the wordes in deed not of Theophilact as he writeth vpon Marke and therfore they were not alleaged as his wordes but as the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus wherin this author trauerseth a falshod on thallegers parte to wrong name the author In which allegacion I say if therbe a fault as I know none it is no lye but a probable errour for a man to beleue an other better learned then him selfe and as I found it alleaged I reported it agayne so as hauing mine author learned whome I folowed I am discharged of malice being the author such whome I followed as might possibly haue had such a worke of Theophilus contayning those wordes as they be alleaged the negatiue wherof how this author should proue I can not tell because of the common saying Bernardus non vidit omnia and therfore there may be a theophilus Alexandrinus hauing these words alleadged in theyr forme for any demonstratiou this author can make to the contrary Whither therbe or no any such to be shewed it is not materiall being so many testimonies besides As for Theophilacts wordes I graunt they be not for he wrote his mynde more playnly in an other place of his workes as I shall hereafter shew and by the way make an issue with this author that no catholike writer among the greekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the sacrament then Theophilact hath as shall apeare by and by after I haue noted to the reader this how of Germany about a two yeare before he impugned the truth of Christes presence in the sacrament he translated out of Greeke into Latine the workes of the sayd Theophilact and gaue the Latine church therby some weapon wherwith to destroy his wicked folly afterwarde not vnlike the chance in this author translating into inglish two yeares bye past the Cathechisme of Germany And as Oecolampadius hath since his folly or madnes agaynst the sacrament confessed as appeareth that he did translate Theophilacte so as we neede not doubt of it So this author hath now in this worke confessed the translation of the catechisme which one in communication woulde needes haue made me beleue had beene his mannes doinge and not his Heare now reader how playnly Theophilact speaketh vpon the Gospell of Saynt Iohn expounding the vi Chapter Take hede that the bread which is eaten of vs in the misteries is not onely a certayne figuration of the flesh of our Lord but the flesh it selfe of our Lord for he sayd not The bread which I shall geue is the figure of my flesh but it is my flesh For that bread by the mysticall benedictiō is transformed by the misticall wordes and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our lord And it should trouble no man that the bread is to be beleued flesh for whilest our lord walked in flesh and recaued nourishment of bread that bread he did eat was changed into his body and was made like to his holy flesh and as it is costomably in mans feeding
writer among the Grekes hath more playnly spokeÌ„ for you then Theophilacte hath and yet when that shal be well examined it is nothing at all as I haue playnly declared shewing your vntruth aswell in allegation of the authors wordes as in falsefying his name And as for the Catechisme of Germany by me translated into English to this I haue aunswered before and truth it is that eyther you vnderstand not the phrase of the old authors of the church or els of purpose you will not vnderstand me But hereunto you shall haue a more full aunswer when I come to the proper place therof in the iiij part of my booke And as coÌ„cerning the wordes of Theophilact vpon the gospel of Iohn he speaketh to one effect and vseth much like termes vpon the gospels of Mathew Marke and Iohn wherunto I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And because the aunswer may be the more present I shall rehearse some of my wordes here agayne Although sayd I Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ and the drinking of his very bloud and not onely of the figures of them and of the conuersion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet he meaneth not of a grosse carnall corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud for so not onely our stomackes would yerne our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh and to drink his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite and auayle vs but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread calling the bread not onely a figure but also the body of Christ geuing vs by those wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eate corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drincke his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable This I wrot in my former booke which is sufficient to aunswer vnto all that you haue here spoken And as concerning the bread that Christ did eate and feede vpon it was naturally eaten as other men eate naturally changed and caused a naturall nourishment and yet the very matter of the bread remayned although in an other forme but in them that duely receaue and â—at the Lordes holy supper all is spirituall aswell the eating as the change and nourishment which is none impediment to the nature of bread but that it may still remayne And where you come to the translation of this word species to signifie apparence this is a wonderfull kinde of translation to translat specie in apparence because apparet is truly translated appeareth with like reason aurum myght be translated meate because edâ—re signifieth to eate And your other translation is no lesse wonderfull where you turne the vertue of Christes body into the veritie And yet to cloke your folly therin and to cast a mist before the readers eyes that he should not see your vntruth therin you say that by vertue in that place must be vuderstanded verite First what soeuer be vnderstande by the worde vertue your fayth in translation is broken For the sense being ambiguous yoâ— ought in translation to haue kept the word as it is leauing the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader and not by altering the word to make such a sense as please you which is so foule a fault in a translatour that if Decolampadius had so done he should haue ben called a man faulty and gilthy a corruptour a deceauour an abuser of other men a peruerter a deprauer and a man without fayth As he might be called that would translate Verbum caro factum est The second person became man Which although it be true in meaning yet it is not true in translation nor declareth the fayth of the translatour But now as your translation is vntrue so is the meaning also vntrue and vnexcusable For what man is so far destitute of all his senses that he knoweth not a difference betwene the veritie of Christes body and the vertue therof Who can pretend ignoraunce in so manifest a thing Doth not all men know that of euery thing the vertue is one and the substance an other Except in God onely who is of that simplicitie without multiplication of any thing in him or diuersitie that his vertue his power his wisdome his iustice and all that is sayd to be in him be neyther qualites nor accidentes but all one thinge with his verie substauÌ„ce And neyther the right hand of God nor the vertue of God which you bring for an example and serueth to no purpose but to blind the ignorauÌ„t reader be any thing els but the very substaunce of God although indiuersitie of respectes and considerations they haue diuersitie of names except you will deuide the most single substaunce of God into corporall partes and members following the errour of the Aâ—cropomorphites But the like is not in the body of Christ which hath distinctioÌ„ of integrall partes and the vertue also and qualities distinct from the substance And yet if the example were like he should be an euill translator or rather a corrupter that for a dextris virtutis Dei would traÌ„slate a dextris Dei or coÌ„trary wise And therfore all traÌ„slators in those places folow the wordes as they be be not so arrogaÌ„t to alter one title in theÌ„ therby to make theÌ„ one in wordes although the thing in substaunce be one For wordes had not theyr signification of the substances or of thinges onely but of the qualities maners respectes and considerations And so may one word signifie diuers thinges one thing be signified by diuers wordes And therfore he that should for on word take an other because they be both referred to one substaunce as you haue done in this place should make a goodly yere of worke of it not much vnlike to him that should burne his house and say he made it because the making burning was both in one matter and substaunce It is much pitie that you haue not bestowed your tyme in translation of good authors that can skill so well of translation to make specieÌ„ to signifie apparence and that take vertue sometyme for veritie and somtime for nothing a dextris virtutis Dei to signifie no more but a dextris Dei and virtutem carnis to signifie no more but carnem and virtutem sanguinis sanguinem And why not seing that such wordes signifie ad placitum that is to say as please you to translate them And it seameth to be a strange thing that you haue so quicke an eye to espye other mens faultes and cannot see in Theophilact his playne aunswer but to take vpon you to teach him to aunswer For when he asketh the question why doth
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
taught and admonished by these misticall or figuratiue wordes that we should be in his body vnder him our head among his members eating his flesh nor forsaking his vnitie And in his booke De doctrina Christiana S. Augustine sayth as before is at length declared that to eate Christes flesh and to drincke his bloud is a figuratiue speach signifying the participation of his passion and the delectable remembraunce to our benefite and profite that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. And in an other sermon also De verbis Apostoli he expoundeth what is the eating of Christes body and the drincking of his bloud saying The eating is to be refreshed and the drincking what is but to liue Eate life drincke life And that shall be when that which is taken visibly in the sacrament is in very deed eaten spiritually and dronken spiritually By all these sentences of S. Augustine it is euident and manifest that all men good and euill may with theyr mouthes visibly and sensibly eate the sacrament of Christes body and bloud but the very body bloud them selues be not eaten but spiritually that of the spiritual members of Christ which dwell in Christ haue Christ dwelling in them by whome they be refreshed and haue euerlasting lyfe And therfore sayth S. Augustine that when the other Apostles did eate bread that was the Lord yet Iudas did eate but the bread of the Lord and not the bread that was the Lord. So that the other Apostles with the sacramentall bread did eate also Christ him selfe whome Iudas did not eate And a great number of places moe hath S. Augustine for this purpose which for eschewing of tediousnes I let pas for this tyme and will speake some thing of S. Cirill ¶ Cyrill vpon S. Iohn in his Gospell sayth that those which eate Manna dyed bycause they receaued therby no strength to liue euer for it gaue no lyfe but onely put away bodily hunger but they that receaue the bread of life shall be made immortall and shall eschewe all the euils that pertayne to death liuing with Christ for euer And in an other place he sayth◠For as much as the flesh of Christ doth naturally geue life therfore it maketh them to liue that be partakers of it For it putteth death away from them vtterly driueth destructiō out of them And he concludeth the matter shortly in an other place in fewe wordes saying that when we eate the flesh of our sauiour than haue we life in vs. For if thinges that were corrupt were restored by onely touching of his clothes how can it be that we shall not liue that eate his flesh And further he sayth that as two waxes that be molten together do run euery part into other so he that receaueth Christes flesh and bloud must nedes be ioyned so with him that Christ must be in him and he in Christ. Here S. Cyrill declareth the dignitie of Christes flesh being inseparably annexed vnto his diuinitie saying that it is of such force and power that it geueth euerlasting life And what soeuer occasion of death it findeth or let of eternall life it putteth out and driueth cleane away all the same from them that eate that meate and receaue that medicine Other medicins or playsters sometyme heale and sometyme heale not but this medicine is of that effect and strength that it eateth away all rotten and dead flesh and perfectly healeth all woundes and sores that it is layd vnto This is the dignitie and excellēcy of Christes flesh and bloud ioyned to his diuinite of the which dignite Christes aduersaries the Papistes depriue and robbe him when they affirme that such men do eate his flesh and receaue this playster as remayne still sicke and sore and be not holpen therby Thus hast thou heard gentle reader the groundes and profes which moued me to write the mater of this iiii booke that good men onely eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud Now shalt thou here the late byshopes confutation of the same Winchester And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this author alleadgeth to proue that only good men receaue the body and bloud of Christ I graunt it without contention speaking of spirituall manducation and with liuely fayth without the Sacrament But in the visible sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do for the substance of the sacrament is by godes ordinauce all one And if this author would vse for a profe that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present bicause euill men receaue it that shal be no argument for the good seed when it was sowen did fall in the euill ground and although Christ dwelleth not in the euill man yet he may be receaued of the euill man to his condemnation bycause he receaueth him not to glorifie him as God as S. Paule sayth Non dijudicans corpus domini not esteming our Lordes body And to all that euer this author bringeth to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ may be sayd shortly that spiritually they eat it not besides the sacrament and in the sacrament they eate it not effectually to life but condemnation And that is and may be called a not eating As they be sayd not to heare the word of God that here it not profitably And bycause the body of Christ of it selfe is ordeyned to be eaten for life those that vnworthely eate to condemnation although they eate in dede may be sayd not to eate because they eate vnworthely as a thing not well done may be in speach called not done in respect of the good effect wherfore it was chiefly ordered to be done And by this rule thou reader mayst discusse all that this author bringeth forth for this purpose eyther out of Scriptures or doctors For euill men eate not the body of Christ to haue any fruite by it as euil men be sayd not to heare gods word to haue any frute by it and yet as they heare the worde of spirite life and neuerthelesse perish so euill men eate in the visible sacrament the body of Christ and yet perish And as I sayd this aunswereth the Scripture with the particuler sayinges of Ciprian Athanase Basyl Hierome and Ambrose As for S. Augustine which this author alleageth De ciuitate dei the same S. Augustine doth playnly say there in this place alledged how the good and euill receaue the same sacrament and addeth but not with like profite which wordes this author suppresseth and therfore dealeth not sincerely As for S. Augustine shall be hereafter more playnly declared Finally he that receaueth worthely the body bloud of Christ hath euerlasting life dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him he that receaueth vnworthely which can be onely in the sacrament receaueth not lyfe but condemnation Caunterbury IF you graunt without contention that which I do proue then you must graunt absolutely and franckly without any addition that onely good
tell the truth should no longer be kept from the same truth therfore haue I published the truth which I know in the English tongue to the entent that I may edefy all by that tongue which all do perfectly know and vnderstand Which my doing it semeth you take in very euell part and be not a litle greued therat bycause you would rather haue the light of truth hid still vnder the bushell then openlye to be set abroad that all men may see it And I thinke that it so little greueth M. Peter Martyre that his booke is in english that he would wish it to be traÌ„slated likewise into all other languages Now where you gather of the wordes of S. Augustine De verbis Domini that both the euill and good eat one body of Christ the selfesame in substance excluding all difference that deuise of fygure might imagine to this I aunswere that although you expresse the bodye of Christ with what tearmes you can deuise calling it as you do in deed the flesh that was borne of the virgine Mary the same flesh the flesh it selfe yet I confesse that it is eaten in the sacrament And to expresse it yet more playnely then paraduenture you would haue me I say that the same visible palpable flesh that was for vs crucified and appeared after his resurrection and was seene felt and groped and ascended into heauen and there sitteth at his fathers right hand and at the last day shall come to iudge the quick the dead that selfe same body hauing all the partes of a mans body in good order and proportion and being visible and tangible I say is eaten of christen people at his holy supper what will you now require more of me concerning the truth of the body I suppose you be sory that I graunt you so much and yet what doth this helpe you For the diuersitie is not in the body but in the eating therof no man eating it carnally but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually and the euill onely sacramentally that is to say figuratiuely And therfore hath S. Augustine these wordes Certo quodam modo after a certayne manner bicause that the euill eate the sacrament which after a certayne manner is called the very body of Christ which maner S. Augustine himselfe declareth most truely and playnly in a pistle ad Bonifacium saying If sacramentes had not some similitude or likenes of those thinges wherof they be sacraments they could in no wise be sacramentes And for theyr similitude and likenes they haue commonly the name of the thinges wherof they be sacraments Therfore after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is Christes body the sacrament of Christes bloud is Christes bloud This epistle is set out in my booke the 64. leafe which I pray the reader to looke vpon for a more full answer vnto this place And after that maner Iudas and such like did eat the morsell of the lordes bread but not the bread that is the Lord but a sacrament therof which is called the Lord as S. Augustine sayth So that with the bread entred not Christ with his spirit into Iudas as you say he doth into the wicked but Sathan entred into him as the gospell testifieth And if Christ entred than into Iudas with the bread as you write then the deuill and Christ entred into Iudas both at once As concerning M. Bucer what meane you to vse his authoritie whose authoritie you neuer estemed heretofore And yet Bucer varieth much from your errour for he denieth vtterly that Christ is really and substancially present in the bread either by conuersion or inclusion but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present and so do I also but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the deuill whome Christ neyther fedeth nor hath any communioÌ„ with them And to conclude in few wordes the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by you alleadged he diâ—â—enteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zuinglius Wherfore it semeth to me somwhat strange that you should alleadge him for the confirmation of your vntrue doctrine being so clerely repugnant vnto his doctrine The wordes of Theodoretus if they were his be so far from your report that you be ashamed to reherse his wordes as they be writteÌ„ which when you shall do you shall be answered But in his dialogs he declareth in playne termes not onely the figuratiue speach of Christ in this matter but also wherfore Christ vsed those figuratiue speaches as the reader may find in my booke the 67 68. 69. and 70. leaues By which maner of speach it may be sayd that Christ deliuered to Iudas his body and bloud when he deliuered it him in a figure therof And as concerning S. Hierome he calleth the misteries or misticall bread and wine Christes flesh and bloud as Christ called them him selfe and the eating of them he calleth the eating of Christes flesh and bloud bicause they be sacraments and figures which represent vnto vs his very flesh and bloud And all that do eate the sayd sacraments be sayd to eate the body of Christ bicause they eate the thing which is a representacion therof But S. Hierom ment not that euell men do indede eate the very body of Christ for then he would not haue written vpon Esaie Hieremie and Osee the contrary saying that heretikes and euill men neither eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which whosoeuer eateth and drincketh hath euerlasting lyfe Non comedunt carnem Iesu sayth he vpon Esai neque bibunt sanguinem eius de quo ipse loquitur Qui comedit carnem meam bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aternam And yet he that cometh defiled vnto the visible sacraments defileth not onely the sacraments but the contumely therof pertayneth also vnto Christ him selfe who is the author of the sacraments And as the same S. Hierom sayth Dum sacramenta violantur ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur When the sacramentes sayth he be violated then is he violated also to whom the sacraments apertayne Now heare what followeth in the order of my booke And as before is at length declared a figure hath the name of the thing that is signified therby As a mans image is called a man a Lyons image a Lion a byrdes image a byrd and an image of a tree and herbe is called a tree or herbe So were we wont to say Our lady of Walsingham Our Lady of Ipswich Our Lady of Grace Our Lady of pity S. Peter of Millan S. Ihon of Amyas and such like not meaning the things them selues but calling their images by the name of the things by them represented And likewise we were wont to say Great S. Christopher of Yorke or Lyncoln Our Lady smileth or rocketh her child Let vs goe in pylgrimage to S. Peter at Rome and S. Iames in Compostella And a thousand
contempt were meeter in an Ethnikes mouth to iest out all then to passe the lippes of such an author to play with the sillables after this sort For although he may read in some blind glose that in the instant of the last sillable gods worke is to be accompted wrought being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttered not to put the vertue in the last sillable nor to scorne the catholique fayth after which manner taking example of this author if an Ethnicke should iest of Fiat Lux at fi was nothing and then at at was yet nothing at lu was nothing but a litle little pearing put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then the light What christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entry of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this author noteth with an exclamation Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread Here I would question with this author whether Christ sayd so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall bread Christ sayd This is my body Ergo he sayd this is no bread And the first part of this reason this author affirmeth in the 59. leafe And the second part is Christes wordes and therfore to auoyd this conclusion the onely way is to say that Christes speach was but a figure which the catholique doctrine sayth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christ saying this is my body sayth in effect this is no bread wherat this author sayth They would bragge if Christ had sayd so In speach is to be considered that euery yea containeth a nay in it naturally so as who so euer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine Who soeuer sayth this is wine sayth it is no beere If a Lapidary sayth This is a Diamōd he sayth it is no glas he sayth it is no christall he sayth it is no white Saphir So Christ saying this is my body sayth it is no bread Which plainesse of speach caused Zuinglius to say playnly if there be presēt the substaūce of the body of Christ there is trāsubstātiatiō that is to say not the substaūce of bread therfore who wil playnly deny transubstantion must deny the true presence of the substaunce of Christes body as this author doth wherein I haue first conuinced him and therfore vse that victory for his ouerthrow in transubstantiation I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body and yet I will touch here such testimonie as this author bringeth out of one Hylary for the purpose of trāsubstātiation in the xxv leafe of this booke in these wordes There is a figure sayth Hylary for bread and wine be outwardly sene and there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued These be Hylaries words as this author alledgeth them who was he sayth within 350. yeares of Christ. Now I call to thy iudgement good reader could any man deuise more pithy wordes for the proofe of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud and the condemnation of this author that would haue an onely figure Here in Hilarius wordes is a figure compared to truth and sight outwardly to beleue inwardly Now our belief is grounded vpon gods word which is this This is my body in which wordes Hylary testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a truth and the figure is in that is sene outwardly I take Hylary here as this author alledgeth him whereby I aske the Reader is not this author ouerthrowē that Christs speach is not figuratiue but true and proper beyng inwardly true that we beleue Ye will say vnto me What is this to transubstantiation to the reprofe wherof it was brought in bicause he sayth bread and wine is seene First I say that it ouerthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christes body and euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this author in Transubstantiation not by authority of the church of Rome but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius sayth who shall serue me to auoyd papistry If one aske me what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seene I say they be in déede séene for they appeare so and therfore be called so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voyce and yet by his sence of féelyng denyed him Esau which was not Esau but was Iacob as the voyce frō within did declare him If ye will aske me how can there accordyng to Hylaries wordes be in the outward visible creatures any figure vnlesse the same be in déede as they appeare bread and wine I will aunswere Euen as well as this outward obiect of the sensible hearynes of Iacob resemblyng Esau was a figure of Christes humanitie and of the very humanitie in déede Thus may Hylary be aunswered to auoyde his authoritie from contrarying transubstantiation But this author shall neuer auoyde that him selfe hath brought out of Hylary which ouerthroweth him in his figuratiue speach consequently in his deniall of transubstantiation also as shall appeare in the further handlyng of this matter Where this author in the 18. leaf compareth these S. Paules wordes The bread that we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ to the expoundyng of Christes wordes This is my body I deny that for Christes wordes declared the substaunce of the Sacrament when he sayd This is my body and S. Paul declareth the worthy vse of it accordyng to Christes institution and by the wordes The bread that we breake doth signifie the whole vse of the Supper wherein is breakyng blessing thankesgeuyng dispensing receiuyng and eatyng So as onely breakyng is not the communion and yet by that part in a figure of speach S. Paul meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the Scripture a terme in speach to goe breake bread although it be not alwayes so taken whereby to signifie to go celebrate our Lordes Supper and therfore bread in that place may signifie the commō bread as it is adhibite to be consecrat which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ and so distributed and receaued is the communiō of the body of Christ as the cup is likewise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction which benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for callyng of Christes bread his body is to make it his body who as S. Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so maketh it to be The argumentes this author vseth in the 19. and 20. leafe of the order of Christes speaches as the Euangelistes rehearse them be captious deuises of this author in case he knoweth what S. Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hath not read S. Augustine De
Emperours very men although they be euer called by the names of there royall and imperiall dignites Or are they therfore gods bicause the Prophet calleth them so And who euer called you a man sithens you were a bishop and yet that dignity tooke not from you the nature of a man And the Pope is a man although he be called Iulius or Pater sanctissimus or Hipocrita impiissimus So is bread still bread although it represent the body of Christ and be called in that respect as a figure the very body of Christ. And where you say that the naming of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other must be understood before the sanctification and not after Saynt Paules owne wordes reproue this your saying most manifestly For he calleth it bread when it is the communion of Christes body and when it is eaten saying The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christes body And as often as you eate this bread drincke this cup and who soeuer eateth the bread and drincketh the cup of the lord vnworthely and let a man try himselfe and so eate of that bread and drincke of the cup and he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely c. Now these sayinges cannot be vnderstanded before the sanctificatiō except you will graunt that the bread was Christes body and that it was eaten before it was sanctified Wherfore let euery reader that knoweth any thing iudge whether you seeke any truth in this matter or whether you study to serch out vayne cauilations and yet the same being cleane contrary to the manifest wordes of holy scripture and to all approued writers Wherfore gentle reader way S. Paules wordes whether he call it bread after the sanctification or onely before and as thou findest Saynt Paule make with this mans saying that trifeleth away the truth so thou mayst beleeue him in all other thinges Hitherto is discussed how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is agaynst gods word now followeth in my booke how the same is agaynst nature Wherof I write thus Let vs now consider also how the same is agaynst naturall reason and natural operation which although they preuayle not agaynst Gods word yet when they be ioyned with Gods word they be of great moment to confirme any truth Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum that is to say that there should be any empty place wherin no substance should be But if there remayne no bread nor wine the place where they were before and where their accidents be is filled with no substance but remayneth vacuum cleane contrary to the order of nature We see also that the wine though it be consecrated yet will it tourne to vineger and the bread will mowle which then be nothing els but sower wine and mowled bread which could not wax sower nor mowly if there were no bread nor wine there at all And if the sacramentes were now brent as in the olde church they burned all that remayned vneaten let the Papistes tell what is brent They must nedes say that it is eyther bread or the body of Christ. But bread say they is none there then must they nedes burne the body of Christ and be called Christ burners as heretofore they haue burned many of his members except they will say that accidents burne alone without any substaunce contrary to all the course of nature The sacramentall bread and wine also will nourish which nourishment naturally cometh to the substaunce of the meates and drinkes and not of the accidentes The wine also will poyson as diuers bishops of Rome haue had experiences both in poysoning of other and being poysoned them selues which poysoning they can not ascribe to the most holsome bloud of our Sauiour Christ but onely to the poysoned wine And most of all it is agaynst the nature of accidents to be in nothing For that definition of accidents is to be in some substance so that if they be they must nedes be in some thing And if they be in nothing than they be not And a thousād thinges moe of like foolishnes do the Papistes affirme by their transubstantiation contrary to all nature and reason As that two bodies be in one place and one body in many places at one tyme and that substances be gendred of accidents onely and accidents conuerted into substances and a body to be in a place and occupy no roume and generation to be without corruption and corruption without generation and that substances be made of nothing and turned into nothing with many such like thinges agaynst all order and principles of nature and reason Winchester In the third chapiter written in the xxi leafe it troubleth this author that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is in his iudgement agaynst naturall reason and naturall operation in the entry of which matter he graunteth wisely that they should not preuayle agaynst gods worde and yet he sayth when they be ioyned with gods word they be of great moment to confirme any truth wherin if he meaneth to confirme Gods worde by reason or gods misteries by naturall operation myne vnderstanding cannot reach that doctrine and is more strange to me then this author maketh Transubstantiation to be to him As for the reason of vacuum declareth a vacuum that nature abhorreth not And if we speake after the rules of nature quantity filleth the place rather than substaunce And shortly to answere this Author it is not sayd in the doctrine of Transubstantiation that there remayneth nothing for in the visible forme of bread remayneth the proper obiect of euery sence truely that is seene with the bodely eye is truely seene that is felt is truely felt that is sauored is truely sauored and those thinges corrupt putrifie norish and consume after the truth of the former nature God so ordering it that creat all vsing singularly that creature of bread not to vnite it vnto him as he did mans nature to be in bread impanate breaded as he was in flesh incarnate And as for reason in place of seruice as being inferiour to sayth will agree with the fayth of Transubstantiation well inough For if our fayth of the true presence of Christes very body be true as it is most true grounded vpon these wordes of Christ This is my body then reason yelding to that truth will not striue with Transubstantiation but playnly affirme that by his iudgement if it be the body of Christ it is not bread For in the rule of common reason the graunt of one substance is the deniall of an other and therfore reason hath these conclusions throughly whatsoeuer is bread is no wine whatsoeuer is wine is no milke and so forth And therfore being once beleued this to be the body of Christ reason sayth by and by it is not bread by the rule aforesayd wherby appeareth how reason doth not striue with Transubstantiation being once conquered with sayth of the true presence of Christes body which is most euident and
it is not taken for the substance as you would fayne haue it but for the property For the substance of bread still remayning in them that duely receaue the same the property of carnall nourishment is changed into a spirituall nourishment as more largely in myne answer to you in that place shall be declared And where you would somewhat releue your selfe by certayne words of Chrisostome which immediatly follow the sentence by me alleadged which wordes be these that the bread after consecration is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne of God vpon which wordes you would gather your Transubstantiation how effectuall your argument is in this matter may appeare by an other like Steuen Gardiner after he was consecrated was called the byshop of Winchester and not two byshoppes but one bishop ergo Steuen Gardiner was transubstantiate And a counter layd by an Auditour for a thousand poundes is not then called a counter but a thousand poundes ergo it is transubstantiated And the man and wife after mariage be called but one body ergo there is Transubstantiation This must be the fourme of your argument if you will proue Transubstantiation by these wordes of Chrisostome Now come we to S. Ambrose At the same tyme was S. Ambrose who declareth the alteration of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ not to be such that the nature and substance of bread and wine be gone but that thorough grace there is a spirituall mutation by the mighty power of God so that he that worthely eateth of that bread doth spiritually eate Christ and dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him For sayth S. Ambrose speaking of this change of bread into the body of Christ if the word of God be of that force that it can make thinges of nought and those thinges to be which neuer were before much more it can make thinges that were before still to be also to be changed into other thinges And he bringeth for example here of the change of vs in baptisme wherin a man is so changed as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebius that he is made a new creature and yet his substance remayneth the same that was before Winchester Saynt Ambrose doth not as this Author would haue it impugne Transubstantiation but confirmeth it most playnly bicause he teacheth the true presence of Christes body in the sacrament which he sayth is by change and thinges still remayning and that may be verefied in the outward visible matter that is to say the accidents remayning with their proper effects which therfore may worthely be called thinges And here I would aske this Author if his teaching as he pretendeth were the catholike fayth and the bread onely signified Christes body what should nede this force of Gods word that S. Ambrose speaketh of to bring in the creation of the world wherby to induce mans fayth in this mistery to the belefe of it As for the example of Baptisme to show the change in mans soule wherof I haue spoken declaring Emissene serueth for an induction not to leane to our outward sences ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther bycause we see none outward experience of it but els it is not necessary that the resemblance shall answere in equality otherwise then as I sayd afore each part answering his conuenient proportion and as for their comparison of resemblance Baptisme with the sacrament this author in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thinke deny but man by regeneration of his soule in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth that it is not partaker of holines by this consecration but howsoeuer this author in his owne doctrine snarleth him selfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the consecration the body of Christ which is an vndoubted affirmation then to be no bread howsoeuer the accidents of bread do remayne Caunterbury SAynt Ambrose teacheth not the reall and corporall presence of Christs body in the sacrament as I haue proued sufficiently in my former booke the 64. 81. and 82. leaues and in myne answere vnto you in this booke But agaynst Transubstantiation he teacheth playnly that after consecration not onely thinges remayne but also that the thinges changed still remayne And what is this but a flatte condemnation of your imagined Transubstantiation For if the thinges changed in the sacrament do still remayne and the substances of bread and wine be changed then it followeth that theire substances remayne and be not transubstantiated so that your vntrue and crafty shift will not releeue your matter any whit when you say that the accidence of bread is bread wherin all the world knoweth how much you erre from the truth And better it had bene for you to haue kept such sayings secret vnto your selfe which no man can speake without blushing except he be past all shame than to shew your shamefull shiftes open vnto the world that all men may see them And specially when the shewing therof onely discouereth your shame and easeth you nothing at all For the accidences be not changed as you say your selfe but the substances And then if the thinges that be changed remayue the substance must remayne and not be transubstantiated And S. Ambrose bringeth forth to good purpose the creation of the world to shew the wonderfull worke of God aswell in the spirituall regeneration and spirituall feeding and nourishing of the liuely members of Christes body as in the creation and conseruation of the world And therfore Dauid calleth the spirituall renouation of man by the name of creation saying Cor mundum crea in me Deus O God create in me a new hart And as for any further answer here vnto Ambrose nedeth not but bicause you referre you here to Emissene they which be indifferent may read what I haue answered vnto Emissene a little before and so iudge Now let vs examine S. Augustine And S. Augustine about the same tyme wrote thus That which you see in the alter is the bread and the cup which also your eyes do shew you But fayth sheweth further that bread is the body of Christ the cupper his bloud Here he declareth two thinges that in the sacrament remayneth bread and wine which we may discerne with our eyes and that the bread and wine be called the body and bloud of Christ. And the same thing he declareth also as playnly in an other place saying The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thinges of the visible kind of the element and of the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ both of the sacrament and of the thinge signified by the sacrament Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man forasmuch as he is very God and very man For euery thing cōteineth in it the very nature of those thinges wherof it consisteth
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
agayne once assended into heauen and there sitteth and shall sit at the right hand of his father euermore although spiritually he be euery day amongst vs and who so euer come togither in his name he is in the middest among them And he is the spirituall pasture and food of our soules as meat and drincke is of our bodyes which he signifieth vnto vs by the institution of his most holy supper in the bread and wine declaring that as the bread and wine corporally comfort and feed our bodyes so doth he with his flesh and bloud spiritually comfort and feed our soules And now may be easely answered the Papistes argument wherof they do so much boast For bragge they neuer so much of their conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet that conuersion is spirituall and putteth not away the corporall presence of the materiall bread and wine But for as much as the same is a most holy sacrament of our spirituall norishment which we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ there must needes remayne the sensible element that is to say bread and wine without the which there can be no sacrament As in our spirituall regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme if there be no water For as baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spirituall regeneration without there be aswell the element of water as the holy ghost spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised which is signified by the sayd water euen so the supper of the Lord can be no perfect Sacrament of spirituall food except there be as well bread and wine as the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spiritually feeding vs which by the sayd bread and wine is signified And how so euer the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ be there present they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine as with the accidents of the same as the scholeauthors do confesse them selues and it shall be well proued if the aduersaries will deny it Thus you see the strongest argument of the Papistes answered vnto and the chiefe foundation wherupon they buyld their errour of Transubstantiation vtterly subuerted and ouerthrowen Winchester Wherein this author not seeing how little he hath done concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him entending to shew that the doctrine of Transubstantiation dependeth onely of authority which is not so using the sayinges of Duns and Gabriell as he reporteth them for his purpose bicause they as he sayth boast themselues what they could doe if the determination of the counsaile were not and thus euery idle speach may haue estimation with this author agaynst the receaued truth And from this poynt of the matter the author of this booke maketh a passage with a litle sport at them he fanâ—â—eth or liketh to call so English Papistes by the way to enterprise to answere all such as he supposeth reasons for Transubstantiation and authorities also First he findeth himselfe mirth in divissing as he calleth them the Papistes to say that Christ is made a new which fansie if it were so is agaynst the reall presence as well as transubstantiation In which wordes bicause euery wise reader may see how this author playeth I will say no more but this Christ is not made a new nor made of the substance of bread as of a matter and that to be the Catholique doctrine this author if he be right named knoweth well enough and yet spendeth two leaues in it Caunterbury WHen I haue proued most euidently as well by the testimony of the scripture as by the consent of the olde authors of Christes church both greekes and Latines from the beginning continually from tyme to tyme that transubstantiation is agaynst gods most holy word agaynst the olde church of Christ agaynst all experience of our sences agaynst all reason and agaynst the doctrine of all ages vntill the Bishops of Rome deuised the contrary therfore I conclude that the sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation may iustely be called the Romish or papisticall doctrine And where I haue shewed further that the chiefe pillers of the papisticall doctrine as Duns Gabriell Durand with other do acknowledge that if it had not bene for the determination of the church of Rome they would haue thought otherwise which is a most certayne argument that this doctrine of Transubstantiation came from Rome and therfore is worthely called a papisticall doctrine all this must be answered with these wordes as this author reporteth and Duns and Gabriell boast what they could do wheras neither Duns nor any of the other eyther bragge or bost but playnly and franckely declare what they thinke And if I report then otherwise then they say reproue me therfore and tell me wherin But these be but shiftes to shake of the matter that you cannot answer vnto Therfore vntill you haue made me a more full and direct answer I am more confirmed in my assertion to call transubstantiation a papisticall doctrine then I was before But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader whose scholler I was in Cambridge almost forty yeares passed who when he came to any hard chapiter which he well vnderstoode not he would find some preaty toy to shift it of and to scip ouer vnto an other chapiter which he could better skill of The same is a common practise of you through out your whole booke that when any thing in my booke presseth you so sore that you cannot answere it then finely with some mery iest or vnsemely taunt you passe it ouer and go to some other thing that you perswade yourselfe you can better answere which sleight you vse here in ii matters togither the one is where I proue the doctrine of Transubstantiation to come from Rome the other is that of your sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation it followeth that Christ euery day is made a new and of a new matter In which ii matters you craftely slide away from myne arguments and answere not to one of them Wherfore I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader whither you ought not to be taken for conuinced in these ii poyntes vntill such tyme as you haue made a full answere to my profes and arguments For where you say that Christ is not made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter this is but a slippery euasion For if Christ be made of bread eyther he is made of the matter of bread or of the forme therof But the fourme say you remayneth and is not turned into Christes body Therfore if Christ be made of bread you must needes graunt that he is made of the matter of bread Now for the the answere to the second reason of the Papistes my booke hath thus An other reason haue they of like strength If the bread should remayne say they than should follow many absurdities and chiefly that Christ hath taken the
all is one thing and one reason For in vs they be done by little and little but God worketh the same sodenly in one moment And yet if you had well considered the matter you should not haue found the sacraments of God likesoppes wherin licour is poured but you should haue found pouring an apt word to expresse the abundance of gods working by his grace in the ministration of his holy sacraments For when there cometh a small rayne then we say it droppeth or there is a few droppes but when there cometh a great multitude of rayne togither for the great abundance of it we vse in common speach to say it poureth downe So that this word pouring is a very apt word to expresse the multitude of Gods mercies and the plentifulnes of his grace poured into them whome he loued declared and exhibited by his wordes and sacraments And howsoeuer you be disposed by iesting and scoffing to mocke out all thinges as your disposition hath bene euer giuen to reprehend thinges that were well yet the indifferent reader may iudge by this one place among many other that you seeke rather an occasion to brable without cause and with idle wordes to draw your booke out at length then to seeke or teach any truth And if I should play and scoffe in such a matter as you doe I might dally with the word of Infusion as you do with the word powring For as you reiect my word of powring bicause some fond reader might fantasy that bread in the sacrament to be like a soppe wherin licour were powred by like reason may I reiect your English Latin of infuding bicause such a reader might fantasy therby the bread to be like water wherin the diuinity is stieped or infuded As infused rubarbe is called when it is stieped certayne houres in stilled water or wine without seething and so be roses and violets likewise infused when they be stieped in warme water to make inlep therof But as poticaries phisitions surgions and Alcumists vse wordes of Greeke Arabike and other strange langwages purposely therby to hide their sciences from the knowledge of others so farre as they can so do you in many partes of your booke deuise many strange termes and strange phrases of speach to obscure and darken therby the matter of the sacrament and to make the same meete for the capacities of very few which Christ ordayned to be vnderstanded and exercised of all men At the last as you say you come to your purpose not to open the truth but to hide it as much as you may and to gather of Ciprians wordes your owne faining and not his meaning who ment nothing lesse then eyther of any Transubstantiation or of the corporall presence of Christ in the bread and wine And to set out Ciprians mynde in few wordes he speaketh of the eating and not of the keeping of the bread which when it is vsed in the Lordes holy supper it is not onely a corporall meate to norish the body but an heauenly meate to nourish the soules of the worthy receauors the diuine maiesty inuisibly being present and by a spirituall transition and change vniting vs vnto Christ feeding vs spiritually with his flesh and bloud vnto eternall life as the bread being conuerted into the nature of our bodies fedeth the same in this mortall life And that this is the mynd of S. Ciprian is euident aswell by the wordes that go before as by the wordes following the sentence by you alleadged For a little before Ciprian writeth thus There is geuen to vs the foode of immortall life differing from common meates which reteineth the forme of corporall substance and yet proueth Gods power to be present by inuisible effect And agayne after he sayth This common bread after it is changed into flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodyes And therfore the weakenes of our fayth being holped by the customable effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the invisible sacraments is the effect of euerlasting life and that we be made one by a Transition or change not so much corporall as spirituall For he is made both bread flesh and bloud meate substance and life to his church which he calleth his body making it to be partaker of him Note well these wordes good reader and thou shalt well perceaue that Ciprian speaketh not of the bread kept and reserued but as it is a spirituall nourishment receaued in the Lordes supper and as it is frutefully broken and eaten in the remembrance of Christes death and to them that so eate it Ciprian calleth it the foode of immortall life And therfore when he sayth that in the inuisible sacrament is the effect of euerlasting life he vnderstandeth of them that worthely receaue the sacrament for to the bread and wine pertayneth not eternall life Neuertheles the visible sacrament teacheth vs that by a spirituall change we be vnited to Christes flesh and bloud who is the meate and sustenance of his church and that we be made partakers of the life euerlasting by the power of God who by his effectuall working is present with vs and worketh with his Sacraments And here is agayn to be noted that Ciprian in this place speaketh of no reall presence of Christes humanitie but of an effectuall presence of his diuine maiestie and yet the breade sayth he is a foode and nourishment of the body And thus Ciprian proueth nothing agaynst my sayinges neither of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud nor of Transubstantiation of bread and wine And where you be offended with this word spirituall it is not my deuise but vsed of S. Ciprian him selfe not past .vi. or vii lines before the wordes by you cited where he declareth the spirituall mutation or transition in the Sacraments And of the change in the sacrament of baptisme as well as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ speaketh not onely this author but also Nazianzen Emissene Chrisostome Ambrose with all the famous auncient ecclesiasticall authors And this water doth well to delay your hotte wine wherof you haue drunken so much out of the cuppe of the great whore of Babilon that the true wine representing to vs our whole redemption by the true bloud of Christ you haue clearly transubstantiate and taken away Now followeth my answere vnto Chrisostome An other authority they haue of S. Ihon Chrisostome which they boast also to be inuincible Chrisostome say they writeth thus in a certayne homily De Eucharistia Doest thou see bread Doest thou see wine Do they auoyde beneth as other meates do God forbid thinke not so For as waxe if it be put into the fire it is made like the fire no substāce remayneth nothing is lefte here so also thinke thou that the misteries be consumed by the substance of the body At these wordes of Chrisostome the Papists do triumph as though they had won the field Loe
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
AN AVNSVVERE BY THE REVEREND FATHER in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitane Vnto a craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour IESV CHRIST Wherein is also as occasion serueth aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng Here is also the true Copy of the booke written and in open Court deliuered by D. Stephen Gardiner not one word added or diminished but faythfully in all pointes agreeyng with the Originall Reuised and corrected by the sayd Archbyshop at Oxford before his Martyrdome Wherein hee hath beautified Gardiners doynges with asmuch diligence as might be by applying Notes in the Margent and markes to the Doctours saying which before wanted in the first Impression Hereunto is prefixed the discourse of the sayd Archbyshops lyfe and Martyrdome briefly collected out of his Hystory of the Actes and Monumentes and in the end is added certaine Notes wherein Gardiner varied both from him selfe and other Papistes gathered by the sayd Archbyshop Read with Iudgement and conferre with diligence laying aside all affection on either partie and thou shalt easely perceaue good Reader how slender and weake the allegations and perswasions of the Papistes are wherewith they goe about to defende their erroneous and false doctrine and to impugne the truth Anno. M. D. LI. AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Daye dwellyng ouer Aldersgate beneath S. Martines Anno. 1580. Cum gratia Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis A PREFACE TO THE READER I Thinke it good gentle Reader here in the begynnyng to admonish thee of certaine wordes kyndes of speaches which I do vse sometyme in this myne aunswere to the late Byshop of Winchesters book least in mistakyng thou doe as it were stumble at them First this word Sacrament I doe sometymes vse as it is many tymes taken among writers and holy Doctours for the Sacramentall bread water or wine as when they say that Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum a Sacrament is the signe of an holy thyng But where I vse to speake sometymes as the old Authors do that Christ is in the Sacramentes I mean the same as they did vnderstand the matter that is to say not of Christes carnall presence in the outward Sacrament but sometymes of his Sacramentall presence And sometyme by this word Sacrament I meane the whole ministration and receiuyng of the Sacramētes either of Baptisme or of the Lordes Supper and so the old writers many tymes doe say that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the Sacramentes not meanyng by that maner of speach that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the water bread or wine which be onely the outward visible Sacramentes but that in the due ministration of the Sacramentes accordyng to Christes ordinaunce and institution Christ and his holy spirite be truely and in deede present by their mightie and sanctifiyng power vertue and grace in all them that worthely receiue the same Moreouer when I say and repeat many tymes in my book that the body of Christ is present in them that worthely receaue the Sacrament least any man should mystake my woordes and thinke that I meane that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signes yet hee is corporally in the persons that duely receiue them this is to aduertise the Reader that I meane no such thyng but my meanyng is that the force the grace the vertue and benefite of Christes body that was Crucified for vs and of his bloud that was shed for vs be really and effectually present with all them that duely receaue the Sacramentes but all this I vnderstand of his spirituall presence of the which he sayth I will be with you vntill the worldes ende And wheresoeuer two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the myddest of them And hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Nor no more truely is he corporally or really present in the due ministration of the Lordes Supper than hee is in the due ministration of Baptisme That is to say in both spiritually by grace And wheresoeuer in the Scripture it is sayd that Christ God or the holy Ghost is in any man the same is vnderstand spiritually by grace The thyrd thyng to admonish the Reader of is this that when I name Doctour Stephen Gardiner Byshop of Winchester I meane not that he is so now but forasmuch as he was Byshop of Winchester at the tyme when he wrote his booke agaynst me therfore I aunswere his booke as written by the Byshop of Winchester whiche els needed greatly none aunswere for any great learnyng or substaunce of matter that is in it The last admonition to the Reader is this where the sayd late Byshop thinketh that he hath sufficiently proued Transubstantiation that is to say that the substaunce of bread and wine can not be in the Sacrament if the body and bloud of Christ were there bycause two bodyes can not be togethers in one place although the truth be that in the Sacrament of Christes bodye there is corporallye but the substaunce of bread onelye and in the Sacrament of the bloud the substaunce of wine onelye yet how farre hee is deceiued and doth vary from the doctrine of other Papistes and also from the principles of Philosophy whiche he taketh for the foundation of his doctrine in this point the Reader hereby may easely perceiue For if we speake of Gods power the Papistes affirme that by Gods power two bodyes may be together in one place and then why may not Christes bloud be with the wyne in the cup and his fleshe in the same place where the substaunce of the bread is And if we consider the cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place by the rules of nature it shall euidently appeare that the body of Christ may rather be in one place with the substaunce of the bread thē with the accidents therof and so likewise his bloud with the wine For the naturall cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place as the Philosophers say is their accidentes their bignes and thicknes and not their substaunces And then by the very order of nature it repugneth more that the body of Christ should be present with the accidentes of bread and his bloud with the accidentes of wyne then with the substaunces either of bread or wyne This shall suffice for the admonition to the Reader ioynyng thereto the Preface in my first booke whiche is this A PREFACE TO THE READER OVr Sauiour Christ Iesus according to the will of his eternall Father when the time thereto was fully complished taking our nature vpon him came into this world from the high throne of hys Father
to declare vnto miserable sinners good newes to heale them that were sicke to make the blinde to see the deafe to heare and the dumbe to speake to set prisoners at liberty to shew that the time of grace and mercy was come to giue light to them that were in darknes and in the shadow of death and to preach and geue pardon and full remission of sinne to all his elected And to performe the same he made a sacrifice and oblation of his owne body vpon the crosse which was a full redemption satisfaction and propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world And to commend this his sacrifice vnto all his faythfull people and to confirme their fayth and hope of eternall saluation in the same he hath ordayned a perpetuall memory of his sayd sacrifice dayly to be vsed in the Church to his perpetuall laud and prayse and to our synguler comfort and consolation That is to say the celebration of his holy supper wherein he doth not cease to geue himselfe with all his benefites to all those that duely receiue the same supper according to his blessed ordinaunce But the Romish Antichrist to deface this great benefite of Christ hatht that his sacrifice vpon the crosse is not sufficient hereunto without any other sacrifice deuised by him and made by the priest or els without Indulgences Beades Pardons Pilgrimages and such other Pelfray to to supply Christes imperfection And that Christen people cannot applye to themselues the benefytes of Christes passion but that the same is in the distribution of the Byshop of Rome or els that by Christ we haue no full remission but be deliuered onely from sinne and yet remaineth temporall payne in Purgatory due for the same to be remitted after this life by the Romish Antichrist and his ministers who take vpon them to do for vs that thing which Christ either would not or could not do O haynous blasphemy most detestable iniury against Christ. O wicked abhomination in the temple of God O pride intollerable of Antechrist and most manifest token of the sonne of perdition extolling himselfe aboue God and with Lucifer exalting his seat and power aboue the throne of God For he that taketh vpon him to supply that thing which he pretendeth to be vnperfect in Christ must nedes make himself aboue Christ so very Antichrist For what is this els but to be agaynst Christ and to bring him in contempt as one that either for lack of charity would not or for lack of power he could not with all his bloudshedding and death cleerely deliuer his faythfull and geue them full remission of their sinnes but that the full perfection thereof must be had at the handes of Antichrist of Rome and his ministers What man of knowledge and zeale to Gods honour can with dry eyes see this iniury to Christ and look vpon the estate of religion brought in by the Papists perceiuing the true sence of Gods wordes subuerted by false gloses of mans deuising the true christen religion turned into certayne hypocriticall and superstitious sectes the people praying with their mouthes and hearing with theyr eares they wist not what and so ignoraunt in Gods word that they could not discerne hypocrisy and superstition from true and sincere religion This was of late yeares the face of religion within this realme of England and yet remayneth in diuers realmes But thankes be to almighty God and to the Kinges Maiesty with his father a Prince of most famous memory the superstitious sectes of Monks and fryers that were in this realme be cleane taken away the scripture is restored vnto the proper and true vnderstanding the people may daylye read and heare Gods heauenly word and pray in their owne language which they vnderstand so that their hartes and mouthes may goe together and be none of those people whome Christ complayned saying These people honour me with their lips but their hartes be farre from me Thankes be to God many corrupt weedes be plucked vp which were wont to rot the flock of Christ and to let the growing of the Lords haruest But what auayleth it to take away beades pardons pilgremages and such other like Popery so long as two chiefe rootes remayne vnpulled vp whereof so long as they remayne will spring agayne all former impediments of the Lords haruest and corruption of his flocke The rest is but braunches and leaues the cutting away wherof is but like topping loppyng of a tree or cutting downe of weedes leauing the body standing and the rootes in the ground but the very body of the tree or rather the rootes of the weedes is the Popish doctrine of Transubstātiation of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the sacrament of the aulter as they call it and of the sacrifice and oblation of Chryste made by the priest for the saluation of the quicke and the dead Which rootes if they be suffered to grow in the Lordes vineyard they will ouerspread all the ground agayne with the old errors and superstitions These iniuries to Chryst be so intollerable that no christen hart can willingly beare them Wherfore seing that many haue set to their hands whetted their tooles to plucke vp the weedes and to cut down the tree of error I not knowing otherwise how to excuse my selfe at the last day haue in this booke set to my hand and axe with the rest to cut downe this tree and to pluck vp the weedes and plants by the roots which our heauenly father neuer planted but were grafted and sowen in his vineyard by his aduersary the deuil Antichrist his minister The lord graūt that this my trauaile and labour in his vineyard be not in vayn but that it may prosper and bring forth good fruites to his honor and glory For when I see his vineyard ouergrowen with thornes brambles aud weedes I know that euerlasting woe appertayneth vnto me if I hold my peace and put not to my handes and tounge to labour in purging his vineyard God I take to witnes who seeth the hartes of all men thorowly vnto the bottome that I take this labour for none other consideration but for the glory of hys name and the discharge of my duty and the zeale that I beare toward the flocke of Christ. I know in what office God hath placed me and to what purpose that is to say to set forth hys word truely vnto his people to the vttermost of my power without respect of person or regard of thing in the world but of him alone I know what account I shall make to him here of at the last day when euery man shall aunswere for his vocation and receiue for the same good or ill according as he hath done I know how Antichrist hath obscured the glory of god the true knowledge of his word ouercasting the same with mistes and cloudes of errour and ignoraunce through false gloses and interpretations It pittieth me
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
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
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
in the sacrament I graunt that he is really present after such sort as you expound really in this place that is to say indede and yet but spiritually For you say your selfe that he is but after a spirituall maner there and so is he spiritually honored as S Augustine sayth But as concerning heat of disputation marke well the wordes of S. Augustine good reader cited in my booke and thou shalt see clerely that all this multiplication of wordes is rather a iugling then a direct answer For saynt Augustine writeth not in heate of disputation but temperatly and grauely to a learned Bishop his deare frend who demanded a question of him And if Saynt Augustine had aunswered in heate of disputation or for any other respect otherwise then the truth he had not done the part of a friend nor of a learned and godly Bishop And who so euer iudgeth so of Saynt Augustine hath small estimation of him and sheweth him selfe to haue litle knowledge of Saynt Augustine But in this your answer to saynt Augustine you vtter where you learned a good part of your diuinitie that is of Albertus Pighius who is the father of this shift and with this fleight eludeth Saynt Augustin when he could no otherwise answer As you do now shake of the same Saynt Augustine resembling as it were in that poynt the liuely countenauÌ„ce of your father Pighius Next in my booke foloweth Theodoret And to this purpose it is both pleasaunt comfortable and profitable to read Theodoretus in his Dialogs where he disputeth and sheweth at length how the names of things be chaunged in scripture and yet thinges remayne still And for example he proueth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vayle or coueryng sometime a cloth sometyme a vestment and sometyme a stole the bloud of the grape is called Christes bloud and the names of bread and wine and of his flesh and bloud Christ doth so chaunge that sometyme he calleth his body corne or bread and sometime contrary he calleth bread his body And likewise his bloud sometime he calleth wine and sometime contrary he calleth wine his bloud For the more playne vnderstanding wherof it shall not be amisse to recite his owne sayings in his foresayd dialogs touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud The speakers in these dialogs be Orthodoxus the right beleuer and Eranistes his companyon but not vnderstanding the right fayth Orthodoxus saith to his companion Doost thou not know that god caleth bread his flesh Eran. I know that Orth. And in an other place he calleth his body corne Eran. I know that also for I haue heard him say The houre is come that the sonne of man shal be glorified c. Except the grayne of come that falleth in the ground dye it remayneth sole but if it dye then it bringeth forth much fruite Orth. When he gaue the mysteries of sacraments he called bread his body and that which was mixt in the cup he called bloud Eran. So he called them Orth. But that also which was his naturall body may well be called his body and his very bloud also may be called his bloud Eran. It is playne Orth. But our sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to the body the name of the signe or token and to the token he gaue the name of the body And so wheÌ„ he called himself a vyne he called bloud that which was the token of bloud Eran. Surely thou hast spokeÌ„ the truth But I would know the cause wherfore the names were changed Orth. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments should not set their mindes vpon the nature of the things which they see but by the changing of the names should beleue the things which be wrought in them by grace For he that called that which is his naturall body corne and bred and also called himselfe a vyne he did honor the visible tokeÌ„s and signes with the names of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not Ortho. Seyng then that it is certayne that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell and that now we be entred to speak of godly sacraments tell me truely of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a tokeÌ„ and figure of Christes diuinity or of his body and bloud Eran. It is cleare that it is the figure of those thinges whereof it beareth the name Orth. Meanest thou of his body and bloud Eran. Euen so I meane Orth. Thou hast spoken as one that loueth the truth for the Lord when he tooke the token or signe he sayd not This is my diuinity but This is my body this is my bloud And in an other place The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whiche I will geue for the life of the world Eran. These things be true for they be Gods words All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue ' And in the second he writeth the same in effect yet in some thing more playnly agaynst such heretiques as affirmed that after Christes resurrection ascention his humanity was changed from the very nature of man turned into his diuinity Agaynst whom thus he writeth Orth. Corruption healeth sicknes and death be accedents for they goe come Era. It is meet they be so called Orth. Mens bodies after their resurrection be delyuered from corruption death mortalitie and yet they lose not theyr proper nature Eran. Truth it is ' Orth. The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption death and is impassible immortall glorified with the glory of God is honored of the powers of heauen and it is a body hath the same bignes that it had before Era. Thy saying seeme true according to reason but after he was ascended vp into heauen I thinke thou wilt not say that his body was not tourned into the nature of his godhead Orth. I would not so say for the persuation of mans reason nor I am not so arrogant and presumptious to affirme any thing which scripture passeth ouer in silence But I haue heard S. Paule cry that God hath ordayned a day when he will iudge all the world in iustice by that man which he appoynted before performing his promise to all men and raysing him from death I haue learned also of the holy angels that he will come aâ—ter that fashion as his disciples saw him goe to heauen But they saw a nature of a certayn bignesse not a nature which had no bignes I heard furthermore the lord say You shall see the sonne of man come in the cloudes of heauen And
I know that euery thing that men see hath a certayne bignes For that nature that hath no bignes can not be seene Moreouer to sit in the throne of glory and to sette the Lambes vpon his right hand and the goates vpon his left hand signifieth a thing that hath quantitie and bygnes Hitherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes and shortly after Eranistes sayth Eran. We must tourne euery stone as the prouerb sayth to seeke out the truth but specially when godly matters be propounded Orth. Tell me than the sacramentall signes which be offered to God by his priestes wherof be they signes sayst thou Eran. Of the Lordes body and bloud Orth. Of a very body or not of a very body Eran. Of a very body Orth. Very well for an image must be made after a true paterne for Paynters follow nature and paynt the images of such thinges as we see with our eyes Eran. Truth it is Orth. If therfore the godly sacramentes represent a true body than is the Lordes body yet still a body not conuerted into the nature of his Godhead but replenished with Goddes glory Eran. It cometh in good tyme that thou makest mention of Gods sacramentes for by the same I shall proue that Christes body is tourned into an other nature Answer therfore vnto my questions Orth. I shall answer Eran. What callest thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the priest Orth. We must not speake playnly for it is like that some be present which haue not professed Christ. Eran. Answer couertly Orth. It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like Eran. Than how call we the other signe Orth. It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drinke Eran. But how doest thou call them after the sanctification Orth. The body of Christ and the bloud of Christ. Eran. And doest thou beleue that thou art made partaker of Christes body and bloud Orth. I beleue so Eran. Therfore as the tokens of Gods body and bloud be other thinges before the priestes inuocation but after the inuocation they be chaunged and be other things so also the body of Christ after his assumption is chaunged into his deuine substaunce Ortho. Thou art taken with thine owne nette For the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and may be seene and touched as well as before yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Therfore cōpare their images to the paterne and thou shalt see them like For figure must be like to the thing it selfe For Christes body hath his former fashion figure and bignesse and to speake at one word the same substance of his body but after his resurrection it was made immortall and of such power that no corruption nor death could come vnto it and it was exalted vnto that dignity that it was sette at the right hand of the father and honoured of all creatures as the body of him that is the Lord of nature Eran. But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name for it is no more called as it was before but is called Christes body Therfore must his body after his ascention be called God and not a body Orth. Thou semest to me ignorant for it is not called his body onely but also the bread of lyfe as the Lord called it So the body of Christ we call a godly body a body that giueth life Gods body the Lordes body our masters body name ning that it is not a common body as other mennes bodies be but that it is the body of our Lord Iesu Christ both God and man This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus whom some of the Papists perceiuing to make so playnly agaynst them haue defamed saying that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition which is euen in a manifest matter rather to lie without shame than to giue place vnto the truth and confesse their owne errour And although his aduersaries falsely bruted such a fame agaynst him whan he was yet a liue neuerthelesse he was purged therof by the whole Councell of Calcedon about a leuen hundred yeares agoe And furthermore in his booke which he wrote agaynst heresies he specially condemneth Nestorius by name And also all his iij. bookes of his dialogues before rehersed he wrot chiefly agaynst Nestorius and was neuer here in noted of error this thousand yeare but hath euer bene reputed and taken for an holy Byshop a great learned man and a graue author vntill now at this present tyme whan the Papistes haue nothing to answer vnto him they begin in excusing of them selues to defame him Thus much haue I spoken for Theodoretus which I pray thee be not weary to read good reader but often and with delectation deliberation and good aduertisement to read For it conteineth playnly and breefly the true instruction of a Christian man concerning the matter which in this booke we treate vpon First that our sauiour Christ in his last supper whan he gaue bread and wine to his apostles saying This is my body This is my bloud it was bread which he called his body and wine mixed in the cup which he called his bloud so that he changed the names of the bread and wine which were the misteries sacramentes fignes figures and tokens of Christes flesh and bloud and called them by the names of the thinges which they did represent and signifie that is to say the bread he called by the name of his very flesh and the wine by the name of his bloud Second that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification yet neuertheles the thinges them selues remayned the selfe same that they were before the sanctification that is to say the same bread and wine in nature substance form and fashion The thyrd seing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed why be then their names changed and the bread called Christes flesh and the wine his bloud Theodoretus sheweth that the cause therof was this that we should not haue so much respect to the bread and wyne which we see with our eyes and tast with our mouthes as we should haue to Christ him selfe in whome we beleue with our hartes and fele and tast him by our faith and with whose flesh and bloud by his grace we beleue that we be spiritually fedde and norished These thinges we ought to remember the reuolue in our myndes and to lift vp our hartes from the bread and wine vnto Christ that sitteth aboue And bicause we should so do therfore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine but the body and bloud of Christ. The forth It is in these sacramentes of bread and wine
as it is in the very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and after is al one in nature substance bignes forme and fashion and yet it is not called as an other common body but with addition for the dignitie of his exaltation it is called a heauenly a godly an immortall and the lordes body so likewise the bread and wine before the consecration and after is all one in nature substance bignes form and fashion and yet it is not called as other common bread but for the dignitie wherunto it is taken it is called with addition Heauenly bread The bread of life and the bread of thankes giueng The fift that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to affirme for a certayne truth in religion any thing which is not spoken of in holy scripture And this is spoken to the great and vtter condemnation of the Papistes which make and vnmake newe articles of our fayth from tyme to tyme at their pleasure without any scripture at all yea quite and clean contrary to scripture And yet wyll they haue all men bound to beleue what soeuer they inuent vpon perill of damnation and euerlasting fyre And yet wil they constrayne with fyre and fagot all men to consent contrary to the manifest wordes of God to these their errours in this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes body and bloud First that there remayneth no bread nor wine after the consecration but that Christes flesh and bloud is made of them Second that Christes body is really corporally substantially sensibly and naturally in the bread and wine Thirdly that wicked persons do eat and drincke Christes very body and bloud Fourthly that priestes offer Christ euery day and make of him a new sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Thus for shortnes of tyme I doe make an end of Theodoretus with other old auncient writers which do most clearly affirme that to eat Christes body and to drink his bloud be figuratiue speaches And so be these sentenses likewise which Christ spake at his supper This is my body This is my bloud Winchester The author bringeth in Theodoret a greek whom to discusse particularly wer lōg tedious one notable place there is in him which toucheth the poynt of the mater which place Peter Marter alleageth in greek and then translateth it into Latin not exactly as other haue done to the truth but as he hath done I will write in here And then will I wryte the same translated into english by one that hath translated Peter Marters booke and then will I adde the translation of this author and finally the very truth of the Latine as I will abide by and ioyn an issue with this author in it wherby thou reader shalt perceaue with what sinceritie thinges be handled Peter Marter hath of Theodoret this in Latin which the same Theodoret in a disputation with an Heritique maketh the catholique man to say Captus es ijs quae tetenderas retibus Neque enim post sancti ficationem mistica simbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur manent enim in priori sua substantia figura specie adeoque videntur palpantur quemadmodum antea Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur tanquam ea existentia quae creduntur He that translateth Peter Marter in english doth expresse these wordes thus Lo thou art new caught in the same nette which thou haddest sette to catche me in For those same misticall signes do not depart away out of their owne proper nature after the hallowing of them For they remayne still in their former substance and their former shape and their former kind and are euen as well seene and felte as they were afore But the thinges that are done are vnderstanded and are beleued and are worshiped euen as though they were in very deede the thinges that are beleued This is the common translation into English of Peter Marters booke translated which this author doth translate after his fashion thus Thou art taken with thine owne nette for the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and be seen and touched as well as before Yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Thus is the translation of this author Myne English of this latine is thus Thou art taken with the same nettes thou diddest lay forth For the misticall tokens after the sanctification go not away out of their proper nature For they abide in their former substance shape and forme and so far forth that they may be seene and felt as they might before But they be vnderstanded that they be made and are beleued and are worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued This is my translation who in the first sentence meane not to vary from the other translations touching the remayne of substance shape forme or figure I will vse all these names But in the second parte where Theodoret speaketh of our beleefe what the tokens be made and where he sayth those tokens be worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued thou mayst see reader how this author flieth the wordes beleue and worship which the common translation in english doth playnly and truly expresse how soeuer the translator swarued by colour of the word tanquam which there after the greeke signifieth the truth and not the similitude onely like as saynt Paule Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam sint which is to make to be indeed not as though they were And the greeke is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it were an absurditie to beleue thinges otherwise then they be as though they were and very Idolatrie to worship wittingly that is not as though it were in dede And therfore in these two words that they beleued that they be made and be worshiped is declared by Theodoret his fayth of the very true reall presence of Christs glorious flesh wherunto the Deitie is vnited Which fleshe S. Augustine consonantly to this Theodoret sayd must be worshiped before it be receiued The word worshiping put here in english is to expresse the word Adorantur put by Peter in latine signifieng adoring being the verbe in Greke of such signification as is vsed to expresse godly worship with bowing of the knée Now reader what should I say by this author that conueieth these two wordes of beleuing and worshiping and in stede of them cometh in with reuerence taking reputing and esteming wherof thou mayst esteme how this place of Theodoret pinched this author who could not but see that adoring of the sacramēt signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored which els were an absurditie and therfore the author toke payne to
ease it with other wordes of calling beleuing reputing and esteming and for adoration reuerence Consider what prayse this author geueth Theodoret which prayse condemneth this author sore For Theodoret in his doctrine would haue vs beleue the mistery and adore the sacrament where this author after in his doctrine professeth there is nothing to be worshiped at all If one should now say to me Yea syr but this Theodoret semeth to condemne transubstantiation bicause he speaketh so of the bread Therunto shall be answered when I speake of transubstantiation which shall be after the iij. and iiij booke discussed For before the truth of the presence of the substance of Christes body may appeare what should we talke of transubstantiation I will trauayle no more in Theodoret but leaue it to thy iudgment reader what credite this author ought to haue that handleth the mater after this sorte Canterbury THis blader is so puffed vp with wind that it is maruayll it brasteth not Bnt be patient a while good reader and suffer vntill the blast of wind be past and thou shalt see a great calme the bladder broken and nothing in it but all vanitie Ther is no difference betwene your translation and mine sauing that myne is more playne and geueth lesse occasion of errour and youres as all your doinges be is darke and obscure and conteineth in it no little prouocation to Idolatrie For the wordes of Theodoret after your interpretation contayne both a playne vntruth and also manifest idolatry for the signes and tokens which he speaketh of be the very fourmes and substances of bread and wine For the nominatiue case to the verb of adoring in Theodoret is not the body and bloud of Christ but the misticall tokens by your owne translation which misticall tokens if you will haue to be the very body and bloud of Christ what can be spoken more vntrue or more folish And if you will haue them to be worshiped with godly worship what can be greater Idolatry Wherfore I to eschew such occasious of errour haue translated the wordes of Theodoretus faythfully and truly as his mynd was and yet haue auoyded all occasions of euill for tanquam or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not the truth as you say but is an aduerbe of similitude as it is likewise in this place of S. Paul Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam sint For S. Paul sayth asthough they were Which indede were not as he sayd the next word before non sunt they be not And neuerthelesse vnto God all thinges be present and those thinges which in their nature be not yet present vnto God were euer present in whome be not these successions of tyme before and after for Christ the Lambe in his present was slayne before the world began and a thousand yeare to his eyes be but as it were yesterday and one day before him is as it were a thousand yeare and a thousand yeare as one day And if you had read and considered a saying of Saynt Augustine De doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 9. you myght haue vnderstand this place of The odoret better than you do He serueth vnder a signe sayth Augustine who worketh or worshipeth any signe not knowing what it signifieth But he that worketh or worshipeth a profitable signe ordayned of God the strength and signification wherof he vnderstandeth he worshipeth not that which is seene and is transitory but rather that thing wherto all such signes ought to be referred And anon after he sayth further At this tyme when our Lord Iesus Christ is risen we haue a most manifest argument of our fredome and be not burdeined with the heauy yoke of signes which we vnderstand not but the Lord and the teaching of his Apostles hath geuē to vs a few signes for many and those most ease to be done most exellent in vnderstanding and in performing most pure as the sacrament of baptisme and the celebration of the body and bloud of our Lord which euery man when he receiueth knoweth wherunto they be referred being taught that he worship not them with a carnall bondage but rather with a spirituall fredom And as it is a vile bondage to follow the letter and to take the signes for the thinges signified by them so to interpret the signes to no profit is an errour that shewdly spreadeth abroad These wordes of Saynt Augustine being conferred with the wordes of Theodoret may declare playnly what Theodoretes meaning was For where he sayth that we may not worship with a carnall bondage the visible signes meaning of water in baptisme and of bread and wine in the holy communion when we receaue the same but rather ought to worship the thinges wherunto they be referred he ment that although those signes or sacraments of water bread and wine ought highly to be estemed and not to be taken as other common water bakers bread or wine in the tauern but as signes dedicated consecrated and referred to an holy vse and by those erthly thinges to represent thinges celestiall yet the very true honor and worship ought to be geuē to the celestial things which by the visible signes be vnderstād not to the visible signes themselues And neuertheles both S. Augustine and Theodoret count it a certayn kind of worshiping the signes the reuerent esteming of them aboue other common prophane things yet the same principally to be referred to the celestial thīgs represented by the signs and therfore sayeth S. Augustin potius rathar And this worship is as wel in the sacramēt of baptisme as in the sacrament of Christs body and bloud And therfore although whosoeuer is baptised vnto Christ or eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud in his holy supper do first honor him yet is he corporally and carnally neither in the supper nor in baptisme but spiritually and effectually Now where you leaue the iudgment of Theodoret to the reader euen so do I also not doubting but the indifferent reader shall soone espy how litle cause you haue so to boast and blow out your vayne glorious wordes as you do But heare now what followeth next in my booke And meruayle not good reader that Christ at that tyme spake in figures whan he did institute that sacrament seing that it is the nature of all sacramentes to be figures And although the scripture be full of Schemes tropes and figures yet specially it vseth them whan it speaketh of sacraments When the Ark which represented Godes maiestie was come into the army of the Isralites the Philistians sayd that God was come into the army And God him selfe sayd by his prophet Nathan that from the tyme that he had brought the Children of Israell out of Egipt he dwelled not in howses but that he was caried about in tentes and tabernacles And yet was not God him selfe so caried about or went in tentes or tabernacles but bicause the arke which was a figure of God was so remoued
from place to place he spake of him selfe that thing which was to be vnderstand of the arke And Christ him selfe often tymes spake in similitudes parables and figures as whan he sayd The field is the world the enemy is the diuell the seed is the word of God Iohn is Helias I am a vyne and you be the branches I am bread of lyfe My father is an husband man and he hath his fan in his hand and will make cleane his flower and gather the wheate into his barne but the chaffe he will cast into euerlasting fyre I haue a meat to eat which you know not Woorke not meat that perisheth but that indureth vnto euerlasting life I am a good shepherd The sonne of man will set the shepe at his right hād and the goates at his left hād I am a dore one of you is the deuyll Whosoeuer doeth my fathers will he is my brother sister and mother And when he sayd to his mother and to Iohn This is thy sonne this is thy mother These with an infinite number of lyke sentences Christ spake in Parables Metaphores tropes and figures But chiefly when he spake of the sacramētes he vsed figuratiue speaches As whan in Baptisme he sayd that we must be baptised with the holy ghost meaning of spirituall baptisme And like speach vsed S. Iohn the Baptiste saying of Christ that he should baptise with the holy ghost and fier And Christ sayd that we must be borne agayn or else we can not see the kingdom of God And sayd also Whosoeuer shall drincke of that water which I shall geue him he shall neuer be drye agayn But the water which I shall geue him shall be made with in him a well which shall spring into euerlasting life And S. Paule sayth that in baptisme we cloth vs with Christ and be buried with him This baptisme and washing by the fyre and the holy ghost this new birth this water that springeth in a man and floweth into euerlasting life and this clothing and buriall can not be vnderstand of any materiall baptisme materiall washing materiall birth clothing and buriall but by translation of thinges visible into thinges inuisible they must be vnderstand spiritually and figuratiuely After the same sort the mistery of our redemption and the passion of our sauiour Christ vpon the crosse as well in the new as in the ould testament is expressed and declared by many figures and figuratiue speaches As the pure Paschall lambe without spot signified Christ. The effusion of the lambes bloud signified the effusion of Christes bloud And the saluation of the Children of Israell from temporall death by the lambes bloud signified our saluation from eternall death by Christes bloud And as almightie God passing through Egypt killed all the Egiptians heires in euery house and left not one aliue and neuerthelesse he passed by the children of Israels houses where he sawe the Lambes bloud vpon the dores and hurted none of them but saued them all by the meanes of the Lambes bloud so likewise at the last iudgement of the whole world none shall be passed ouer and saued but that shall be found marked with the bloud of the most pure and immaculat lambe Iesus Christ. And for as much as the shedding of that lambes bloud was a token and figure of the shedding of Christes bloud than to come and for as much also as all the sacramentes and figures of the olde testament ceased and had an end in Christ least by our great vnkindnes we should peraduenture be forgetfull of the great benefite of Christ therfore at his last supper when he toke his leaue of his Apostles to depart out of the world he did make a new will and testament wherin he bequethed vnto vs cleane remission of all our sinnes and the euerlasting inheritaunce of heauen And the same he confirmed the next day with his owne bloud and death And least we should forget the same he ordayned not a yearly memory as the Pascall lambe was eaten but once euery year but a dayly remembrance he ordeined therof in bread and wine sanctified and dedicated to that purpose saying This is my body This cuppe is my bloud which is shed for the remission of sinnes Do this in remembrance of me Admonishing vs by these wordes spoken at the making of his last will and testament and at his departing out of the world bicause they should be the better remembred that whensoeuer we do eat the bread in his holy supper and drinke of that cuppe we should remember how much Christ hath done for vs and how he dyed for our sakes Therfore sayth S. Paule As often as ye shall eat this bread and drinke the cuppe you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill he come And forasmuch as this holy bread broken and the wine deuided do represent vnto vs the death of Christ now passed as the killing of the Pascall Lambe did represent the same yet to come therfore our sauiour Christ vsed the same manner of speach of bread and wine as God before vsed the Paschall Lambe For as in the old testament God sayd this is the Lordes passeby or passouer euen so sayth Christ in the new Testament This is my body This is my bloud But in the old mistery and sacrament the Lambe was not the Lordes very Passeouer or passing by but it was a figure which represented his passing by So likewise in the new Testament the bread and wine be not Christes very body and bloud but they be figures which by Christes institution be vnto the godly receauers therof Sacramentes tokens significations and representations of his very flesh and bloud instructing their fayth that as the bread and wine fede them corporally and continue this temporall lyfe so the very flesh and bloud of Christ feedeth them spiritually and giueth euerlasting lyfe And why should any man think it strange to admit a figure in these speches This is my body This is my bloud seing that the communication the same night by the Papistes owne confessions was so full of figuratiue speaches For the Apostles spake figuratiuely when they asked Christ where he would eat his passeouer or passeby And Christ him selfe vsed the same figure when he sayd I haue much desired to eate this passeouer with you Also to eat Christes body and to drink his bloud I am sure they will not say that it is taken properly to eate and drink as we doe eate other meates and drinkes And when Christ sayd This cup is a new testament in my bloud here in one sentence be two figures one in this word cup which is not taken for the cup it selfe but for the thing conteined in the cup an other is in this word testament for neither the cup nor the wine contayned in the cup is Christes testament but is a token signe and figure wherby is
doubt not but the priest would haue absteined from ministration vnto more opportunitie and more accesse of Christian people as he would haue done likewise in saying of mattens and preaching Wherfore in your case I might well answer you as S. Hierom answered the argument made in the name of the heretike Iouinian which myght be brought agaynst the commendation of virginitie What if all men would liue virgines and no man marry How should then the world be mayntayned What if heauen fall sayd S. Hierom What if no man will come to the church is your argument for all that came in those dayes receaued the communion What if heauen fall say I For I haue not so euill opinion of the holy church in those dayes to think that any such thing could chaunce among them that no one would come when all ought to haue come Now when you come to your issue you make your case to straight for me to ioyne an issue with you bynding me to the bare and onely wordes of Clement and refusing vtterly his mynd But take the wordes and the mynd together and I dare aduenture an Issue to passe by any indiferent readers that I haue proued all my three notes And where you say that vpon occasion of this epistle I speake more reuerently of the sacrament then I do in other places if you were not giuen all together to calumniate and depraue my words you should perceaue in all my booke thorough euen from the beginning to the end therof a constant and perpetuall reuerence giuen vnto the sacramentes of Christ such as of dutie all Christian men ought to giue Neuerthelesse you interpret this word Wherin farre from my meaning For I meane not that Christ is spiritually eyther in the table or in the bread and wine that be sette vpon the table but I meane that he is present in the ministration and receauing of that holy supper according to his owne institution and ordinaunce Like as in baptisme Christ and the holy ghost be not in the water or fonte but be giuen in the ministration or to them thāt be duly baptised in the water And although the sacramental tokens be onely significations and figures yet doth almighty God effectually work in them that duely receaue his sacramentes those deuine and celestiall operations which he hath promised and by the sacramentes be signified For else they were vayne and vnfrutfull Sacramentes as well to the godly as to the vngodly And therfore I neuer sayd of the whole supper that it is but a significatiō or a bare memory of Christes death but I teach that it is a spirituall refreshing wherein our soules be fedde and nourished with Christes very flesh and bloud to eternall life And therfore bring you forth some place in my booke where I say that the Lordes suppper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same or else eate your wordes agayne and knowledge that you vntruly report me But heare what followeth further in my book Here I passe ouer Ignatius and Ireneus which make nothing for the papists opinions but stand in the commendation of the holy Communion and in exhortation of all men to the often and godly receauing therof And yet neither they nor no man else can extoll and commend the same sufficiently according to the dignitie therof if it be godly vsed as it ought to be Winchester This author sayth he passeth ouer Ignatius and Ireneus and why Bicause they make nothing he sayth for the Papistes purpose With the word papist the author playth at his pleasure But it shal be euident that Irene doth playnly confound this authors purpose in the deniall of the true presence of Christes very flesh in the sacramēt who although he vse not the wordes reall and substanciall yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speach of the sacrameut the vertue aud strength of those wordes And for the truth of the sacrament is Ireneus specially alleaged in so much as Melanghton when he writeth to Decolampadius that he will alleage none but such as speake playnly he alleageth Ireneus for one as apeareth by his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius And Decolampadius himselfe is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape any manner of euasion as to answer Ireneus in whome he notably stumbleth And Peter Martyr in his work graunteth Irene to be specially alledged to whome when he goeth about to answer a man may euidently see how he masketh him selfe And this author bringeth in Clementes epistle of which no great count is made although it be not contemned and passeth ouer Ireneus that speaketh euidently in the matter and was as old as Clement or not much yonger And bicause Ignatius was of that age and is alleadged by Theodorete to haue written in his epistle ad Smirnenses whereof may apeare his fayth of the mistery of the sacrament it shall serue to good purpose to write in the wordes of the same Ignatius here vpon the credite of the sayd Theodoret whome this author so much commendeth the wordes of Ignatius be these Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit Which wordes be thus much in english they do not admitte Eucharistias and oblations bycause they do not confesse Eucharistiam to be the flesh of our sauiour Iesu Christ which flesh suffered for our sinnes which flesh the father by his benignitie hath stirred vp These be Ignatius wordes which I haue not throughly englished bicause the word Eucharistia can not be well englished being a word of mistery and signifieng as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacrament heauenly and earthly visible and inuisible But in that Ignatius openeth his fayth thus he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our sauiour Christ that suffered for vs he declareth the sence of Christes wordes This is my body not to be figuratiue onely but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there giuen and therfore Ignatius sayth Eucharistia is the flesh of our sauior Christ the same that suffered and the same that rose agayne Which wordes of Ignatius so pithely open the matter as they declare therwith the fayth also of Theodoret that doth alleage him so as if the author would make so absolute a worke as to peruse all the fathers sayinges he should not thus leape ouer Ignatius nor Irene neither as I haue before declared But this is a color of rethorik called Reiection of that is hard to answer and is here a prety shift or slaight wherby thou reader mayst consider how this matter is handled Caunterbury IT shall not nede to make any further answer to you here as cōcerning Ireneus but onely to note one thing that if any place of Ireneus had serued for your purpose you would
verè Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est qui naturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpserit naturam carnis suae adnaturam aeternitatis sub sacramēto nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit Itae enim omnes vnum sumus quia in Christo pater est Christus in nobis est Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit neget prius non naturaliter vel se in Christo vel Christum sibi inesse quia in Christo pater Christus in nobis vnum in ijs esse nos faciunt Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus sumpsit verè homo ille qui ex Maria natu◠fuit Christus est nosque vere sub misterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia pater in co est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfecté sacramentum si◠vnitatis My translation is this If the word was made verely flesh and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh in our Lordes meat how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in vs who being borne man hath taken vnto him the nature of our flesh that can not be seuered and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity vnder the Sacrament of the communion of his flesh vnto vs for so we be all one because the father is in Christ and Christ in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will deny the father to be naturally in Christ must denye first either himselfe to be naturally in Christ or Christ not to be naturally in him for the being of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ hath taken verely the flesh of our body and the man that was born of the virgine Mary is verely Christ and allowe verely receiue vnder a mistery the flesh of his body by meanes wherof we shal be one for the father is in Christ and Christ in vs how shall that be called the vnitye of will when the natural propriety brought to passe by the Sacrament is the Sacramēt of perfect vnity This translation differeth from myne other wherat this author findeth fault but wherin the word Vero was in the other coppy an adiectiue and I ioyned it wyth Misterio therfore sayd the true mistery which word mistery needed no such adiectiue true for euery mistery is true of it selfe But to say as Hilary truely correct sayth that we receyue vnder the mistery truely the flesh of Christes body that word truely so placed setteth forth liuely the reall presence and substantiall presence of that is receiued and repeteth agayne the same that was before sayd to the more vehemency of it So as this correction is better then my first copy and according to this correction is Hilarius alleaged by Melancthon to Decolampadius for the same purpose I alleage him An other alteration in the translation thou séest reader in the word Perfectae which in my copy was Perfecta and so was ioyned to Proprietas which now in the genetiue case ioyned to Vnitatis geueth an excellent sence to the dignity of the Sacrament how the naturall proprietie by the Sacrrament is a Sacrament of perfect vnity so as the perfect vnity of vs with Christ is to haue his flesh in vs and to haue Christ bodely and naturally dwelling in vs by his manhood as he dwelleth in vs spiritually by his Godhead and now I speak in such phrase as Hylarie and Cyrill speake and vse the words whatsoeuer thys author sayth as I will iustifye by their playne wordes And so I ioyne now with this author an Issue that I haue not peruersely vsed the allegation of Hylary but alleadged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter which Hilarie in his 8. booke de Trinitate entreateth how many diuers wayes we be one in Christ among which he accompteth fayth for one then he commeth to the vnity in Baptisme where he handleth the matter aboue some capacities and because there is but one Baptisme and all that be baptised be so regenerate in one dispensation and do the same thing and be one in one they that be one by the same thing be as he sayth in nature one From that vnity in Baptisme he commeth to declare our vnitye with Christ in flesh which he calleth the Sacrament of perfect vnity declaring how it is whē Christ who tooke truely our flesh mortal in the vyrgins womb deliuereth vs the same flesh glorified truely to be communicate with our flesh wherby as we be naturally in Christ so Christ is naturally in vs and when this is brought to passe then the vnitie betwéen Christ and vs is perfected For as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence by the diuine nature So we be naturally in Christ by our natural flesh which he toke in the virgins wombe and he naturally in vs by the same flesh in him glorified and geuen to vs and receiued of vs in the Sacrament For Hilarie sayth in playne words how Christes very flesh and Christes very bloud receyued and drunken Accepta hausta bring this to pas And it is notable how Hilarie compareth together the truely in Christes taking of our flesh in the virgins wombe with the truely of our taking of his flesh In cibo dominica in our Lordes meat by which words he expresseth the Sacrament and after reproueth those that said we were onely vnited by obedience and will of religion to Christ and by him so to the Father as though by the Sacrament of flesh and bloud no proprietie of naturall communion were geuen vnto vs whereas both by the honour geuen vnto vs we be the sonnes of God and by the sonne dwelling carnally in vs and we beyng corporally and inseparably vnite in hym the mistery of true and naturall vnity is to be preached These be Hilaries wordes for this latter part where thou hearest reader the son of God to dwell carnally in vs not after mans grosse imagination for we may not so thinke of Godly misteries but carnally is referred to the truth of Christes flesh geuen to vs in this Sacrament and so is naturally to be vnderstanded that we receaue Christes naturall flesh for the truth of it as Christ receyued our naurall flesh of the virgine although we receaue Christes flesh glorified incorruptible very spiritual and in a spiritual maner deliuered vnto vs. Here is mention made of the word corporall but I shall speake of that in the discussiō of Cyrill This Hylary was before S. Augustine and was known both of him and S. Hierome who called him Tubam latini eloquij against the Arrians Neuer man foūd fault at this notable place of Hylary Now let vs consider how
vs doth it not make Christ by communication of his flesh to dwell corporally in vs Why be the members of faythfull mennes bodyes called the members of Christ Know you not sayth S. Paule that your members be the members of Christ And shall I make the members of Christ partes of the whores body God forbid And our sauiour also sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Although in these wordes Cyrill doth say that Christ doth dwel corporally in vs when we receaue the misticall benediction yet he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally only at such tymes as we receaue the sacrament nor that he dwelleth in vs and not we in him but he sayth as well that we dwell in him as that he dwelleth in vs. Which dwelling is neyther corporall nor locall but an heauenly spirituall and supernaturall dwelling wherby so long as we dwell in him and he in vs we haue by him euerlasting life And therfore Cyril sayth in the same place that Christ is the vine and we the branches bicause that by him we haue lyfe For as the branches receaue lyfe and nourishment of the body of the vine so receaue we by him the naturall property of his body which is life and immortality and by that meanes we being his members do liue and are spiritually nourished And this ment Cirill by this word Corporally when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs. And the same ment also S. Hilarius by this worde Naturally when he sayd that Christ dwelleth naturally in vs. And as S. Paule when he sayd that in Christ dwelleth the full diuinity Corporally by this word Corporally he ment not that the diuinity is a body and so by that body dwelleth bodily in Christ. But by this word Corporally he ment that the diuinity is not in Christ accidentally lightly and slenderly but substancially and perfectly with all his might and power so that Christ was not onely a mortall man to suffer for vs but also he was immortall God able to redeeme vs. So S. Ciril when he sayd that Christ is in vs Corporally he ment that we haue him in vs not lightly and to small effect and purpose but that we haue him in vs substancially pithely and effectually in such wise that we haue by him redemption and euerlasting life And this I sucke not out of mine owne singers but haue it of Cirils owne expresse wordes where he sayth A litle benediction draweth the whole man to God and filleth him with his grace and after this manner Christ dwelleth in vs and we in Christ. But as for corporall eating and drinking with our mouthes and digesting with our bodyes Cirill neuer ment that Christ doth so dwell in vs as he playnly declareth Our sacrament sayth he doth not affirme the eating of a man drawing wickedly christen people to haue grosse imaginations and carnall fantasies of such thinges as be fine and pure and receaued onely with a sincere fayth But as two waxes that be molten and put togither they close so in one that euery part of the one is ioyned to euery part of the other euen so sayth Cirill he that receaueth the flesh and bloud of the Lord must needes be so ioyned with Christ that Christ must be in him and he in Christ. By these wordes of Cirill appeareth his mynd playnly that we may not grossely and rudely think of the eating of Christ with our mouthes but with our fayth by which eating although he be absent hence bodely and be in the eternall life and glory with his father yet we be made partakers of his nature to be immortall and haue eternall lyfe and glory with him And thus is declared the mind as well of Cirill as of Hilarius Winchester The author sayth such answer as he made to Hilary will serue for Cyrill and indeede to say truth it is made after the fame sort and hath euen such an error as the other had sauing it may be excused by ignorance For where the author trauayleth here to expound the word corporally which is a sore word in Cirill agaynst this author and therfore taketh labour to temper it with the word Corporaliter in S. Paule applied to the dwelling of the diuinity in Christ and yet not content therwith maketh further search and would gladly haue somewhat to confirme his phansy out of Cirill him selfe and seeketh in Cirill where it is not to be found and seeketh not where it is to be found For Cirill telleth him selfe playnly what he meaneth by the word corporally which place and this author had found be might haue spared a great many of wordes vttered by diuination but then the truth of that place hindreth and quayleth in manner all the booke I will at my perill bring forth Cirils owne wordes truely vpon the seuententh chapiter of S. Iohn Corporaliter filius per benedictionem misticam nobis vt homo vnitur spiritualiter autem vt deus Which be in English thus much to say The sonne is vnite as man corporally to vs by the misticall benediction spiritually as god These be Cirils wordes who nameth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the misticall benediction land sheweth in this sentence how him selfe vnderstandeth the wordes corporally and spiritually That is to say when Christ vniteth him selfe to vs as man which he doth geuing his body in this Sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it then he dwelleth in them corporally which Christ was before in them spiritualy or els they could not worthely receaue him to the effect of the vnity corporal corporal dwelling by which word corporal is vnderstanded no grossenes at all which the nature of a mistery excludeth and yet kepeth truth still being the vnderstanding onely attayned by fayth But where the author of the booke alleadgeth Cirill in wordes to deny the eating of a man and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion that Cirill sayth not so and the translations of Cirill into Latine after the print of Basill in a booke called Antidotum and of whole Cirils workes printed at Colen haue not in that place such sentence So as following the testimony of those bookes set forth by publique fayth in two sundry places I should call the allegation of Cirill made by this author in this poynt vntrne as it is indeede in the matter vntrue And yet bicause the originall errour proceedeth from Decolampadius it shall serue to good purpose to direct the originall fault to him as he well deserueth to be as he is noted gilty of it whose reputation deceaued many in the matter of the sacrament and being well noted how the same Decolampadius corrupteth Cirill it may percase somewhat worke with this author to consider how he hath in this place bene
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
vnderstanding of Christes wordes somewhat to alter the same least we might stand stiffely in the letters and sillables and erre in mistaking the sense and meaning For where as our Sauiour Christ brake the bread and sayd This is my body S. Paule sayth that the bread which we breake is the communion of Christes body Christ sayd His body and S. Paule sayd the communion of his body meaning neuerthelesse both one thing that they which eate the bread worthely do eate spiritually Christes very body And so Christ calleth the bread his body as the old authors report bycause it representeth his body and signifieth vnto them which eat that bread according to Christes ordinance that they do spiritually eate his body and be spiritually fed and nourished by him and yet the bread remayneth still there as a Sacrament to signifie the same But of these wordes of Consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large Therfore to returne to the purpose that the bread remayneth and is eaten in this Sacrament appeareth by the wordes of Christ which he spake before the consecration For that Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate All this was done and spoken before the wordes of Consecration Wherfore they must nedes be vnderstood of the very bread that Christ tooke bread brake bread gaue bread to his disciples commaunding them to take bread aud eate bread But the same is more playne and euident of the wine that it remayneth and is drunken at the Lordes supper as well by the wordes that goe before as by the wordes that follow after the consecration For before the wordes of consecration Christ tooke the cup of wyne and gaue it vnto his disciples and sayd Drincke ye all of this And after the wordes of consecration followeth They dranke all of it Now I aske all the Papistes what thing it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to drincke when he sayd Drincke ye all of this The bloud of Christ was not yet there by theyr owne confession for these wordes were spoken before the consecration Therfore it could be nothing els but wine that he commaunded them to drincke Then aske the Papistes once agayne whether the disciples dranke wine or not If they say yea then let them recant theyr errour that there was no wine remayning after the consecration If they say nay then they condemne the Apostles of disobedience to Christes commaundement which dranke not wine as he commaunded them Or rather they reproue Christ as a Iuggler which commaūded his Apostles to drincke wine and when they came to the drincking therof he himselfe had conuayed it away Moreouer before Christ deliuered the cup of wine to his disciples he sayd vnto them Deuide this among you Here I would aske the Papistes an other question what thing it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to deuide among them I am sure they will not say it was the Cup except they be disposed to make men laugh at them Nor I thinke they will not say it was the bloud of Christ as well because the wordes were spoken before the consecration as bicause the bloud of Christ is not deuided but spiritually giuen whole in the sacrament Then could it be vnderstand of nothing els but of wine which they should deuide among them and drincke all togither Also when the Communion was ended Christ sayd vnto his Apostles Verily I say vnto you that I will drincke no more henceforth of this frute of the vine vntill that day that I shall drincke it new with you in my fathers kingdome By these wordes it is cleare that it was very wine that the Apostles dranke at that godly supper For the bloud of Christ is not the frute of the vine nor the accidents of wine nor none other thing is the frute of the vine but the very wine onely How could Christ haue expressed more playnly that bread and wine remayne then by taking the bread in his handes and breaking it him selfe and geuing it vnto his disciples commaunding them to eate it And by taking the cup of wine in his handes and deliuering it vnto them commaunding them to deuide it among them and to drincke it and calling it the frute of the vine These wordes of Christ be so playne that if an angell of heauen would tell vs the contrary he ought not to be beleued And then much lesse may we beleue the subtill lying Papistes If Christ would haue had vs to beleue as a necessary article of our fayth that there remayneth neyther bread nor wine would he haue spoken after this sort vsing all such termes and circumstaūces as should make vs beleue that styll there remayneth bread and wine What maner of teacher make they of Christ that say he ment one thing when his wordes be cleane contrary What christen hart can paciently suffer this contumely of Christ But what crafty teachers be these Papistes who deuise phantasies of theyr owne heades directly contrary to Christes teaching and then set the same abroad to christen people to be most assuredly beleued as Gods owne most holy word S. Paule did not so but followed herein the manner of Christes speaking in calling of bread bread and wine wine and neuer altering Christes wordes herin The bread which we breake sayth he is it not the Communion of Christes body Now I aske agayne of the Papistes whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated They can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated for that is not the communion of Christes body by their owne doctrine And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated then they must nedes confesse that after consecration such bread remayneth as is broken bread which can be none other then very true materiall bread And strayght wayes after S. Paule sayth in the same place that we be partakers of one bread and one cup. And in the next chapiter speaking more fully of the same matter foure tymes he nameth the bread and the cup neuer making mention of any Transubstantiation or remayning of accidentes without any substance which thinges he would haue made some mention of if it had bene a necessary article of our fayth to beleue that there remayneth no bread nor wine Thus it is euident and playne by the wordes of scripture that after consecration remayneth bread and wine and that the Papisticall doctrine of Transubstantiation is directly contrary to gods word Winchester But to the purpose the simplicity of fayth in a christen mans brest doth not so precisely marke and stay at the sillables of Christes wordes as this author pretendeth and knowing by fayth the truth of Christes wordes that as he sayd he wrought doth not measure gods secret working after the prolation of our sillables whose worke is in one instant how so euer speach in vs require a successiue vtterance and the manner of handling this author vseth to bring the misticall wordes in
the matter of the clay remayned in Adam and yet the materiall clay remayned not for it was altered into an other substance which I speake not to compare equally the forming of Adam to the Sacrament but to shew it not to be all one to say the materiall bread and the matter of bread For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread but not the materiall bread as I haue sumwhat spoken therof before but such shiftes be vsed in this matter notwithstanding the importunance of it Caunterbury WHat should I tarry much in Origene seeing that you confesse that he sayth the matter of bread remayneth and Origene sayth that the meate which is sanctified iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit that is to say as concerning the materiall parte therof goeth into the belly So that by Origens teaching both the bread and the materiall part of bread remayne So that your example of cley releueth you nothing in this your aunswer vnto Origene But when you see that this shift will not serue then you flie to an other and say that the accidentes of bread be called the matter of bread which is so shamefull a shift as all that haue any manner of knowledge may playnly see your manifest impudency But many such shiftes you vse in this matter not withstanding the importaunce of it Now let vs come to Ciprian of whome I write in this manner After Origene came Ciprian the holy martir about the yeare of our Lord 250. who writeth agaynst them that ministred this Sacrament with water onely and without wine For as much sayth he as Christ sayd I am a true vine therfore the bloud of Christ is not water but wine nor it can not be thought that his bloud wherby we be redemed and haue life is in the cup when wine is not in the cup wherby the bloud of Christ is shewed What wordes could Ciprian haue spoken more playnly to shew that the wine doth remayne than to say thus If there be no wine there is no bloud of Christ And yet he speaketh shortly after as playnly in the same Epistle Christ sayth he taking the cup blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saying Drincke you all of this for this is the bloud of the newe testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes I say vnto you that from hence forth I will not drincke of this creature of the vine vntil I shal drincke with you newe wine in the kingdome of my father By these wordes of Christ sayth S. Ciprian we perceaue that the cuppe which the Lord offered was not onely water but also wine And that it was wine that Christ called his bloud wherby it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wine in the Chalice And after it followeth How shal we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine In these wordes of S. Ciprian appeareth most manifestly that in this sacrament is not onely offered very wine that is made of grapes that come of the vine but also that we drincke the same And yet the same giueth vs to vnderstand that if we drincke that wine worthely we drincke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ which was shed for our sinnes Winchester S. Ciprians wordes do not impugne Transubstantiation for they tend onely to shew that wine is the creature appoynted to the celebration of this mistery and therfore water onely is no due matter according to Christes institution And as the name wine must be vsed before the consecration to shew the truth of it then so it may also be vsed for a name of it after to shew what it was which is often vsed And in one place of Ciprian by this author here alleadged it appeareth S. Ciprian by the word wine signifieth the heauenly wine of the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaâ—th calling it new wine and alluding therin to Dauid And this doth Cyprian shew in these wordes How shall we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice to God the father and Christ we do not offer wine Is not here mention of new wine of the creature of the vine what new wine can be but the bloud of Christ the very wine consecrate by Gods omnipotency of the creature of the vine offered And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Ciprian that as he vseth the word wine to signifie the heauenly drincke of the bloud of Christ made by consecration of the creature of wine so when he nameth the bread consecrate bread he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ who is the bread of life And so Ciprian can make nothing by those wordes agaynst Transubstantiation who writeth playnly of the change of the bread by Gods omnipotency into the flesh of Christ as shall after appeare where this author goeth about to answere to him Caunterbury CIprians wordes tend not onely to shew that wine is the creature appoynted to the celebration of the mistery but that it is also there present and dronken in the mistery For these be his wordes It cannot be thought that Christes bloud is in the cup when wine is not in the cup wherby the bloud of Christ is shewed And agayne he sayth It was wine that Christ called his bloud and that it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wine in the chalice And further he sayth How shall we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine In these wordes Ciprian sayth not that Christ is the wine which we drincke but that with Christ we drincke wine that commeth of the vine tree and that Christes bloud is not there wheÌ„ wine is not there And where is now your Transubstantiation that taketh away the wine For take away the wine and take away by Ciprians mind the blood of Christ also But least any man should stomble at Ciprians wordes where he seemeth to say that the bloud of Christ should be really in the cup he sayth nor meaneth no such thing but that it is there sacramentally or figuratiuely And his meaning needeth none other gathering but of his owne wordes that follow next after in the same sentence that by the wine the bloud of Christ is shewed And shortly after he sayth that the cup which the Lord offered was wine and that it was wine that Christ called his bloud Now come we to Emissen your principall stay in whome is your chiefe glory Of him thus I write Eusebius Emissenus a man of singuler fame in learning about CCC yeares after Christes ascention did in few wordes set out this matter so playnly both how the bread and wine be conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ and yet
say the change in mans soule by Baptisme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in deede or els graunt the true catholique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures into the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise not in figure and signification but truly really and indeede And for the thing changed as the soule of man mans inward nature is chaunged so the inward nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken away which this author vseth in an other place of Sacramentall change which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth the age of Emissene and I note with all how playnly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teaching who indeede bicause of his auncient and playne writing for declaration of the matter in forme of teaching without contention is one whose authority the church hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in the truth of the presence of Christes very body or Transubstantiation for the speaking of the inward change doth poynt as it were the change of the substance of bread with resembling therunto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one author not being of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in the allegation after this manner corrupt might suffice for to conclude all brabling agaynst the Sacrament Caunterbury WHere I haue corrupted Emissene let the reader be iudge But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration change and turning of a man from the congregation of the wicked vnto the congregation of Christ which he calleth the body of the church and from the childe of death vnto the child of God this must be made a matter of scoffing to turne light fellowes out of the chancell into the body of the church Such trifling now a dayes becometh gayly well godly Bishoppes what if in the steede of turning I had sayd skipt ouer as the word transilisti signifieth which although peraduenture the bookes be false and should be transisti I haue translated turning should I haue so escaped a mocke trow you You would then haue sayd he that so doth goeth not out at the chancell dore into the body of the church but skippeth ouer the stalles But that Emissene ment of turning is cleare aswell by the wordes that go before as those which go after which I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader But forasmuch as you would perswade men that this author maketh so much for your purpose I shall set forth his minde playnly that it may appeare how much you be deceaued Emissenes mynd is this that although our sauiour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodely sight Yet we see him by fayth and by grace he is here present with vs so that by him we be made new creatures regenerated by him and fedde and nourished by him which generation and nutrition in vs is spirituall without any mutation appearing outwardly but wrought within vs inuisibly by the omnipotent power of God And this alteration in vs is so wonderfull that we be made new creatures in Christ grafted into his body and of the same receaue our nourishment and encreasing And yet visibly with our bodely eyes we see not these thinges but they be manifest vnto our fayth by gods worde and sacraments And Emissene declareth none other reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and bloud then in the Sacrament of baptisme but spiritually by fayth to be present in both And where Emissene speaketh of the conuersion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ he speaketh that aswell of baptisme as of the lordes supper as his owne wordes playnly declare If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vppon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme And yet he ment not that the water of baptisme in it selfe is really turned into the substance of Christ nor likewise bread and wine in the Lordes supper but that in the action water wine and bread as sacraments be sacramentally conuerted vnto him that duely receaueth them into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramentall conuersion is in the Sacraments and the reall conuertion is in him that receaueth the sacraments which reall conuertion is inward inuisible and spirituall For the outward corporall substances aswell of the name as of the water remayne the same that they were before And therfore sayth Emissene Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly In these wordes hath Emissene playnly declared that the conuersion in the sacraments wherof he spake when he sayd that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ is to be vnderstand in the receauours by their fayth and that in the sayd conuersion the outward substance remayneth the selfe same that was before And that Emissene ment this as well in the sacrament of the lordes supper as in the sacrament of baptisme his own wordes playnly declare So that the substance of Christ as well in baptisme as the Lordes supper is seene not with our eyes but with our fayth and touched not with our bodies but with our mindes and receaued not with our hands but with our hartes eaten and drunken not with our outward mouthes but with our inward man And where Emissene sayth that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heauen and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through fayth he doth vs to vnderstand that he is not present in the formes of bread and wine out of the ministration except you will say that fayth and grace be in the bread when it is kept and hanged vp but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christes institution then to them that so eate and drincke the bread and wine is the body and bloud of Christ according to Christes wordes Edite hoc est corpus meum Bibite hic est calix senguinis mei And therfore in the booke of the holy communion we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and bloud of Christ but that they may be to vs the body and bloud of Christ that is to say that we may so eate them and drincke them that we may be partakers of his body crucified and of his bloud shed for our redemption Thus haue I declared the truth of Emissenes mynd which is agreable to Gods word and the olde
wheras gods worke is in an instant and for that respect neuer shedding But this author had a fansie to vse the sound of the word powring to serue in freede of an argumēt to improue Transubstantiation meaning the hearer or reader in the conceauing of the sence of Ciprian thus termed should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament to be like a soppe wherupon liquor were powred which is a kind of deprauation as thou reader by consideration of Ciprians wordes and meaning mayst perceaue which Ciprian hauing shewed how the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of gods word and made by change Then bicause this mistery of the Sacrament in consideration of the two natures celestiall and earthly resembleth the principall mistery of Christes person S. Ciprian sayth in sence that as in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden so likewise in this Sacrament visible is also the diuine nature hidden This is the sence where for declaration of the worke of God presenting his diuine nature there is vsed the verbe Infundit in Latine by which word the motion of the diuine nature is spoken of in scriptures not bicause it is a liquidde substance to bee poured as the author of this booke englisheth it signifying a successiue operation but rather as a word if we should scan it as this author would signifying the continuance of the terme from whence to the terme wherunto without leauing the one by motion to the other for there is in the godly nature no locall motion and therfore we say Christ not leauing his father descended from heauen and being in earth was also in heauen which infution in some parte resembleth but mans wordes can not expresse Gods diuine operations To the purpose the first wordes of Ciprian shew the maner of the constitution of this Sacrament to be by mutation of the earthly creatures into the body and bloud of Christ. And than by the wordes following sheweth the truth of the substance of the Sacrament to the intent we might vse our repayre to it and frame our deuotion according to the dignitie of it esteeming as S. Paule sayth our Lordes body For the more euident declaration wherof S. Ciprian by example of the mistery in Christes person sheweth Christes humanity and diuinity present in the visible Sacrament of which diuinity there is speciall mention agaynst such which fansied the flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten as diuided from the diuine nature which was the heresy of the Nestorians and such other denying therby the persite vnity of the two natures in Christ which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially condemne as other fathers in their writings old specially preuēt with distinct writing agaynst that errour And therfore S. Ciprian not content to shew the presence of Christes flesh by mutation of the bread doth after make speciall mention of Christes diuinity not concerning that he had sayd before but further opening it And so vtterly condemneth the teaching of the author of this booke touching the presence of Christ to be onely figuratiuely Ciprian sayth that in the Sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true flesh of Christ and the Godhead truely which deuotion should knowledge And as for Transubstantiation according to the first wordes of S. Ciprian the bread is changed not in forme but in nature which is not in the properties of nature nor in the operation of nature neither in quantity or quality of nature and therfore in the inward nature which is properly substance This is the playne direct vnderstanding not by way of addition as this author of his imagination deuiseth who vseth the word Spirituall as a stop and opposition to the catholique teaching which is not so and clearly without learning compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptisme of which we reade not written that it is changed as we reade of the bread and therfore the resemblance of water in Baptisme is vsed onely to blynde the rude reader and serueth for a shift of talke to winde out of that matter that can not be answered and as euill debters shake of their creditours with a bye communication so this author conueyeth himselfe away at a backe dore by water not doing first as he promised to answer so as he would auoyd Ciprian directly by land Caunterbury WHere in my former booke I found a fault in the allegation of Ciprian it was in deede no little fault to alleadge those wordes that speake of the change of bread and to leaue out the example most necessary to be rehersed which should declare how it was changed which change is not by Transubstantiation as the example sheweth but as it is in the person of Christ whose humanity was not transubstantiate although it was inseparabely annexed vnto the deity And the wordes following do not once touch the reall and corporall presence of Christes flesh in the bread so farre it is from the ouerthrowing of the true catholike fayth by me taught But Ciprian in that place quite and cleane ouerthroweth as well your reall presence as your imagined transubstantiation as hereafter by Gods grace shall be declared But first it semeth to me a strange thing that such a learned man as you take your selfe to be in the tongues can not English this verbe Infundo where as euery Gramarian can tell the signification of Fundo Effundo and Infundo But it semeth you haue so deinty a stomacke that you can brooke no meat but of your owne dressing though it be neuer so well dressed of other yea you had rather eate it rawe then to take it of an other mans dressing And so much misliketh you all thinges that other men doe that you be ready to vomite at it No English can please you to this word Infundo but Latine English as you call it and that is such English as no English man can vnderstand nor Latine man neither but onely in that sense that I haue englished it And I pray thee gentill reader consider the great weighty cause why no English can please in this place and thou shalt finde it nothing els but ignorance eyther of the speach or of God Powring sayth he maketh a successiue working So doth infusion say I and therfore in that respect as vnfitte a terme as Powring But Gods worke sayth he is in an instant So is his powring say I and all that he doth euen aswell as his infusion All mans workes be done in succession of tyme for a carpenter can not build a house in a day but God in one moment could make both heauen and earth So that God worketh without delay of tyme such thinges as in vs require leasure and tyme. And yet God hath tempered his speach so to vs in holy scripture that he speaketh of himselfe in such wordes as be vsuall to vs or els could we speake here and learne nothing of God And therfore whether we say infusion or pouring
Chrisostome declaryng at length that the priestes of the old law offered euer new Sacrifices and chaunged them from tyme to tyme and that Christian people do not so but offer euer one Sacrifice of Christ yet by and by least some might be offended with this speach he maketh as it were a correction of his wordes saying But rather we make a remembraunce of Christes sacrifice As though he should say Although in a certaine kinde of speach we may say that euery day we make a sacrifice of Christ yet in very deede to speake properly we make no sacrifice of him but onely a commemoration and remēbraunce of that sacrifice which he alone made and neuer none but he Nor Christ neuer gaue this honour to any creature that he should make a sacrifice of him nor did not ordaine the Sacrament of his holy Supper to the intent that either the priest or the people should sacrifice Christ agayne or that the priestes should make a sacrifice of him for the people but his holy Supper was ordeined for this purpose that euery man eatyng and drinkyng therof should remember that Christ dyed for him and so should exercise his fayth and comfort him selfe by the remembraunce of Christes benefites and so geue vnto Christ most harty thankes and geue him selfe also clearely vnto him Wherfore the ordinaunce of Christ ought to be folowed the priest to minister the Sacrament to the people and they to vse it to their consolation And in this eatyng drinkyng and vsing of the Lordes Supper we make not of Christ a new sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sinne But the humble confession of all penitent hartes their knowledgyng of Christes benefites their thankes giuyng for the same their fayth and consolation in Christ their humble submission and obedience to Gods will and commaundements is a sacrifice of laude and prayse accepted and allowed of God no lesse then the sacrifice of the priest For almighty God without respect of person accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay person of kyng and subiect of maister and seruaunt of man and woman of young and old yea of English French Scot Greeke Latin Iew and Gentile of euery man accordyng to his faythfull and obedient hart vnto him and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Iesu Christ. And as for the saying or singyng of the Masse by the priest as it was in tyme passed vsed it is neither a sacrifice propitiatory nor yet a sacrifice of laude and prayse nor in any wise alowed before God but abhominable and detestable and therof may well be verified the saying of Christ That thyng which seemeth an high thing before men is an abhomination before God They therfore which gather of the Doctours that the Masse is a sacrifice for remission of sinne and that it is applyed by the priest to them for whom he sayth or singeth they which so gather of the Doctours do to them most greuous iniury and wrong most falsely belyeng them For these monstrous thynges were neuer sene nor knowen of the old and primitiue Church nor there was not then in one Church many Masses euery day but vpon certaine dayes there was a common Table of the Lordes Supper where a number of people did together receaue the body and bloud of the Lord but there were then no dayly priuate Masses where euery priest receiued alone like as vntill this day there is none in the Greeke Churches but one common Masse in a day Nor the holy Fathers of the old Church would not haue suffered such vngodly and wicked abuses of the Lordes Supper But these priuate Masses sprang vp of late yeares partly through the ignoraunce and superstition of vnlearned Monkes and Friers whiche knew not what a sacrifice was but made of the Masse a sacrifice propitiatory to remit both sinne and the payne due for the same but chiefly they sprang of lucre and gayne when priestes founde the meanes to sell Masses to the people whiche caused Masses so much to encrease that euery day was sayd an infinite number and that no priest would receiue the Communion at an other priestes hand but euery one would receiue it alone neither regardyng the godly decree of the most famous and holy Councell of Nice which appointed in what order priestes should be placed aboue Deacons at the Communion nor yet the Canons of the Apostles which commaund that when any Communion is ministred all the priestes togither should receiue the same or els be excommunicate So much the old Fathers mysliked that any priest should receiue the Sacrament alone Therfore when the old fathers called the Masse or Supper of the Lord a sacrifice they ment that it was a sacrifice of laudes and thankes geuyng and so aswell the people as the priest do sacrifice or els that it was a remembraunce of the very true sacrifice propitiatory of Christ but they ment in no wise that it is a very true sacrifice for sinne and applicable by the priest to the quicke and dead For the priest may well minister Christes woordes and Sacramentes to all men both good and bad but he can apply the benefite of Christes passion to no man beyng of age and discretion but onely to such as by their owne fayth do apply the same vnto them selues So that euery man of age and discretion taketh to him selfe the benefites of Christes passion or refuseth them him selfe by his owne fayth quicke or dead That is to say by his true and liuely fayth that worketh by charitie he receiueth them or els by his vngodlynes or fayned fayth reiecteth them And this doctrine of the Scripture clearely condemneth the wicked inuentions of the Papistes in these latter dayes which haue deuised a Purgatory to torment soules after this life and oblations of Masses sayd by the priestes to deliuer them from the sayd tormentes and a great number of other commodities do they promise to the simple ignoraunt people by their Masses Now the nature of man beyng euer prone to Idolatry frō the begynnyng of the world and the Papistes beyng ready by all meanes and police to defend and extoll the Masse for their estimation and profite and the people beyng superstitiously enamoured and doted vpon the Masse bicause they take it for a present remedy agaynst all maner of euils and part of the princes beyng blinded by papisticall doctrine part louyng quietnesse and loth to offend their Clergy and subiectes and all beyng captiue and subiect to the Antichrist of Rome the estate of the world remainyng in that case it is no wonder that abuses grew and encreased in the Church that superstition with Idolatry were taken for godlynesse and true Religion and that many thynges were brought in without the authoritie of Christ. As Purgatory the oblation and sacrificyng of Christ by the priest alone the applicatiō and appointyng of the same to such persons as the priest would sing or say Masse for and to such abuses as they
not of his fleshe as it is vnited vnto his diuinitie pag. 27. lin 53. and. pag. 329. lin 24. God in Baptisme giueth onely the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the aultar the very body and bloud of Christ. pag. 34. lin 44. Unworthy receiuers of the sacrament receiue Christes body with mouth onely the worthy receiuers both with mouth and hart pag. 54. lin 47. c. We must beleue Christes workes to be most perfectly true accordyng to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in Scripture driueth vs from it how soeuer it seeme repugnaunt to reason pag. 62. lin 20. The Fathers did eate Christes body and drinke his bloud in truth of promise not in truth of presence pag. 74. lin 23. c. The Fathers did eate Christ spiritually but they did not eate his body present spiritually and sacramentally pag. eadem lin 26. Their Sacramentes were figures of the thynges but ours contayne the very thynges ibid. lin 27. Albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verified that the Fathers did eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud yet there is no such forme of wordes in scripture And it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the Fathers before Christes Natiuitie did not eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ. pag. 78. lin 28. And although S. Paule in the truth to the Corinthes be so vnderstanded of some that the Fathers should eate and drinke the spirituall meate and drinke that we doe yet to that vnderstandyng all doe not agree Ibidem lin 34. c. Their Sacramentes contayned the promise of that which in our sacramentes is geuen Ibidem lin 36. And although that willyng obedience was ended and perfected vpon the Crosse to the whiche it continued from the begynnyng yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham the earnest will and offeryng was accoumpted for the offeryng in deede so the declaration of Christes will in his last supper was an offeryng of him selfe to God the Father pag. 82. lin 2. c. In that mystery he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the world by the same will that he sayd his body should bee betrayed for vs. Ibidem lin 12. As Christ offered him selfe vpon the Crosse in the execution of his will so hee offered him selfe in his Supper in declaration of his will pag. 82. lin 13. c. Christes body in the supper or communion is represented vnto vs as a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world and it is the onely sacrifice of the Churche and the pure and cleane sacrifice wherof Malachie spake pag. 84. lin 4. pag. 88. lin vltima c. As Christ declareth in the supper him selfe an offeryng and sacrifice for our sinne offeryng him selfe to his Father as our Mediatour so the Church at the same supper in their offeryng of laudes and thankes ioyne them selues with their head Christ representyng and offeryng him pag. 89. lin 10. The sunne beames bee of the same substaunce with the sunne pag. 92. lin 5. We haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sunne Ibidem lin 7. When Christ sayd This is my body this word This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. To eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud is of it selfe a propre speach pag. 112. lin 35. Carnally Ibidem lin 50. with teeth and mouth pag. 112. lin 8. and pag. 34. lin 38. To eate Christes body carnally may haue a good signification pag. 113. lin 4. Origene doth not meane to destroy the truth of the letter in these words of Christ. Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. pag. 114. lin 40. S. Augustin taketh the same for a figuratiue speache bycause it seemeth to commaunde in the letter carnally vnderstanded an haynous and wicked thyng to eate the flesh of a man pag. 116. lin 40. The sayd woordes of Christ. Except you eate c. is to the vnfaythfull a figure but to the faythfull they be no figure but spirite and life Ibidem lin 48. The Fathers called it a figure by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecie apt onely to bee vnderstand of men beleuyng pag. 117. lin 3. That is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded Ibid. lin 13. This word Represent in S. Hierome and Tertullian signifieth a true reall exhibition pag. 120. lin 27. and pag. 128. lin 11. The word Eucharistia can not be well Englished pag. 161. In Gods word and in Baptisme we be made participant of Christes Passion by his spirite but in the Lordes Supper we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanitie exhibite to vs for foode So as in this mystery we receiue him as man and God and in the other by meane of his Godhead we be participant of the effect of his Passion suffered in his manhode In this Sacrament we receiue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the generall resurrection spirituall with our soule In Baptisme we haue bene made spirituall by regeneration of the soule pag. 158. lin 45. c. In Baptisme Christes humanitie is not really present though the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there pag. 159. lin 4. The maner of Christes beyng in the sacrament is onely spirituall Ibidem lin 16. To vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the Church Ibidem lin 34. Our perfect vnitie with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christ bodily naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode pag. 166. lin 32. By Christes flesh in the sacrament we be naturally in him and he is naturally in vs. Ibidem lin 45. c. Christ dwelleth naturally in vs and we bee corporally in him Ibidem lin 35. Christes flesh is very spirituall and in a spirituall maner deliuered vnto vs. pag. 167. lin 12. and pag. 243. lin 11. and pag. 243. lin 28. and pag. 295. lin 33. Christ dwelleth in vs naturally for the naturall communication of our body and his pag. 167. lin 19. When Christ vnited him selfe vnto vs as man which he doth geuyng his body in the sacrament to such as worthely receiue it then he dwelleth in them corporally pag. 172. lin 27. In Baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes Passion and bloud Christes Godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie pag. 181. lin 16. c. In Baptisme our vnitie with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue effect of Christes bloud pag. 181. lin 2. and. 16. In Baptisme our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body in deede but in hope onely pag. 181. lin 6. In Baptisme we be vnited to Christes manhode by his diuinitie but in the Lordes Supper
1. Cor. 10. Ioh. 6. Ioh. 16. Heb. 7.9 10. Christ is spiritually present An issue No writer approued testifieth this authors faith The summe of the issue Outward teaching Your doctrine is not catholike by your owne description My issue I notable matter a man to be condemned by his owne former writinges Bertram confessed to be of this opinion This authors doctrine often reiected as false Actes v. My Catechisme Bertrame Berengarius Wickliffe Luther The Papistes haue bene the cause why the catholike doctrine hath bene hundered and hath not had good successe these late yeâ—es These wordes This is my body agre in sence with the rest of the scripture Vntrue report This author hath no wordes of scripture for the ground of his faith This is my body is no proper speach Gods omnipotencie Psal. 115. Rom. 9. An aunswer to the like speaches in apparance The fayth of this author is but to â—eleue a story The Lordes supper hath nâ— miracle in it by this authors vnderstanding No promise made to a token in the supper or in yâ— 6. of Iohn Iniury to baptisme Math. v â— Mark. vit Tokens be but tokens howsoeuer they be garnished with gay wordes without scripture For apparell pag. 30. numero 9. Untrue report Euery speciall sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a secret hiddeÌ„ truth Bread is not a vayn and bare token I warrant Ioh. 6. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10 A new teaching of onely figure How can â— fayth be called catholike that begunneth to be published nowe Marke 1. Tokens how to discern truth from falshood â— Reg. 3. A lesson of Salomons iudgement Truth nedeth no ayd of lies Truth loueth simplicity and playnnes The Church of Rome is not the true mother of the catholick fayth Absurda falsa The speaking of the true mother Rome to the mother of the papistical fayth The name of the Author great wherewith to put men to silence An impudent vntruth The sayth of the Sacrament in the Catechisme unproueth this Authors doctrine now Erasmus commendeth to the world the work of Algerus vpon the Sacrament The body of Christe hidden vnder the signes Erasmus would all to repent that follow Berengarius error Peter Martyr doth with lyes impugne the faith of the Sacrament An issue This Author would with the enuious words of papish oppresse the truth Foure manifest vntruthes The first vntruth that the faith of the reall presence to the faith of the papists Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Epinus Mine issue Cyrill and â—â—â—storius In baptisme we receaue Christs spirite to geue life in the Lords Supper we receaue his flesh bloud to continue life Chap. 1. The abuse of the Lordes supper Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. Iohn 6. The second vntrueth for verely meat translatyng very meat Origenes in Leuit. hom 7. Propterea er go caro cius verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus Et in Math. hom 12. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus verus est potus Hierom. in Eccle. cap. 3. Caro enim verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus August in Psal. 33. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus vere potus est Damas. lib. 4. ca. 14. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meus verus est potus Euthyimus in lo. cap. 9. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meas verus est potus The nature of a cuttil Plim lib. 9. ca. 29. Eccle. 37. Christ is verely and truely geueÌ„ in the Sacrament but yet spiritually Iohn 6 Cyrill Lanathematismo 11. Nestorius Iniury to baptisme Galat. 3 In the sixt chapiter of Iohn Christ spake not of corporall eating Iohn 6 Iohn 6. Iohn 8. Iohn 1. The 3. vntruth of the handling the wordes of S. Augustine Mine issue August in 10 an Tractat. 26. Eodem tract Aug. de Ciuit. lib. 21. cap. 25. worthely August de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 13. How Christes flesh is eaten Iohn 6. Cyprian in sermone de caena Domini August in Ioan. tra 26. Cap. 3. The eating of the Sacrament of his body Mat. 26. Marck 14. Luke 2â— 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 4. Christ called the materiall bread his body 1. Cor. 10. Marck vii 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 5. Euill men do eat the SacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 6. These thinges suffice for a christian mans faith concerning this Sacrament Cap. 7. The SacrameÌ„t which was ordayned to make loue and concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord Math. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. The 4. vntruth that by these words hoc est corpus meum Christ ment not to make the bread his body Neither Saint Paul nor the Euangelistes adde any words wherby to take away the signification of bread and wine The fourth vntruth the Christ intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body The variaunce between you Smith Against Smith Christ called bread his body Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. Ireneus Tertullianus Cyprianus Epiphanius Heironymus Augustinus Cyrillus Theodorus Gods miraculous workes in the Sacrament Imuty to baptisme Mine issue Gods omnipotency Mat. 16. Gen. 1. Eating signifieth beleeuing 3 vntruthes vttered by you in this one place The first Iohn 6. The secondâ— Iohn 6. The third That Christ fulfilled not his promise to geue vs life at his supper Iohn 6 Esay 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9. Gal. 6. Rom. 1. Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. Iohn 3. Gal. 3. Mat. 16. Marck 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. A warrant for apparrell Christes ambiguous speechess were not alwayes opened by the Euangelistes Luke 12. Luke 9. Iohn 12. 1 Math. 13. Psal. 77. This is my body is no proper speech Cap. 6. Cap. 9. The spirituall hunger thirstines of the soul. Eph. 2. Rom. 3 Psal. 41. Psal. 62. Rom. 4. Rom. 7. Rom. 8. Math. 5. Luke 1. Iohn 4. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. Cap. 10. Mat. 11. The spirituall foode of the soule Iohn 7. Iohn 6. Iohn 6. Gal. 2. Cap. 11. Christ farre excelleth all corporall foode Iohn 11. Cap. 12. The sacrameÌ„ts were ordayned to confirme our faith Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 13. Wherfore this sacrament was ordayned in bred and wine Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 14. The vnity of Christes misticall body 1. Cor. 10. Dionysios eccle Hie. cap. 31 Cap. 14. This sacrameÌ„t moueth all men to loue and freÌ„dship The doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—ion doth clean subuert our faith in Christ. Cap. 16. The spirituall eating in with the hart not with the teeth Iohn 6. Luke 21. 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. Luke 22. Mark 14. Iniury to both Sacramentâ—s D. Smith Cap. 17. 4 principall errors of the Papistes The first is of the presence of Christ. Innocent 3. De summa trin fide