if the very flesh of Christ were not in the sacrament truely present which is as much to say as in substaunce present if it were not in deede present that is to say really present if it were not corporally present that is to say the very body of Christ there present God and man If these truthes consenting in one were not there S. Augustine would neuer haue spoken of adoration there No more he doth sayth this author there but in heauen let S. Augustines wordes quoth I be iudge which be these No man eateth that flesh but he first worshippeth it It is found out how such a footestoole of the Lordes foot should be worshipped and not onely that we do not sinne in worshipping but we do sinne in not worshipping it These be S. Augustines wordes which I sayd before can not be drawen to an vnderstanding of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen where it remayneth continually glorified and is of all men christened continually worshipped For as S. Paule sayth Christ is so exalted that euery tongue should confesse that our sauiour Christ is in the glory of his father So as the worshipping of Christ there in the estate of his glory where he reigneth hath neither afore ne after but an euer continuall worshipping in glory Wherfore S. Augustine speaking of a before must be vnderstanded of the worshipping of Christes flesh present in the Sacrament as in the dispensation of his humility which Christ ceaseth not to do reigning in glory for although he hath finished his humble pafible conuersation yet he continueth his humble dispensation in the perfection of his misticall body and as he is our inuisible priest for euer and our aduocate with his father and so for vs to him a mediator to whom he is equall so doth he vouchsafe in his supper which he continueth to make an effectuall remembraunce of his offering for vs of the new Testament confirmed in his bloud and by his power maketh him selfe present in this visible Sacrament to be therein of vs truely eaten and his bloud truely drunken not onely in fayth but with the truth and ministery of our bodely mouth as God hath willed and commaunded vs to do which presence of Christ in this humility of dispensation to releaue vs and feed vs spiritually we must adore as S. Augustine sayth before we eate and we do not sinne in adoring but we sinne in not adoring remembring the diuine nature vnite vnto Christes flesh and therfore of flesh not seuered from the godhead Which admonishment of S. Augustine declareth he ment not of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen where can be no danger of such a thought where all tōgues confesse Christ to be in the glory of his father of which Christ as he is there in glory continually to be worshipped it were a colde saying of S. Augustine to say wee doe not sinne in worshipping Christ in heauen but sinne in not worshipping him as though any coulde haue doubted whether Christe shoulde bee worshipped in his humanitye in heauen being inseparably vnite to the diuinity And when I say in his humanity I speake not properly as that mistery requireth for as Christes person is but one of two perfite natures so the adoration is but one as Cirill declareth it and therfore abhorreth the addition of a sillable to speake of coadoration And will this author attribute to S. Augustine such a grossenes to haue written and giuen for a lesson that no man sinneth to worship Christes flesh in heauen reigning in glory wherfore taking this to be so farre from al probabilitie I sayd before these words of S. Augustine can not be drawen with any tenters to stretch so farre as to reach to heauen where euery christian man knoweth and professeth the worshipping of Christ in glory as they be taught also to worship him in his dispensation of his humility when he maketh present him selfe in this Sacrament whome we should not receaue into our mouth before we adore him And by S. Augustines rule we not onely not sinne in adoring but also sinne in not adoring him Caunterbury WHere you speake of the adoration of Christe in the Sacrament saying that if he were not there present substancially really and corporally S. Augustine would neuer haue spoken of adoration there in this word there you vse a great doublenes and fallax for it may be referred indiferently eyther to the adoration or to the presence If it be referred to the presence than it is neyther trew nor S. Augustine sayth no such thing that Christ is really substancially and corporally present there If it be referred to the worshipping than it is trew according to S. Augustines mynd that there in the receauing of the sacrament in spirite and truth we glorify and honor Christ sitting in heauen at his fathers right hand But to this adoration is required no reall substanciall and corporall presence as before I haue declared for so did Iacob worship Christ before he was borne and all faythfull christen people do worship him in all places where soeuer they be although he carnally and corporally be farre distant from them As they dayly honor the father and pray vnto him and yet say Qui es in coelis confessing him to be in heauen And therfore to auoyd all the ambiguitie and fallax of your speach I say that we being here do worship here Christ being not corporally here but with his father in heauen And although all christen men ought of duety continually to worship Christ being in heauen yet bicause we be negligent to doe our duties therin his word and sacramēts be ordeined to prouoke vs therunto So that although otherwise we forgat our dutyes yet when we come to any of his sacraments we should be put in remembrance thereof And therfore sayd Christ as S. Paule writeth As often as you shall eate this bread and drincke this cup shew forth the lordes death vntill he come And do this sayd Christ in remembraunce of me And the worshipping of Christ in his glory should be euer continuall without eyther before or after Neuertheles forasmuch as by reason of our infirmity ingratitude malice and wickednes we go farre from our offices and dueties herein the sacraments call vs home agayne to do that thing which before we did omit that at the least we may do at some tyme that which we should doe at all tymes And where you speake of the humiliatiō of Christ in the sacrament you speake without the booke For the scripture termeth not the matter in that sort but calleth his humiliation only his incarnation and conuersation with vs here in earth being obedient euen vnto death and for that humiliation he is now from that tyme forward exalted for euer in glory And you would plucke him downe from his glory to humiliation agayne And thus is Christ intreated when he commeth to the handling of ignoraunt lawyers blynd sophisters and
faythfull people in the blessed Sacrament or supper of the Lord It is a thing worthy to be considered and well wayed what moued the Schoole authors of late yeares to defend the contrary opinion not onely so far from all experience of our sences and so farre from all reason but also cleane contrary to the olde church of Christ and to Godes most holy word Surely nothing moued them therto so much as did the vayne fayth which they had in the church and sea of Rome For Ioannes Scotus otherwise called Duns the subtillest of all the schoole authors intreating of this matter of Transubstantiation sheweth playnly the cause therof For sayth he the wordes of the Scripture might be expounded more easely and more playnly without Transubstantiation but the church did choose this sense which is more hard being moued therto as it seemeth chiefly bicause that of the Sacramentes men ought to hold as the holy churh of Rome holdeth But it holdeth that bread is transubstantiate or turned into the body and wine into the bloud as it is shewed De summa Trinitate fide Catholicae Firmiter credimus And Gabriell also who of all other wrote most largely vpon the Canon of the Masse sayth thus It is to be noted that although it be taught in the scripture that the body of Christ is truely conteined and receaued of christen people vnder the kindes of bread wine yet how the body of Christ is there whether by conuersion of any thing into it or without conuersion the body is there with the bread both the substance and accidence of bread remayning there still it is not found expressed in the Bible Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth as it is written De haereticis Ad abolendum And that church holdeth and hath determined that the bread is trāsubstantiated into the body of Christ and the wine into his bloud Therfore is this opinion receaued of all them that be catholike that the substance of bread remayneth not but really and truely is tourned transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the body of Christ. Thus you haue heard the cause wherfore this opinion of Transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among christen people that is to say bicause the church of Rome hath so determined although the contrary by the Papistes owne confession appeare to be more easy more true and more according to the Scripture But bicause our english papistes who speake more grossely herein then the Pope himselfe affirming that the naturall body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine can not nor dare not ground their fayth concerning transubstantiation vpon the church of Rome which although in name it be called most holy yet in deede it is the most stinking dongehill of all wickednes that is vnder heauen and the very sinagoge of the deuill which whosoeuer followeth can not but stumble and fall into a pit ful of erroures Bicause I say the English papistes dare not now stablish their fayth vpon that foundation of Rome therfore they seeke Figge leaues that is to say vayne reasons gathered of their owne braynes and authorities wrested from the intent and minde of the authors wherwith to couer and hide their shamefull errours Wherfore I thought it good somwhat to trauayle herein to take away those figge leaues that their shamefull errours may playnly to euery man appeare The greatest reason and of most importance and of such strength as they thinke or at the least as they pretend that all the world can not answere therto is this Our sauiour Christ taking the bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body Now say they as sone as Christ had spoken these wordes the bread was straight way altered and changed and the substāce therof was conuerted into the substance of his precious body But what christen eares canne paciently heare this doctrine that Christ is euery day made a new and made of an other substance than he was made of in his mothers wombe For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother now by these papistes opinion he is made euery day of the nature and substance of bread and wine which as they say be turned into the substance of his body and bloud O what a meruaylous Metamorphosis and abhominable heresie is this to say that Christ is dayly made a new and of a new matter wherof it followeth necessarely that they make vs euery day a new Christ and not the same that was borne of the virgine Mary nor that was crucified vpon the crosse and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper which was borne and crucified as it shall be playnly proued by these arguments folowing First thus If Christes body that was crucified was not made of bread but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread as the papistes say than Christes body that was eaten in the supper was not the same that was crucified For if they were all one body than it must needes follow that either Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread or els that his body that was crucified was made of bread And in like manner it followeth If the body of Christ in the Sacrament be made of the substance of bread and wine and the same body was conceaued in the Virgines wombe than the body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was made of bread and wine Or els turne the argument thus The body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was not made of bread and wine but this body of Christ in the Sacrament is made of bread and wine than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceaued in the virgines wombe An other argument Christ that was borne in the Virgines wombe as concerning his body was made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother but Christ in the Sacrament is made of an other substance and so it followeth that he is an other Christ. And so the Antichrist of Rome the chiefe author of all idolatrie would bring faythfull christen people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgine Mary through the operation of the holy ghost and suffered for vs vpon the crosse to worship an other Christ made of bread and wine through the consecration of Popish priestes which make themselues the makers of God For say they the priest by the wordes of consecration maketh that thing which is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper and that say they is Christ himselfe both God and man and so they take vpon them to make both God and man But let all true worshipers worship one God one Christ once corporally made of one onely corporall substance that is to say of the blessed virgin Mary that once dyed and rose once
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
politicke consideration to goe forward yet he so handled him selfe aswell in the Parlament house as afterwardes by writing so obediently with such huÌ„ble behauiour in wordes towards his Prince protesting the cause not to be his but almightie Gods who was the author of all truth that the kyng did not onely well like his defence willyng him to depart out of the ParlameÌ„t house into the Counsaile chaÌ„ber whilest the Acte should passe be graunted for safegard of his conscience which he with humble proâ—estatioÌ„ refused hopyng that his Maiestie in processe of time would reuoke them agayne but also after the Parlament was finished the kyng perceiuyng the zealous affectioÌ„ that the Archb. bare towardes the defence of his cause which many wayes by Scriptures and manifold authorities and reasons he had substauntially confirmed and defended sent the Lord Cromwell then Uicegerent with the two Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke all the Lordes of the Parlament to dyne with him at Lambeth Where it was declared by the Uicegerent and the two Dukes that it was the kynges pleasure that they all should in his highnes behalfe cherish comfort and animate him as one that for his trauaile in that Parlament had shewed him selfe both greatly learned and also discret and wise and therfore they willed him not to be discouraged for any thing that was passed contrary to his allegations He most humbly thanked the kynges Maiestie of his great goodnesse towardes him and them all for their paynes saying I hope in God that hereafter my allegatioÌ„s authorities shall take place to the glory of God and the commoditie of the Realme in the meane tyme I will satisfie my selfe with the honorable consent of your honours and the whole Parlament Here is to be noted that this mans stoute and godly defence of the truth herein so bound the Princes coÌ„science that he would not permit the truth in that man to be cleane ouerthrowen with authoritie and power and therfore this way God workyng in the Princes mynde a playne token was declared hereby that all thyngs were not so sincerely handled in the confirmation of the sayd vi Articles as it ought to haue bene for els the Prince might haue had iust cause to haue borne his great indignation towardes the Archbyshop Let vs pray that both the like stoutnes may be perceiued in all Ecclesiasticall and learned men where the truth ought to be defended and also the like relentyng and flexibilitie may take place in Princes and Noble men when they shall haue occasion offered them to maintaine the same so that they vtterly ouerwhelme not the truth by selfe will power and authoritie Now in the end this Archbyshops constancie was such towardes Gods cause that he confirmed all his doynges by bitter death in the fire with out respect of any worldly treasure or pleasure And as touchyng his stoutnesse in his Princes cause the contrary resistaunce of the Duke of Northumberland agaynst him proued right well his good minde that way which chaunced by reason that he would not consent to the dissoluyng of Chauntreys vntill the kyng came of age to the intent that they might then better serue to furnish his royall estate then to haue so great treasure consumed in his noneage Which his stoutnes ioyned with such simplicitie surely was thought to diuers of the Counsaile a thyng incredible specially in such sort to contend with him who was so accounted in this Realme as few or none would or durst gaynstand hym So deare was to him the cause of God and of his Prince that for the one he would not kéepe his conscience clogged nor for the other lurke or hide his head Otherwise as it is sayd his very enemies might easely intreate him in any cause reasonable and such thyngs as he graunted he did without any suspition of rebraidyng or méede therfore So that he was altogethers voyde of the vice of the stubbâ—rnes and rather culpable of ouer much facilitie and gentlenes Surely if ouermuch patience may be a vice this maÌ„ may séeme peraduenture to offend rather on this part then on the contrary Albeit for all his doynges I can not say for the most part such was his mortification that way that few we shall finde in whoÌ„ the saying of our Sauiour Christ so much preuailed as with him who would not onely haue a man to forgiue his enemies but also to pray for them that lesson neuer went out of his memory For it was knowen that he had many cruell enemies not for his owne desertes but onely for his Religion sake and yet what soeuer he was that either sought his hinderaunce either in goodes estimation or life and vpon coÌ„ference would séeme neuer so slenderly any thyng to relent or excuse him selfe he would both forget the offence committed and also euermore afterwardes frendly entertayne him and shew such pleasure to him as by any meanes possible he might performe or declare In somuch that it came into a common Prouerbe Do vnto my Lord of Canterbury displeasure or a shrewed turne and then you may be sure to haue him your frend whiles he liueth Of which his gentle disposition in absteinyng from reuengement amongest many examples therof I will repeate here one It chauÌ„ced an ignorauÌ„t Priest Parson in the North parts the Towne is not now in remeÌ„braunce but he was a kinsman of one Chersey a Grocer dwellyng within LondoÌ„ beyng one of those Priests that vse more to study at the Alchouse theÌ„ in his chaÌ„ber or in his study to sit on a time with his honest neighbours at the Alchouse within his own Parish where was coÌ„municatioÌ„ ministred in coÌ„mendation of my Lord CraÌ„mer Archb. of Cant. This sayd Parson enuying his name onely for ReligioÌ„ sake sayd to his neighbours what make you of him quoth he he was but an Hostler and hath no more learnyng theÌ„ the goslyngs that goeth yonder on the gréene with such like sclaunderous vncomely wordes These honest neighbours of his not well bearyng those his vnséemely words Articled against him sent their coÌ„playnt vnto the Lord Cromwell theÌ„ Uicegerent in causes Ecclesiasticall who sent for the Priest and committed him to the Fléete mindyng to haue had him recant those his sclaunderous wordes at Paules Crosse. Howbeit the Lord Cromwell hauing great affaires of the Prince then in hand forgat his prisoner in the Fléete So that this Chersey the Grosser vnderstandyng that his kinsman was in duraunce in the Fléete onely for speakyng wordes agaynst my Lord of Canterbury consulted with the Priest and betwene them deuised to make sute rather vnto the Archbyshop for his deliueraunce then to the Lord Cromwell before whom he was accused vnderstandyng right well that there was great diuersitie of natures betwene those two estates the one geÌ„tle and full of clemency and the other seuere and somewhat intractable namely agaynst a Papist So that Chersey tooke vpon him first to
try my Lord of CaÌ„terburies benignitie namely for that his cousins accusatioÌ„ touched onely the offence agaynst him and none other Whereupon the sayd Chersey came to one of the Archbyshops GentlemeÌ„ whose father bought yearely all his spices and frute of the sayd Chersey and so thereby of familiar acquaintaunce with the Gentleman who openyng to him the trouble wherein his kinsman was requested that he would be a meanes to my Lord his Maister to heare his sute in the behalfe of his kinsman The matter was moued The Archbyshop like as he was of nature gentle and of much clemencie so would he neuer shew him selfe straunge vnto suters but incontinently sent for the said Chersey When he came before him Chersey declared that there was a kinsman of his in the Fléete a Priest of the North countrey as I may tell your grace the truth quoth Chersey a man of small ciuilitie and of lesse learnyng And yet he hath a personage there which now by reason that my Lord Cromwell hath layd him in prison beyng in his cure is vnserued and hee hath continued in duraunce aboue two monethes and is called to no aunswere and knoweth not when hee shall come to any end so that this his imprisonment consumeth his substaunce will vtterly vndoe him vnlesse your Grace be his good Lord. I know not the maÌ„ sayd the Archbyshop nor what he hath done why he should be thus in trouble Sayd Chersey agayne he onely hath offended agaynst your Grace and agaynst no man els as may well be perceiued by the Articles obiected agaynst him the Copy wherof the sayd Chersey then exhibited vnto the sayd Archbyshop of Caunterbury Who well perusing the sayd Articles sayd This is the common talke of all the ignoraunt Papisticall Priestes in England agaynst me Surely sayd he I was neuer made priuy vnto this accusation nor of his induraunce I neuer heard before this tyme. Notwithstandyng if there be nothing els to charge him withal against the Prince or any of the CouÌ„saile I will at your request take order with him and send him home againe to his Cure to do his duetie and so therupoÌ„ sent his ryng to the Warden of the Fleete willyng him to send the prisoner vnto him with his kéeper at after noone When the kéeper had brought the prisoner at the houre appointed and Chersey had well instructed his Cosin in any wise to submit him selfe vnto the Archbishop confessing his fault whereby that way he should most easely haue an end and winne his fauour thus the Parson beyng brought into the garden at Lambeth and there sittyng vnder the vyne the Archbyshop demaunded of the Parson what was the cause of his induraunce and who committed him to the Fléete The Parson aunswered and sayd that the Lord Cromwell sent him thether for that certaine malicious Parishioners of his Parish had wrongfully accused him of wordes whiche he neuer spake nor mentâ— Chersey hearyng his foolish Cosin so farre out of the way from his former instruction sayd Thou dasterdly â—olt and varlet is this thy promise that thou madest to me Is there not a great number of thy honest neighbours haÌ„des agaynst thée to proue thée a lyer Surely my Lord quoth Chersey it is pitie to doe him good I am sory that I haue troubled your Grace thus farre with him Well sayd the Archbyshop vnto the Parson if you haue not offended me I caÌ„ do you no good for I am intreated to helpe one out of trouble that hath offended agaynst me If my Lord Cromwell hath committed you to prison wrongfully that lyeth in him selfe to amend and not in me If your offence onely touche me I will be bold to doe somewhat for your frendes sake here If you haue not offended agaynst me theÌ„ haue I nothyng to do with you but that you may go remaine from whence you came Lord what aâ—â— his kinsman Chersey made with him callyng him all kynde of opprobrious names In the end my Lord of CaÌ„terbury séemyng to rise and go his wayes the fond Priest fell downe on his knées and sayd I beséech your Grace to forgiue me this offence assuryng your Grace that I spake those wordes beyng dronke and not well aduised Ah sayd my Lord this is somewhat and yet it is no good excuse for dronkennesse euermore vttereth that whiche lyeth hid in the hart of man when hee is sober alledgyng a teâ—t or twayne out of the Scriptures concernyng the vyce of dronkennesse whiche commeth not now to remembraunce Now therfore sayd the Archbyshop that you acknowledge somewhat your fault I am content to common with you hopyng that you are at this present of an indiffereÌ„t sobrietie Tell me then quoth he did you euer sée me or were you euer acquainted with me before this day The Priest aunswered and sayd that neuer in his life he saw his Grace Why then sayd the Archbyshop what occasion had you to call me an Hostler and that I had not so much learning as the goslinges which then went on the gréene before your face If I haue no learnyng you may now try it and be out of doubt thereof therfore I pray you appose me either in Grammer or in other liberall sciences for I haue at one tyme or other tasted partly of them Or elles if you are a Diuine say some what that way The Priest beyng amased at my Lordes familiar talke made aunswere and sayd I beséeth your Grace to pardon me I am altogethers vnlearned and vnderstand not the Latin toung but very simply My onely study hath bene to say my seruice and Masse fayre and deliberate which I can do aswell as any Priest in the countrey where I dwel I thanke God Well sayd the other if you will not appose me I will be so bold to appose you yet as easly as I can deuise that onely in the story of the Bible now in English in which I suppose that you are dayly exercised Tell me therfore who was kyng Dauids father sayd my Lord The Priest stoode still pausing a white and sayd In good sayth my Lord I haue forgotten his name Then sayd the other agayne to him if you can not tell that I pray you tell me then who was Salomons Father The fond foolish Priest without all consideration what was demaunded of him before made aunswere Good my Lord beare with me I am not further séene in the Bible then is dayly read in our seruice in the Church The Archbyshop then aunsweryng sayd this my question may be found well aunswered in your seruice But I now well perceiue howsoeuer you haue iudged heretofore of my learnyng sure I am that you haue none at all But this is the common practise of all you which are ignoraunt and superstitious Priestesâ— to sclaunder backbite and hate all such as are learned and well affected towardes Gods word and sincere Religion Common reason might haue taught you what an
tooke his leaue of the kynges highnesse for that night On the morow about ix of the clocke before noone the Counsaile sent a Gentleman busher for the Archbishop who when he came to the Counsaile chamber doore could not be let in but of purpose as it séemed was compelled there to waite among the pages lackeys and seruyngmen all alone Doct. Buttes the kynges Phisition resortyng that way and espying how my Lord of Canterbury was handled went to the kynges highnes and sayd My Lord of Canterbury if it please your Grace is well promoted for now he is become a lackey or a seruyngman for yonder he standeth this halfe houre without the Counsaile chamber doore amongest them It is not so quoth the kyng I trow nor the Counsaile hath not so litle discretion as to vse the Metropolitane of the Realme in that sorte specially beyng one of their owne number but let them alone sayd the kyng and we shall here more soone Anone the Archbishop was called into the Counsaile Chamber to whom was alledged as before is rehearsed The Archbyshop aunswered in like sort as the kyng had aduised him and in the ende when he perceiued that no maner of perswasion or intreatie could serue he deliuered to them the kyngs ryng reuokyng his cause into the kynges handes The whole Counsaile beyng thereat somewhat amased the Earle of Bedford with a loude voyce confirmyng his wordes with a solemne oth sayd When you first began this matter my Lordes I told you what would come of it Do you thinke that the kyng will suffer this mans finger to ake much more I warrant you will he defend his life agaynst brablyng varlets You do but comber your selues to heare tales and fables agaynst him And so incontinently vpon the recept of the kynges token they all rose and caryed to the kyng his ryng surrenderyng that matter as the order and vse was into his owne handes When they were all come to the kynges presence his highnesse with a seuere countenaunce sayd vnto theÌ„ Ah my Lordes I thought I had had wiser men of my Counsaile then now I finde you What discretion was this in you thus to make the Primate of the Realme one of you in office to waite at the Counsaile Chamber doore amongest seruyngmen You might haue considered that he was a Counseller as well as you and you had no such CoÌ„mission of me so to handle him I was coÌ„tent that you should try him as a Counseller not as a meane subiect But now I well perceiue that things be done agaynst him malitiously if some of you might haue had your myndes you would haue tried him to the vttermost But I doe you all to witte protest that if a Prince may be beholdyng vnto his subiect and so solemly laying his haÌ„d vpon his brest sayd by the fayth I owe to God I take this man here my Lord of Caunterbury to bee of all other a most faythfull subiect vnto vs and one to whom we are much beholdyng giuyng him great commendations otherwise And with that one or two of the chiefest of the Counsaile makyng their excuse declared that in requestyng his induraunce it was rather ment for his triall and his purgation agaynst the common fame and sclaunder of the world then for any malice conceiued agaynst him Well well my Lordes quoth the king take him and well vse him as he is worthy to be and make no more ado And with that euery man caught him by the hand and made fayre wether of altogethers whiche might easely be done with that man And it was much to bee marueiled that they would goe so farre with him thus to séeke his vndoyng this well vnderstandyng before that the kyng most entirely loued him and alwayes would stand in his defence who soeuer spake agaynst him as many other tymes the kynges patience was by sinister informations agaynst him tryed In so much that the Lord Cromwell was euermore wont to say vnto him My Lord of Canterbury you are most happy of all men for you may do and speake what you lifte and say what all men can agaynst you the kyng will neuer beleue one word to your detriment or hinderaunce After the death of kyng Henry immediatly succéeded his sonne kyng Edward vnder whose gouernement and protection the state of this Archbyshop beyng his Godfather was nothyng appaired but rather more aduaunced Duryng all this meane tyme of kyng Henry aforesayd vntill the entryng of kyng Edward it séemeth that Cranmer was scarsely yet throughly perswaded in the right knowledge of the Sacrament or at least was not yet fully rypened in the same wherein shortly after he beyng more groundly confirmed by conference with Byshop Ridley in processe of tyme did so profite in more ryper knowledge that at last he tooke vpon him the defence of that whole doctrine that is to refute and throw downe first the corporall presence secondly the phantasticall transubstantiation thirdly the Idolatrous adoration fourthly the false errour of the Papistes that wicked men do eate the naturall body of Christ and lastly the blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse Whereupon in conclusion he wrote fiue bookes for the publicke instructioÌ„ of the Church of England which instruction yet to this day standeth and is receaued in this Church of England Agaynst these fiue bookes of the Archbyshop Stephen Gardiner the Archenemy to Christ and his Gospell beyng then in the Tower slubbereth vp a certaine aunswere such as it was which he in open Court exhibited vp at Lambeth beyng there examined by the Archbyshop aforesayd and other the kynges Commissioners in kyng Edwardes dayes whiche booke was intitled An Explication and assertion of the true Catholicke fayth touchyng the blessed Sacrament of the aultar with a confutation of a booke written agaynst the same Agaynst this Explication or rather a caâ—illyng Sophistication of Stephens Gardiner Doctour of Law the sayd Archbyshop of Canterbury learnedly and copiously replying agayne maketh aunswere as by the discourse therof renewed in Print is euident to be sene to all such as with indifferent eye will Read and peruse the same Besides these bookes aboue recited of this Archbishop diuers other things there were also of his doing as the booke of Reformation with the booke of Homelies whereof part was by him contriued part by his procurement approued and published Wherunto also may be adioyned an other writing or confutation of his agaynst 88. Articles by the CoÌ„uocation deuised and propounded but yet not ratified nor receaued in the reigne and time of king Henry And thus much hetherto concernyng the deynges and trauailes of this Archbyshop of Caunterbury duryng the lines both of kyng Henry and of kyng Edward his sonne Which two kynges so long as they continued this Archbyshop lacked no stay of maintenaunce agaynst all his maligners After the death of king Edward Quéene Mary comming now to the Crowne and being established in
death and to saue my life if it might be and that is all such Billes and papers which I haue written or signed with my hand since my degradation wherein I haue written many thynges vntrue And for as much as my hand offended written contrary to my hart my hand shall first bee punished therefore for may I come to the fire it shal be first burned And as for the Pope I refuse him as Christes enemy and Antichrist with all his false doctrine And as for the Sacrament I beleue as I haue taught in my booke agaynst the Byshop of Winchester the whiche my booke teacheth so true a doctrine of the Sacrament that it shal stand at the last day before the Iudgement of God where the Papisticall doctrine contrary thereto shal be ashamed to shew her face Here the standers by were all astonyed maruailed were amased did looke one vpon an other whose expectation he had so notably deceiued Some began to admonish him of his recantation and to accuse him of falshode Briefly it was a world to sée the Doctours beguiled of so great an hope I thinke there was neuer crueltie more notably or better in tyme deluded and deceiued For it is not to bee doubted but they looked for a glorious victorie and a perpetuall triumph by this mans retractation Who as soone as they heard these thynges began to let downe their eares to rage fret and fume and so much the more because they could not reuenge their grief for they could now no longer threaten or hurt him For the most miserable man in the world can dye but once where as of necessitie he must néedes dye that day though the Papistes had bene neuer so well pleased now beyng neuer so much offended with him yet could he not be twise killed of them And so whē they could do nothing els vnto him yet lest they should say nothyng they ceassed not to obiect vnto him his falsehode and dissimulation Unto which accusation he aunswered Ah my Maisters quoth he do not you take it so Alwayes since I liued hetherto I haue bene a hater of falsehode and a louer of simplicitie and neuer before this tyme haue I dissembled and in saying this all the teares that remained in his body appeared in his eyes And when hee began to speake more of the Sacrament and of the Papacie some of them began to cry out yalpe and baule and and specially Cole cried out vpon him stop the heretickes mouth and take him away And then Cranmer beyng pulled downe from the stage was led to the fire accompanied with those Friers vexyng troublyng and threatnyng him most cruellie What madnes say they hath brought thée agayne into this errour by which thou wilt draw innumerable soules with thée into hell To whom he aunswered nothyng but directed all his talke to the people sauyng that to one troublyng him in the way he spake and exhorted him to get him home to his study and apply his booke diligently saying if he did diligently call vpon God by reading more he should get knowledge But the other Spanish barker ragyng and fomyng was almost out of his wittes alwayes hauyng this in his mouth Non fecisti diddest thou it not But when he came to the place where the holy Byshops and Martyrs of God Hugh Latymer Ridley were burnt before him for the confessiō of the truth knéeling down he prayed to God and not long tarying in Prayers puttyng of his garmentes to his shirt hee prepared him selfe to death His shirt was made long downe to his féete His féete were bare Likewise his head when both his cappes were of was so bare that not one heare could bee sene vpon it His beard was long and thicke coueryng his face with marueilous grauitie Such a countenaunce of grauitie moued the hartes both of his frendes and of his enemies Then the Spanish Friers Iohn and Richard of whom mention was made before began to exhort him and play their partes with him a fresh but with vayne and lost labour Cranmer with stedfast purpose abidyng in the profession of his doctrine gaue his hand to certaine old men and other that stoode by biddyng them farewell And when he had thought to haue done so likewise to Ely the sayd Ely drew backe his hand and refused saying it was not lawfull to salute heretickes and specially such a one as falsely returned vnto the opinions that he had foresworne And if hee had knowen before that he would haue done so he would neuer haue vsed his companie so familiarly and chid those Sergeauntes and Citizens which had not refused to geue him their handes This Ely was a Priest lately made and Student in Diuinitie beyng then one of the Fellowes of Brasennose Then was an yron chayne tyed about Cranmer whom when they perceiued to be more stedfast then that he could be moued from his sentence they commaunded the fire to be set vnto him And when the wood was kindled and the fire began to burne neare him stretchyng out his arme he put his right hand into the flame whiche he held so stedfast and immouable sauyng that once with the same hand he wiped his face that all men might sée his hand burned before his body was touched His body did so abide the burnyng of the flame with such constancie and stedfastnesse that standyng alwayes in one place without mouyng of his body hee séemed to moue no more then the stake to whiche he was bound his eyes were lifted vp into heauen and often tymes he repeated his vnworthy right hand so long as his voyce would suffer him and vsing often the wordes of Stephen Lord Iesus receiue my spirite in the greatnesse of the flame he gaue vp the Ghost This fortitude of mynde whiche perchaunce is rare and not vsed among the Spaniardes when Frier Iohn saw thinkyng it came not of fortitude but of desperation although such maner examples whiche are of the like constancie haue bene common here in England ran to the Lord Williams of Lame crying that the Archbyshop was vexed in mynde and dyed in great desperation But he whiche was not ignoraunt of the Archbyshops constancie beyng vnknowen to the Spaniardes smiled onely and as it were by silence rebuked the Friers tollie And this was the end of this learned Archbyshop whom lest by euill subscribyng he should haue perished by well recantyng God preserued and lest he should haue liued longer with shame and reproofe it pleased God rather to take him away to the glory of his name and profite of his Churche So good was the Lord both to his Church in fortifying the same with the testimonie bloud of such a Martyr and so good also to the man with this Crosse of tribulation to purge his offences in his world not onely of his recantatiō but also of his standyng agaynst Iohn Lambert and M. Allen or if there were any other
so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten in dede of al them that come therto in such sort as they ought to do which eating nourisheth them vnto euerlasting lyfe And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himselfe in the vj. of Iohn where Christ saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath lyfe euerlasting But they that to the outward eatyng of the breade ioyne not therto an inward eating of Christ by faith they haue no warrant by Scripture at all but the bread and wyne to them be vayne mide and bare tokens And where you say that Scripture expresseth no matter of signification speciall effect in the sacramentes of bread and wine if your eyes were not blynded with popish errours frowardnes and selfeloue ye might see in the 22. of Luke where Christ himselfe expresseth a matter of signification saying Hoc facite in mei commemorationem Do this in remembrance of me And S. Paule likewise 1. Cor. 11. hath the very same thing which is a plain and direct aunswer to that same your last question wherupoÌ„ you triumph at your pleasure as though the victory were all yours For ye say when this question is demaunded of me what to signifie Here must be a sort of good wordes framed without scripture But here S. Paule aunswereth your question in expresse wordes that it is the lordes death that shall be signified represented and preached in these holy mysteries vntill his commyng againe And this remembraunce representation and preaching of Christes death cannot be without special effect except you wil say that Christ worketh not effectually with his worde and sacramentes And S. Paule expresseth the effect when he saith The bread which we breake is the communion of Christes body But by this place and such like in your booke ye disclose your selfe to all men of iudgement either how wilful in your opinion or how flender in knowledge of the scriptures you be Winchester And therfore like as the teaching is new to say it is an only figure or only signifieth so the matter of significatioÌ„ must be newly deuised and new wyne haue new bottels and be throughly new after xv C. l. yeres in the very yere of Iubiley as they were wont to call it to be newly erected and builded in English mens hartes Caunterbury IT semeth that you be very desirous to abuse the peoples eares with this terme New and with the yeare of Iubiley as though the true doctrine of the sacrament by me taught should be but a new doctrine and yours old as the Iewes slaundered the doctrine of Christ by the name of newnesse or els that in this yere of Iubiley you would put the people in remembraÌ„ce of the full remission of sinne which they were wont to haue at Rome this yere that they might long to returne to Rome for pardons againe as the children of Israell longed to returne to Egipt for the flesh that they were went to haue there But all men of learning iudgement know well inough that this your doctrine is no elder then the bishop of Romes vsurped supremacy which though it be of good age by nomber of yeres yet is it new to Christ and his worde If there were such darkenes in the world now as hath ben in that world which you note for olde the people might drinke new wyne of the whore of Babilons cup vntil they were as dronke with hypocrisie and superstition as they might well stand vpon their legs and no man once say blacke is their eye But now thankes be to God the light of his worde so shineth in the world that your dronkennes in this yeare of Iubiley is espied so that you cannot erect and build your popish kingdome any longer in Englishmens hattes without your owne scorne shame and confusioÌ„ The old popish bottels must nedes brast when the new wyne of Gods holy word is poured into them Winchester Which new teaching whether it procedeth from the spirite of truth or no shall more plainly appeare by such matter as this author vttereth wherewith to impugne the true fayth taught hetherto For amoÌ„ng many other profes wherby truth after much trauail in contention at the last preuayleth and hath victory there is none more notable then when the very aduersaries of truth who pretend neuerthelesse to be truthes frendes do by some euident vntruth bewrap them selues According wherunto when the two women contended before King Salomon for the child yet aliue Salomon decerned the true naturall mother from the other by their speeches and sayinges Which in the very mother were euer conformable vnto nature and in the other at the last euideÌ„tly against nature The very true mother spake alwayes like her selfe and neuer disagreed from the truth of nature but rather then the thilde should be killed as Salomon the eatned when he called for a Sword required it to be geuen whole aliue to the other woman The other woman that was not the true mother cared more for victory then for the child and therfore spake that was in nature an euidence that she lyen callinge her selfe mother and saying let it be deuided which no natural mother could say of her own child Wherupon procéedeth Salomons most wise iudgement which hath this lesson in it euer where contention is on that part to be the truth where all sayinges and doinges appeare vniformely consonant to the truth pretended and on what side a notable â—yâ— appeareth the rest may be iudged to be after the same sort For truth néedeth no ayde of lyes exast or sleight wherwith to be supported or maintayned So as in the intreating of the truth of this high and ineffable mistery of the sacrament on what past thou reader séest crafte sleight shift obliquitie or in any one poynt an open manifest lye there thou mayst consider what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended which loueth simplicity playnnesse direct speach without admixtion of shift or colour Caunterbury IF either diuisioÌ„ or confusion may try the true mother the wicked church the Rome not in speech only but in all other practises hath long gone about to oppresse confound and deuide the true and liuely fayth of Christ shewing her selfe not to be the true mother but a most cruell stepmother deuiding confounding and counterfayting al thinges at her pleasure not coÌ„trary to nature only but chiefly against the playn wordes of scripture For here in this one matter of controuersy between you Smith and me you deuide against nature the accidentes of bread and wine from their substances and the substance of Christ from his accidences and contray to the scripture you deuide our eternall life attributing vnto the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse only the beginning therof and the continuance therof you ascribe vnto the sacrifice of popish priestes And in the sacramentes you separate Christes
Gospel of S. John Whereby appeareth how euidently they set forth the doctrine of the mistery of the eating of Christes flesh drinking his bloud in the sacrament which must néedes be vnderstanded of a corporal eating as Christ did after order in the institution of the sayd Sacrament according to his promise and doctrine here declared Canterbury HEre before you enter into my seconde vntrueth as you call it you finde faulte by the way that in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the Gospell of S. Iohn I begine a little to lowe But if the reader consider the matter for the which I alleadge S. Iohn he shal wel perceiue that I began at the right place where I ought to begin For I doe not bring forth S. Iohn for the matter of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament whereof is no mention made in that chapter as it would not haue serued me for that purpose no more doth it serue you althoughe ye cyted the whole Gospell But I bring saynt Iohn for the matter of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud wherin I passed ouer nothing that pertaineth to the matter but rehearse the whole fully and faithfully And because the Reader may the better vnderstand the matter and iudge between vs both I shall rehearse the wordes of my former booke which be these THe Supper of the Lord otherwise called the holy communion or sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ hath been of many men and by sundry wayes very much abused but specially within these four or fiue hundered yeares Of some it hath beene vsed as a Sacrifice propiciatory for sinne and otherwise superstitiouslye far from the intent that Christ did first ordaine the same at the beginning doing therein great wrong and iniury to his death and passion And of other some it hath been very lightly estemed or rather contemned and despiced as a thing of smal or of none effect And thus betweene both the parties hath been much variance and contention in diuers partes of Christendome Therefore to the intent that this holy Sacrament or Lords Supper may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed nor of the other party be abused to any other purpose then Christ himselfe did first appoint ordain the same and that so the contention on both parties may be quieted and ended the most sure and playn way is to cleaue vnto holye scripture Wherein whatsoeuer is found must be taken for a most sure ground and an infallible truth and whatsoeuer cannot be grounded vpon the same touching our faith is mans deuise changeable and vncertain And therfore here are set forth the very words that Christ him selfe and his Apostle S. Paule spake both of the eating and drinking of Christs body bloud also of the eating drinking of the sacramēt of the same First as concerning the eating of the body and drinkinge of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ hee speaketh him selfe in the sixte Chapiter of Saynt Iohn in this wise Verely verely I say vnto you except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I wil rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drinke Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here haue I rehearsed the wordes of Christ faithfully and fully so much as pertayneth to the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud And I haue begun neither to high nor to low but taking only so much as serued for the matter But here haue I committed a fault say you in the translation for verely meate translating very meat And this is another of the euydent and manifest vntruthes by me vttered as you esteeme it Wherein a man may see how hard it is to escape the reproches of Momus For what an horrible crime trow you is committed here to call very meat that which is verely meat As who should say that very meat is not verely meate or that which is verely meate were not very meate The olde Authors say very meate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verus cibus in a hundreth places And what skilleth it for the diuersitye of the wordes where no diuersity is in the sence And whether we say very meat or verely meate it is a figuratiue speache in this place and the sence is all one And if you will looke vpon the new testament lately set forth in Greeke by Robert Steuens you shall see that he had three Greeke copyes which in the said sixt chap. of Iohn haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that I may be bold to say that you finde faulte here where none is And here in this place you shew forth your olde condition which you vse much in this booke in following the nature of a cuttil The property of the cuttill saith Pliny is to cast out a black incke or color when soeuer she spieth her selfe in danger to be taken that the water being troubled and darckned therewith she may hide her selfe and to escape vntaken After like maner do you throughout this wholl booke for when you see no other way to flye and escape then you cast out your blacke colors maske your selfe so in cloudes and darcknes that men should not discerne where you become which is a manyfest argument of vntrue meaning for he that meaneth plainly speaketh plainly Et qui sophisticè loquitur odibilis est saith the wise man For he that speaketh obscurely and darckly it is a token that he goeth about to cast mistes before mennes eyes that they should not see rather then to open their eyes that they may cleerely see the truth And therfore to answere you plainly the fattie fleshe that was geuen in Christes last Supper was geuen also vpon the crosse and is geuen daylye in the ministration of the Sacrament But although it be one thinge yet it was diuerslye geuen For vpon the crosse Christ was carnally geuen to suffer and to dye At his last Supper he was spiritually geuen in a promise of his death and in the Sacrament he is daily geuen in remembraunce of his death And yet it is all but one Christ that was promysed to die that died in deede and whose death is remembred that is to say the very same Christ the eternall word that was made flesh And the same flesh was also geuen to be spiritually eaten and was eaten in deede before his supper yea and before his
because they be spoken by Christ hym selfe the auctor of all truth and by hys holy Apostle S. Paule as he receaued them of Christ so all doctrines contrary to the same be moste certaynly false and vntrue and of al Christen men to be eschued because they be contrary to Gods word And all doctrine concerning this matter that is more then this which is not grounded vpon Gods word is of no necessity neither ought the peoples heads to be busied or their consciences troubled with the same So that thinges spoken and done by Christ and written by the holy Euangelists and S Paule ought to suffice the fayth of Christian people as touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper and holy communion or sacrament of his body and bloud Which thing being well considered and wayed shall be a iust occasion to pacifie and agree both parties as well them that hetherto haue contemned or lightly esteemed it as also them which haue hetherto for lacke of knowledge or otherwise vngodly abused it Christ ordeyned the Sacrament to moue and stirre all men to frendshippe loue and concord and to put away all hatred variance and discord and to testifie a brotherly and vnfained loue between all them that be the members of Christ But the deuil the enemy of Christ and of all his members hath so craftely iugled herein that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy Sacrament God graunt that al contention set aside both the parties may come to this holy communiō with such a liuely faith in Christ and such an vnfained loue to all Christes members that as they carnallye eate with their mouthes this Sacramentall bread and drink the wine so spiritually they may eate and drink the very flesh and bloud of Christ which is in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of his father And that finally by his meanes they may enioy with him the glory and kingdome of heauen Amen Winchester Now let vs consider the tertes of the Euangelistes and S. Paul which be brought in by the Author as followeth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cuppe and when he had geuen thanks he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and said Take eate this is my body And taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruite of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingedome of God When the houre was come he sate downe and the twelue Apostles with him and he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer for I say vnto you henceforth I wil not eate of it any more vntill it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you for I say vnto you I wil not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntil the kingdome of God come And he tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body whith is geuen for you this doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he tooke the cup saying This cuppe is the new testament in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup. That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cup when supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherefore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cup vnworthely shall be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine himselfe and so eate of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you and many doe sléepe After these tertes brought in the author doth in the 4. chap. begin to trauers Christes intent that he intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receaue that worthely be members of Christes body The catholick church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man hath from the beginning of these textes of scripture confessed truely Christes intent and effectuall miraculous worke to make the bread his body and the wine his bloud to be verely meate and verely drinke vsing therin his humanitie wherewith to féede vs as he vsed the same wherewith to redéeme vs and as he doth sanctifie vs by his holy spirite so to sanctifie vs by his holy diuine flesh and bloud and as life is renued in vs by the gift of Christes holy spirite so life to be increased in vs by the gift of his holy flesh So as he that beléeueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beliefe which is Baptisme receaueth really Christes spirite And likewise he that hauing Christes spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud Doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes very body and bloud And therfore Christ in the institution of this Sacrament sayd deliuering that he consecrated This is my body c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud c. And although to mannes reason it séemeth straunge that Christ standing or sitting at the table should deliuer them his body to be eaten Yet when we remember Christ to be very God we must graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in our thoughtes all imaginations how it might be and consider Christes
intent by his will preached vnto vs by Scriptures and beleued vniuersally in his church But if it may now be thought séemely for vs to be so bold in so high a mistery to begin to discusse Christes intent What should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall signification as be rehearsed touching the mistery of this Sacrament First in the sixt of Iohn when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signifie beleeuing whereat was no murmuring that then he should enter to speak of geuing of his flesh to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say that he would geue a bread that is his flesh which he would geue for the life of the world In which wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therefore as we beleeue the gift of his flesh to the Iewes to be crucified so we must beléeue the gift of his flesh to be eaten and of that gifte liuery and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his promises faithfull as Christ is to be made in both And therefore when he sayd in his Supper Take eate this is my body he must néedes intend plainly as his words of promise required And these wordes in his Supper purporte to geue as really then his body to be eaten of vs as he gaue his body in deede to be crucified for vs aptly neuerthelesse and conueniently for ech effect and therefore in maner of geuing diuersly but in the substance of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare witnes the same and therefore sayd this is my body that shal be betraied for you expressing also the vse when he said take eate which words in deliuering of material bread had béen superfluous for what should men doe with bread when they take it but eate it specially when it is broaken But as Cyrill sayth Christ opened there vnto them the practise of that doctrine hée spake of in the sixt of S. Iohn and because he sayd he would geue his flesh for food which he would geue for the life of the world he for fulfilling of his promise sayd Take eate this is my body which wordes haue béen taught and beléeued to be of effect and operatory and Christ vnder the forme of bread to haue béen his very body According whereunto S. Paule noteth the receauer to be gilty when he doth not estéeme it our Lordes body wherewith it pleaseth Christ to féede such as be in him regenerate to the intent that as man was redéemed by Christ suffering in the nature of his humanitie so to purchase for man the kingdome of heauen lost by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitye geuing it to be eaten he ordayned it to nourish man and make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to enioy that kingdome And therefore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament and the same to be in déede deliuered Christ vsed playn wordes testified by the Euangelistes Saint Paule also rehearsed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the eleuenth to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuing as it were an exposition of the effect vseth the same proper wordes declaring the effect to be the communication of Christes body and bloud And one thing is notable touching the Scripture that in such notable spéeches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguity the Euangelists by some circumstance declared it or sometime opened it by playn interpretation as whē Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within thrée dayes build it agayne The Euangelist by and by addeth for interpretation This he sayd of the temple of his body And when Christ sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine The circumstaunce of the texte openeth the ambiguity But to shew that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the Euangelistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstaunces whereby to take away the proper signification of the wordes body and bloud so as the same might seeme not in déede geuen as the catholicke faith teacheth but in signification as the author would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ the Spirite geueth life the flesh profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ ech in their property a part considered but not as they be in Christs person vnited the mistery of which vniō such as beléeued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descention from heauen and after of his ascension thether agayn whereby they might vnderstand him very God whose flesh taken in the virgins wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs is as I haue before opened viuifike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes intent was to geue verely as he did in déede his precious body and bloud to be eaten and dronken according as he taught thē to be verely meate and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder forme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniētly and without horror of our nature receaue them Christ therein condescending to our infirmity As for such other wrangling as is made in vnderstanding of the words of Christ shall after he spoaken of by further occasion Caunterbury NOw we be come to the very pith of the matter and the chiefe pointe wherupon the wholl controuersie hangeth whether in these words this is my body Christ called bread his body wherin you and Smith agree like a man and a woman that dwelled in Lincolnshere as I haue heard reported that what pleased the one misliked the other sauing that they both agreed in wilfulness So do Smith and you agree both in this point that Christ made bread his body but that it was bread which he called his body when he sayd This is my body this you graunt but Smith denieth it And because all Smithes buildinges cleerely fall downe if this his chiefe foundation be ouerthrowen therfore must I first proue against Smith that Christ called the materiall bread his body the wine which was the fruite of the vine his bloud For why did you not prooue this my Lord sayth Smith would you that men should take you for a prophet or for one that could not erre in his sayinges First I alleadge against Smithes negation your affirmation which as it is more true in this point then his negation so for your estimation it is able to counteruail his saying if there were nothing els yet if Smith had well pondered what I haue written in the second chap. of my second booke and in the 7. and 8. chapters of my third book he should haue
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
the very body of Christ but to the bread wherby hys body is represented And yet the booke of common prayer neyther vseth any such speach nor geueth any such doctrine nor I in no poynt improue that godly booke nor varye from it But yet glad I am to heare that the sayd booke lyketh you so well as noe man can mislike it that hath anye godlinesse in hym ioyned with knowledge But nowe to come to the very matter of this article it is maruell that you neuer redde that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke of that man that receaueth and no further being a lawyer and seing that it is written in the glose of the law De-consecrat dist 2. Tribus gradibus in these wordes It is certayne that assone as the formes be torne with the teeth so sone the body of Christ is gone vp into heauen And in the chapiter Non iste is an other glose to the same purpose And if you had redde Thomas de Aquino and Bonauenture great clearkes and holy Sainctes of the Popes own making and other schoole authors then should you haue knowne what the Papistee do say in this matter For some say that the body of Christ remayneth so long as the forme and fashion of bread remayneth although it be in a dog mouse or in the iakes And some say it is not in the mouse nor sakes but remayneth onely in the person that eateth it vntill it be digested in the stomacke and the fourme of bread be gone Some say it remayneth no longer then the Sacrament is in the eating and may be felt seene and tasted in the mouth And this besides Hugo sayth Pope Innocentius hym selfe who was the best learned and the chiefe doer in this matter of all the other Popes Red you neuer none of these authors and yet take vpō you the full knowledge of this matter Will you take vpon you to defend the Papistes and knowe not what they say Or do you know it and now be ashamed of it and for shame will deny it And seing that you teache that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes I pray you tell whether it go any further then the mouth or no and how farre it goeth that I may know your iudgement herein and so shall you be charged no further then with your own saying and the reader shall perceiue what excellent knowledge you haue in this matter And where you say that to teach that we receaue Christ at our mouth he goeth into our stomack and no further commeth out of the mouth of thē that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Here like vnto Caiphas you prophecy the truth vnwares For this doctrine commeth out of the mouth of none but of the Papistes which fight against the holy catholicke truth of the aūcient Fathers saying that Christ tarrieth no longer then the proper formes of bread and wine remaine which can not remain after perfect digestion in the stomacke And I say not that the Church teacheth so as you fayne me to say but that the Papistes say so Wherfore I should wish you to reporte my words as I say and not as you imagine me to say least you heare agayne as you haue heard heretofore of your wonderfull learning and practise in the Deuils Sophistrye Now as concerning the second parte of this comparison here you graūt that my saying therein is true and that euery Catholick man must needes and doth confesse the same By which your saying you must also condemne almost all the schoole authors and Lawiers that haue written of this matter with Innocent the third also as men not Catholick because they teach that Christ goeth no further nor taryeth no longer then the formes of bread and wine goe and remayn in their proper kinde And yet now your doctrine as farre as I can gather of your obscure wordes is this That Christ is receaued at the mouth with the formes of bread and wine and goeth with them into the stomack And although they goe no further in their proper kinds yet there Christ leaueth them and goeth him selfe further into euery parte of the mannes body and into his soule also which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange For I haue many times heard that a soule hath gone into a body but I neuer heard that a body went into a soule But I weene of all the Papistes you shal be alone in this matter and finde neuer a fellow to say as you doe And of these thinges which I haue here spoaken I may conclude that this comparison of difference is not made of an open vntruth and a truth disguised except you wil confesse the Papisticall doctrine to be an open vntruth Now the wordes of my third comparison be these They say that Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine We say that he is receaued in the hart and entreth in by faith Winchester Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on both sides and therfore here is by the Author in this comparison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauing of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is both with mouth and harte both in facte and faith After which sorte Saynte Peter in the laste Supper receaued Christes body where as in the same Iudas receaued it with mouth and in facte onely wherof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise Non dicuns ista nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt sicut Tetrus non iudicium sicut Indas tamē ipsa vtrique fuit vina sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi non erant vnum Which wordes be thus much to say That they say not so as was before intreated but such as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgement as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in them both bycause they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued which being receaued with the mouth only and Christ entring in mysterie onely doth not sanctifie vs but is the stone of stumbling and our iudgement and condemnation but if he be receaued with mouth and body with hart and fayth to such he bringeth lyfe and nourishment Wherfore in this comparison the author hath made no difference but with diuers tearmes the Catholicke teaching is deuided into two membres with a But fashioned neuertheles in another phrase of spéech then the church hath vsed which is so common in this Author that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte But let vs goe further Caunterbury THere is nothing in this comparyson worthy to be answered for if you can finde no difference therein yet euery indifferent Reader can For when I reporte the Papistes teaching that they
also in the middest of them that know him not and thus he reasoneth If he be here among vs still how can he be gone hence as a straunger departed into another countrey wherunto he answereth that Christ is both God and man hauing in him two natures And as a man he is not with vs vnto the worldes end nor is present with all his faihtfull that be gathered together in his name But his diuine power and spirite is euer with vs. Paule saith he was absent from the Corinthes in his body when he was present with thē in his spirite So is Christ sayth he gone hence and absent in his humanitie which in his diuine nature is euery where And in this saying sayth Origen we diuide not his humanitie ` for S. Iohn writeth that no spirite that deuideth Iesus can be of God but we reserue to both his natures their own properties In these wordes Origen hath playnly declared his mynd that Christes body is not both present here with vs and also gone hence and estranged from vs. For that were to make two natures of one body and to deuide the body of Iesus forasmuch as one nature can not at one tyme be both with vs and absēt from vs. And therefore sayth Origen that the presence must be vnderstanded of his diuinitie and the absence of his humanitie And according hereunto S. Austine writeth thus in a pistle Ad dardanum Doubt not but Iesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there from whence he shall come And remember well and beleeue the profession of a christian man that he rose frō death ascended into heauen sitteth at the right hand of his father and from that place and none other shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead And he shall come as the Aungels sayd as he was seene go into heauen that is to say in the same forme and substance vnto the which he gaue immortallytie but chaunged not nature After this forme sayth he meaning his mans nature we may not thynke that he is euery wher For we must beware that we doe not so stablish his diuinity that we take away the veritie of his body These be S. Augustines playne wordes And by and by after he addeth these wordes The Lord Iesus as God is euery where and as man is in heauen And finally he concludeth this matter in these few wordes Doubt not but our Lord Iesus Christ is euery where as God and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God and he is in a certain place in heauen because of the measure of a very body And agayne S. Augustin writeth vpon the Gospel of S. Iohn Our sauiour Iesus Christ sayth S. Augustine is aboue but yet his truth is here His body wherein he arose is in one place but his truth is spred euery where And in an other place of the same booke S. Augustine expounding these wordes of Christ. You shall euer haue poore men with you but me you shall not euer haue saith that Christ spake these words of the presence of his body For saith he as concerning his diuine maiesty as concerning his prouidence as concerning his infallible and inuisible grace these words be fulfilled which he spake I am with you vnto the worldes ende But as concerning the fleshe which he tooke in his carnation as concerning that which was borne of the virgine as concerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vpon a tree and taken downe frō the crosse lapped in linnen clothes and buried and rose againe and appered after his resurrection as concerning that flesh he sayd You shall not euer haue me with you Wherefore senig that as concerning his flesh he was conuersant with his disciples forty dayes and they accompanying seeing and not following him he went vp into heauen both he is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet he is here for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his diuine Maiesty As concerning the presence of his Maiesty we haue Christ euer with vs but as concerning the presence of his flesh he said truely to his disciples ye shall not euer haue me with you For as concerning the presence of his flesh the church had Christ but a few dayes yet now it holdeth him fast by faith though it see him not with eyes All these be S. Augustines wordes Also in an other booke intitled to S. Augustine is written thus We must beleeue and confesse that the Sonne of God as concerning his diuinitie is inuisible without a body immortall and in circumscriptible but as concerning his humanitie we ought to beleeue and confesse that he is visible hath a body and it contayned in a certayn place and hath truely all the members of a man Of these wordes of S. Augustine it is most cleere that the profession of the catholick faith is that Christ as concerning his bodely substance and nature of man is in heauen and not present here with vs in earth For the nature and property of a very body is to be in one place and to occupy one place and not to be euery where or in many places at one time And though the body of Christ after his resurrectiō and ascention was made immortall yet this nature was not taken away for then as S. Augustine saith it were no very body And further S. August sheweth both the maner fourme how Christ is here present with vs in earth how he is absent saying that he is present by his diuine nature and maiesty by his prouidence by grace But by his humain nature and very body he is absent from this world and present in heauen Cyrillus likewise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn agreeth fully with S. Augustin saying Although Christ tooke away from hence the presence of his body yet in Maiestie of hys Godhead he is euer here as he promised to his disciples at his departing saying I am with you euer vnto the worldes end And in an other place of the same booke saynct Cyrill sayth thus Christian people must beleeue that although Christ be absent from vs as concerning hys body yet by his power he gouerneth vs and all thinges and is present with all them that loue hym Therfore he sayd Truely truely I say vnto you where so euer there be two or three gathered together in my name there am I in the middes of them For lyke as when he was conuersant here in earth as a man yet then he filled heauen and did not leaue the company of angelles euē so beyng now in heauen with hys flesh yet he filleth the earth and is in them that loue hym And it is to be marked that although Christ should go away onely as concerning hys flesh for he is euer present in the power of hys diuinitie yet for a little time he sayd he would be with hys disciples
these wordes Let vs marke that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his disciples was the body of our Sauiour Christ as he sayd vnto them Take and eate this is my body And S. Augustine also sayth that although we may set forth Christ by mouth by writing and by the sacrament of his body and bloud yet we call neither our toung nor words nor inke letters nor paper the body and bloud of christ but that we call the body and bloud of Christ which is taken of the fruite of the earth and consecrated by misticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meat his body and drynke his bloud Moreouer Cyrill vpon S. Iohn saith that Christ gaue to his disciples peces of bread saying Take eate this is my body Likewise Theoderetus saith When Christ gaue the holy misteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wine and water he called his bloud By all these foresayd authours and places whith many mo it is playnly proued that when our sauiour Christ gaue bread vnto his Disciples saying Take and eate this is my body And likewise when he gaue them the cuppe saying Diuide this among you and drinke you all of this for this is my bloud he called then the very materiall bread his body and the very wine his bloud That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth among vs and that groweth out of the earth and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower and mixed with water and so baken aud made into bread of such sort as other our bread is that hath neither sence nor reason and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies such bread Christ called his body when he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togither and thereof is made drinke whiche nourishe the body such wine he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by the holy scripture as by all auncient authours of Christes Church both Greekes and Latines that is to say that whē our Sauiour Christ gaue bread and wine to his disciples spake these words This is my body This is my bloud it is very bread wine which he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shew some authority for their opinion either of scripture or of some aunciant author And let them not constrayne all men to follow their fond deuises only because they say It is so without any other groūd or authoritie but their owne bare wordes For in such wise credite is to be geuen to Gods word only and not to the word of any man As many of them as I haue red the byshop of Winchester onely excepted do say that Christ called not bread his body nor wine his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud And yet in expoūding these wordes they vary among them selues which is a token that they be vncertaine of their own doctrine For some of them say that by this pronoune demonstratiue this Christe vnderstoode not the bread and wine but his body and bloud And other some say that by the pronoune this he ment neither the bread nor wine not his body nor bloud but that he ment a particuler thyng vncertain which they call Indiuiduum vagum or Indiuiduum in genere I trowe some Mathematicall quiditee they can not tell what But let all these Papistes togyther shew any one authoritie eyther of scripture or of auncient author either Greke or Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall gyue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely theyr own bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the trueth confirmed by so many authorities bothe of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloude Winchester After this the author occupieth a great number of leaues that is to say from the lvii leafe vnto the lxxiiii to proue Christs words This is my body to be a figuratiue spech Sleight and shift is vsed in the matter without any offectuall consecution to him that is learned First the author sayth Christ called bread his body Confessed bread his body To this is aunswered Christes calling is a making as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non sunt tanque ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his calling as Chrisostome and the greke commentaries say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth trnslated by Iustus Ionas in Germany and after by this author in english Tertullian saith Christ made bread his body it is all one spech in Christ being god declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the word call or make for in his mouth to call is to make Cypryan saith according hereunto how 's bread is by Gods omnipotency made fleshe whereupon also this spech bread is flesh is as much to say as made flesh not that bread beyng bread is flesh but that was bread is flesh by Gods omnipotency and so this author entreating this matter as he doth hath partly opened the fayth of transubstantiaon For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is nowe Christes body because bread is made Christes body and because Christ called bread his body which was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wine the spech is very proper to say water is made wine For after like manner of spech we say Christ iustifieth a wicked man Christ saueth sinners the phisitiō hath made the sicke man whole suche dyet will make an whole man sicke Al these speches be proper and playn so as the construction be not made captious and Sophisticall to ioin that was to that now is forgetting the meane worke When Christ said This is my body there is necessitie that the demonstration this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the spech of God the father vpō Christ in Baptisme This is my son And here whē this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the fainyng of the papists I shal ioyn this Issue in this place that he vnderstandeth not what he saith and if his knowledge be no better then is vttered herein the penne to be in this point clerly cōdēned of ignoraunce Caunterbury HEre is an other sleight such as the like hath not lightly bene sene For where I wrote that when Christ sayd This is my body it was bread that he called his body you turne the matter to make a descant vpon these 2. wordes calling and making that the nundes of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these 2. wordes that in
Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall giue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely their owne bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now it shall not be much amisse to examine here the wise deuise of M. Smith what he can say to this matter that the opinion of diuers Doctours may be knowen as well of Doctour Smith as of Doctour Gardyner It is very false sayth Smith to me that you do say that as these wordes This is my body do lye there cā be gathered of them none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread For there can no such thing be gathered of those wordes but onely that Christ gaue his disciples his very body to eat into which he had turned the bread when he spake those wordes First Smith vseth here a great and manifest falsehead in reciting of my sentence leauing out those wordes which should declare the truth of my saying For I say that by this maner of speache playnly vnderstand without any figure there can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body In which my sentence he leaueth out these wordes by this maner of spech playnly vnderstand without any figure which wordes be so materiall that in them resteth the pith and triall of the whole sentence When Christ tooke the v. loaues and ij fishes and looking vp into heauen blessed them and brake them and gaue them vnto his disciples that they should distribute them vnto the people if he had then said Eate this is meate which shall satisfie your hunger by this maner of speach playnly vnderstand without any figure could any other sence haue been gathered but that the bread and fishes which he gaue them was meate And if at the same tyme he had blessed wine and commaunding them to drinke therof had sayd This is drinke which shall quench your thirst what could haue been gathered of those wordes playnly vnderstand without any figure but that he called wine drinke So lykewise when he blessed bread and wine and gaue them to his disciples saying Eate thys is my body Drinke this is my bloud what can be gathered of this maner of speach playnly vnderstād without any figure but that he called the bread his body wine his bloud For Christ spake not one word there of any changyng or turning of the substaūce of the bread no more then he did when he gaue the loaues fishes And therfore the maner of speach is all one and the changing of the substaūces can no more be proued by the phrase and fashion of speach to be in the one then in the other whatsoeuer you Papistes dreame of your owne heades without Scripture that the substaunce of the bread is turned into the substaunce of Christes body But Smith bringeth here newes vsing such strange and noueltie of speache as other Papistes vse not which he doth either of ignoraunce of his Grammar or els that he dissenteth farre from other Papistes in iudgement For he sayth that Christ had turned the bread when he spake these wordes This is my body And if Smith remember his Accidence the preterpluperfect tence signifieth the tyme that is more than perfectly past so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spake those wordes then was the turning done before and already past when he spake those wordes which the other Papistes say was done after or in the pronunciation of the wordes And therfore they vse to speake after this sort that when he had spoken the wordes the bread was turned and not that he had turned the bread when he spake the wordes An other noueltie of speach Smith vseth in the same place saying that Christ called his body bread bycause he turned bread into it it semeth and appeareth still to be it it hath the qualitie and quantitie of bread and bycause it is the foode of the soule as corporall meate is of the body These be Smithes wordes which if he vnderstād of the outward forme of bread it is a noueltie to say that it is the foode of the soule and if he meane of the very body of Christ it is a more strange noueltie to say that it hath the quantitie and qualitie of bread For there was neuer man I trow that vsed that maner of speach to say that the body of Christ hath the quātitie and qualitie of bread although the Papistes vse this spech that the body of Christ is conteined vnder the forme that is to say vnder the quātities and qualities of bread Now when Smith should come to make a direct answere vnto the authorities of the old writers which I haue brought forth to proue that Christ called bread his body when he sayd This is my body Smith answereth no more but this the Doctors which you my Lord alledge here for you proue not your purpose Forsoth a substantiall answer and well proued that the Doctours by me alledged proue not my purpose for Smith sayth so I looked here that Smith should haue brought forth a great number of authors to approue his saying and to reproue mine specially seing that I offered fayre play to him and to all the Papists ioyned with him in one trowpe For after that I had alledged for the proofe of my purpose a great many places of old authors both Greekes and Latines I prouoked the Papistes to say what they could to the contrary Let all the Papistes together sayd I shew any one authoritie for them either of Scripture or auncient Author eyther Greeke or Latin and for my part I shall giue them place And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie then is it reason that they giue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of Scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now I referre to thy iudgement indifferent reader whether I offered the Papistes reason or no and whether they ought not if they had any thing to shew to haue brought it forth here And for as much as they haue brought nothing being thus prouoked with all their counsayle whether thou oughtest not to iudge that they haue nothing in deede to shew which if they had without doubt we should haue hard of it in this place But we heare nothing at all but these their bare wordes not one of all these Doctors sayth as ye do my Lord Which I put in thy discretion indifferent Reader to vew the Doctours wordes by me alleaged and so to iudge But they say not
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
is in the bread and wine and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wine but really carnally and corporally he is onely in heauen You haue termed these my wordes as it liketh you but farre otherwise then I eyther wrote or ment or then any indifferent reader would haue imagined For what indifferent reader would haue gathered of my words that Christ in his diuine nature is not really in heauen For I make a disiunctiue wherein I declare a playn distinction betweene his diuine nature and his humaine nature And of his diuine nature I say in the first mēber of my diuision which is in the beginning of my aforesayd words that by that nature he is euery where And all the rest that followeth is spoken of his humayne nature wherby he is carnally and corporally onely in heauen And as for this word really in such a sense as you expound it that is to say not in phantasy nor imagination but verily and truely so I grant that Christ is really not onely in them that duely receaue the sacrament of the Lordes supper but also in them that duely receaue the sacrament of Baptisme and in all other true christian people at other times when they receiue no sacramēt For al they be the members of Christs body and Temples in whom he truely inhabiteth although corporally and really as the Papistes take that word really he be onely in heauen and not in the sacrament And although in them that duely receaue the sacrament he is truely and in deed and not by phansy and imagination and so really as you vnderstand really yet is he not in them corporally but spiritual◠as I say and onely after a spirituall manner as you say And as for these wordes carnally and corporally I defame them not for I meane by carnally and corporally none otherwise than after the form and fashion of a mans body as we shal be after our resurrectiō that is to say visible palpable and circumscribed hauing a very quantitie with due proportion and distinction of members in place and order one from an other And if you will deny Christ so to be in heauen I haue so playne and manifest scriptures agaynst you that I will take you for no christian man except that you reuoke that error For sure I am that Christes naturall body hath such a grossenes or stature and quantitie if you will so call it bicause the word grosenes grosely taken as you vnderstand it soundeth not well in an incoruptible and immortall body Marry as for any other grosenes as of eating drinking and grose auoyding of the same with such other like corruptible grosenes it is for grose heades to imagine or think eyther of Christ or of any body glorified And although S. Augustine may say that Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen yet he sayth playnly that his body is of such sort that it is circumscribed and conteined in one place And Gregory Nazianzene ment that Christ should not com at the last iudgement in a corruptible and mortall flesh as he had before his resurrection and as we haue in this mortall lyfe for such grosenes is not to be attributed to bodyes glorified but yet shal he come with with such a body as he hath since his resurrection absolute and perfect in all partes and members of a mans bodye hauing handes feete head mouth syde and woundes and all other partes of a man visible and sensible like as we shall all appeare before him at the same last day with this same flesh in substance that we now haue and with these same eyes shall we see God our Sauiour Marry to what fynes and purenes our bodyes shall be then changed no man knoweth in the perigrination of this world sauing that S. Paule sayth that he shall change this vile body that he may make it like vnto his glorious body But that we shall haue diuersity of all members and a due proportion of mens natural bodyes the scripture manifestly declareth what soeuer you can by a synister glose gather of Nazianzene to the contrary that glorified bodies haue no flesh nor grossenes But see you not how much this saying of S. Augustin that our resurrection shall not be carnally maketh agaynst your self For if we shal not rise carnally then is not Christ risen carnally nor is not in heauen carnally And if he be not in heauen how can he be in the Sacrament carnally and eaten and drunken carnally with our mouthes as you say he is And therfore as for the termes carnally and corporally it is you that defame thē by your grosse taking of thē and not I that speak of none other grossenes but of distinction of the naturall and substantiall partes with out the which no mans body can be perfect And wheras here in this processe you attribute vnto Christ none other presence in heauen but spirituall without all manner of grossenes or carnallity so that all manner of beyng is spirituall and none otherwise then he is in the sacramēt here I ioyn an issue with you for a ioynt and for the price of a faggot I wondred all this while that you were so ready to graunt that Christ is but after a spirituall manner in the sacrament and now I wonder no more at that seyng that you say he is but after a spirituall maner in heauen And by this meanes we may say that he hath but a spirituall manhod as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a spirituall body And yet some carnall thing and grossenes he hath in him for he hath flesh and bones which spirites lack except that to all this impietye you will adde that his flesh and bones also be spirituall thinges not carnall And it is not without some strange prognosticatiō that you be now waxed altogither so spirituall Now as concerning the word figuratiuely what need this any profe that christ is in the sacraments figuratiuely which is no more to say but sacramentally And you graunt your selfe fol. 28. that Christ vnder the figure of visible creatures gaue inuisibly his pretious body And fol. 80. you say that Christ sayd This is my body vsing the outward signes of that visible creatures And this doctrine was neuer reproued of any catholick man but hath at al times and of al men bene allowed without contradition sauing now of you allone Now followeth my answere to the authors particularly And first to Saynt Clement My wordes be these They alleadge S. Clement whose wordes be these as they report The sacraments of Gods secrets are committed to three degrees to a Priest a Deacon and a minister which with feare and trembling ought to kep the leauings of the broken peces of the Lordes body that no corruption be foūd in the holy place least by negligence great iniury be done to the portion of the Lordes body And by and by followeth So many hostes must
christian man ought to come to Christes sacraments with great feare humility fayth loue and charitie And S. Augustine sayth that the Gospell is to be receaued or heard with no lesse feare and reuerence than the body of Christ. Whose wordes be these Interrogo vos fratres sorores dicite mihi Quid vobis plus esse videtur verbum dei an corpus Christi Si vere vultis respondere hoc vtique dicere debetis quod non sit minus verbum dei quam corpus Christi Et ideo quanta solicitudine obseruamus quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur vt nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in terram cadat tanta solicitudine obseruemus ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur dum aliquid aut cogitamus aut loquimur de corde nostro pereat quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negligenter audierit quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua negligentia permiserit I ask this question of you brethren and sisterne sayth S. Augustine aunswer me Whether you think greater the word of God or the body of Christ If you will answer the truth verely you ought to say thus That the word of God is no lesse then the body of Christ. And therfore with what carefullnes we take heed when the body of Christ is ministred vnto vs that no part therof fall out of our handes on the earth with as great carefulnes let vs take heede that the word of God which is ministred vnto vs when we think or speake of vayne matters perish not out of our hartes For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be giltie of no lesse fault then he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall vpon the ground thorough his negligence This is the mynd of S. Augustine And as much we haue in Scripture for the reuerent hearing and reading of God his holy word or the neglecting therof as we haue for the sacramentes But it semeth by your penne and vtteraunce of this matter that you vnderstand not the ground and cause wherupon should arise the great feare and trembling in their hartes that come to receaue the sacramentes for you shew another consideration therof than the scripture doth For you seeme to driue all the cause of feare to the dignitie of the body of Christ there corporally present and receaued but the scripture declareth the feare to ryse of the indignitie and vnworthines of the receauers He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely threatneth Gods word eateth and drinketh his owne damnation And Centurio considering his own vnworthines was abashed to receaue Christ into his house saying Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vnder the couering of my house And the same thing made Peter afrayd to be neare vnto Christ and to say Go from me O Lord for I am a sinner And all Christian men ought not to feare tremble onely whan they receaue the sacramentes but when soeuer they heare Gods word and threatninges pronounced agaynst sinners Now as concerning the third note thou shalt see playnly good reader that here is nothing here aunswered directly but meere cauilations sought and shift to auoyde For if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound as the people did communicate with the priest as you say they do and so they do in dede and that as well in the communion of drinking as eating than eyther the people did cōmunicate with them indeede and receaued the Sacrament vnder both the kindes or else the prayers had ben false the ceremonies frustrate and in vayne And is it like that the priests in that time would haue vsed vnto God such vntrue prayers as should declare that the people did communicate with thē if indeed none did communicate with them as it should haue bene by your imagined chances and cases But it apeareth by the wordes of the Epistle that the whole multitude of the people that was present did communicate at those dayes so that the priest could not communicate alone except he would communicate whan no man was in the church But by the aunswer of this sophister here in this place thou mayst see an experience good reader whether he be as redy to see those thinges that make agaynst him as he is paynfull and studious to draw as it were by force all thinges to his purpose to make them at the least to seme to make for him although they be neuer so much agaynst him As appeareth by all these his suppositions that all the people which were prepared for should in those dayes withdraw them selues from the communion and not one of them come vnto it that the clarkes should receaue all that was prouided for the people that one clerke should receaue that which many clerkes ought to haue receaued And so in conclusiō by onely his fayned suppositions he would perswade that the priest should receaue all alone By such prety cases of the people disapoynting the priestes and of lacke of store of clerkes you might dayly finde cauilations with all godly ordenaunces For where as God ordayned the pascall lambe to be eaten vp cleane in euery house and where there were not inough in one house to eat vp the Lambe they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eate vp the hole Lambe so that nothing should remayne Here you might bring in your vpon a chance that they that lacked company to eate vp a hole Lambe dwelt alone far from other houses and could not come together or could not gette any such Lambe as was appoynted for the feast or if their neighbours lacked company also And what if they had no spitte to rost the lambe And where as it was commaunded that they should be shooed what if perchance they had no shooes And if perchaunce a mans wife were not at home and all his seruaunts falled sike of the sweat or plague and no man durst come to his house then must he turne the spitte him selfe and eate the Lambe all alone Such chances you purposely deuise to establishe your priuat Masse that the priest may eate all alone But by such a lyke reason as you make here a man might proue that the priest should preach or say mattens to him selfe alone in case as you say that the people which should come would disapoynt him For what if the people disapoynt the priest say you and come not to the communion What if the people disapoynt the priest say I and come not to mattens nor sermon shall he therfore say mattens and preach whan no man is present but him selfe alone But your imagined case hath such an absurditie in it as is not tollerable to be thought to haue beene in Christian people in that tyme when Clements Epistles were written that when all the people should receaue the communion with the priest yet not one would come but all would disapoynt him And yet in that case I
that Christes flesh is a spirituall meat and hys bloud a spirituall drink and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud may not be vnderstand litterally but spiritually it is manifested by Origens own words in his seuenth Homily vpon the booke called Leuiticus where he sheweth that those words must be vnderstand figuratiuely and whosoeuer vnderstandeth them otherwise they be deceiued and take harme by their owne grosse vnderstanding Winchester Origens wordes be very playne and meaning also which speake of manifestation and exhibition which be two things to be verified thrée wayes in our religion that is to say in the word and regeneration and the sacramēt of bread and wine as this author termeth it which Origen sayth not so but thus the flesh of the word of God not meaning in euery of these after one sort but after the truth of the Scripture in ech of them Christ in his word is manifest and exhibited vnto vs and by fayth that is of hearyng dwelleth in vs spiritually for so we haue his spirit Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as many as be baptysed be clad in christ Now in the sacramēt of bred wine by Origens rule Christ should be manifested and exhibited vnto vs after the scriptures so as the sacrament of bread and wine should not onely signify Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him sensibly as Origens wordes be reported here to be So as Christes wordes This is my body should be wordes not of fygure or shewing but of exhibiting Christes body vnto vs and sensibly as this author alleageth him which should signifye to be receiued with our mouth as Christ commaunded when he sayd Take eat c. diuersely from the other two wayes in which by Christes spirite we be made participant of the benefite of his passion wrought in his manhode But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanity exhibit vnto vs for food and so in this mistery we receaue him man and God and in the other by meane of his godhead be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhod In this sacrament Christes manhode is represented and truly present whereunto the godhead is most certaynly vnited wherby we receaue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the general resurrection spirituall with our soule as we haue bene in baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfect And therfore this author may not compare baptisme with the sacrament throughly in which Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present although the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there but the truth of the mistery of this sacrament is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherunto eating and drinking is by Christ in his supper apropriate In which supper Christ sayd This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not This is my spirite This is my vertue Wherfore after Origenes teaching if Christ be not onely manifested but also exhibited sensibly in th◠sacrament then is he in the sacrament indede that is to say Really and then is he there substancially because the substaunce of the body is there and is there corporally also bycause the very body is there and naturally bicause the naturall body is there not vnderstanding corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly neither For then were the maner of presence within mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the catholique teaching is that the maner of Christes presence in the sacrament is spirituall and supernaturall not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall the how and maner wherof God knoweth and we assured by his word know onely the truth to be so that it is there indede and therfore really to be also receaued with our handes and mouthes and so sensibly there the body that suffered and therfore his naturall body there the body of very flesh and therfore his carnall body the body truely and therfore his corporall body there But as for the maner of presence that is onely spirituall as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this author enforceth me therunto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosely sensibly naturally applying them to the maner of presence doth maliciously and craftely cary away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these words grosely vnderstanded import astonieth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these wordes as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repeate the vnderstanding of these words oftener then elswere necessary These thinges well considered no man doth more playnly confound this author then this saying of Origene as he alleageth it whatsoeuer other sentences he would pycke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise And as I haue declared a fore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church and to esteme godes misteries most true in the substaunce of the thing so to be although the maner excedeth our capacities which is a spirituall vnderstanding of the same And here also this author putteth in for figuratiuely spiritually to deceaue the reader Caunterbury YOu obserue my wordes here concerning Origene so captiously as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayinges word by word which I did not but bicause they were very long I went about onely to rehearse the effect of his mind brefely and playnly which I haue done faythfully and truely although you captiously carpe and reprehend the same And where as craftely to alter the sayinges of Origene you goe about to put a diuersitie of the exhibition of Christ in these iii. thinges in his worde in baptisme and in his holy supper as though in his worde and in baptisme he were exhibited spiritually in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouthes this distinction you haue dreamed in your slepe or imagined of purpose For Christ after one sort is exhibited in all these iii. in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say spiritually and for so much in one sorte as before you haue confessed your selfe And Origene putteth no such diuersitie as you here imagine but declareth one maner of giuing of Christ vnto vs in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say in all these iii. secundum speciem That as vnto the Iewes Christ was geuen in figures so to vs he is geuen in specie that is to say in rei veritate in his very nature meaning nothing els but that vnto the Iewes he was promised in figures and to vs after his incarnation
he is maried and ioyned in his proper kynd and in his wordes and sacramentes as it were sensibly geuen But how so euer I report Origene you captiously and very vntruely do report me For wheras I say that in Gods word and in the sacramēts of baptisme and of the Lordes supper Christ is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly you leauing out these wordes as it were make a quarell to this word sensibly or rather you make that word sensibly the foundation of all your weake building as though there were no difference betwene sensibly and as it were sensibly and as it were all one thing a man to lye sleaping and as he were sleaping or deade and as he were dead Do not I write thus in my first booke that the washing in the water of baptisme is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes and a sensible touching feeling and groping of him And do these wordes import that we see him grope him indede And further I say that the eating and drinking of the sacramentall bread and wine is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes a smelling of him with our noses and a feeling groping of him with our handes And doe we therfore see him indede with our corporall eyes smell him with our noses and put our handes in his side and fele his woundes If it were so indede I would not adde these wordes as it were For what speach were this of a thing that is in dede to say as it were For these wordes as it were signifie that it is not so indede So now likewise in this place of Origene where it is sayd that Christ in his wordes and sacramentes is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly it is not ment that Christ is so exhibited in dede face to face and sensibly but the sence is cleane contrary that he is not there geuen sensibly nor face to face Thus it apeareth how vprightly you handell this matter and how truely you reporte my wordes But the further you proceade in your aunswer the more you shew crafty iuggeling legier de mayne passe a gods name to blynd mens eyes strange speaches new inuentions not without much impietie as the wordes sound but what the meaning is no man can tell but the maker him selfe But as the words be placed it seemeth you meane that in the Lordes supper we be not made by Christes spirite participant of the benefyt of his passion nor by baptisme or Gods word we be not made participant of his godhead by his humanite and furthermore by this distinction which you fayne without any ground of Origene we receaue not man and God in baptisme nor in the Lordes supper we be not by meanes of his godhead made participant of the effect of his passion In baptisme also by your distinction we receaue not a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh but in the Lordes supper nor Christ is not truely present in baptisme Which your sayd differences do not onely derogate and diminish the effect and dignitie of Christes sacraments but be also blasphemous agaynst the ineffable vnite of Christes person separating his diuinitie from his humanitie Here may all men of iudgement see by experience how diuinity is handled when it cometh to the discussion of ignoraunt lawyers And in all these your sayinges if you meane as the wordes be I make an yssue with you for the price of a fagot And where you say that our flesh in the generall resurrection shal be spirituall here I offer a like yssue except you vnderstand a spirituall body to be a sensible and palpable body that hath all perfect members distinct which thing in sundrie places of your booke you seeme vtterly to deny And where you make this difference betwene baptisme and this sacrament that in baptisme Christ is not really present expounding Really present to signifie no more but to be indede present yet after a spirituall manner if you deny that presence to be in baptisme yet the third fagot I will aduenture with you for your strange and vngodly doctrine within xx lines togither who may in equalitie of errour contend with the Ualentines Arrians or Anabaptistes But when you come here to your lies declaring the wordes sensibly really substancially corporally and naturally you speake so fondly vnlearnedly and ignorantly as they that know you not might thinke that you vnderstood neither grammer english nor reason For who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that aduerbes that ende in ly be aduerbes of quallity and being added to the verbe they expresse the manner forme and fashion how a thing is and not the substance of it As speaking wisely learnedly and playnly is to speake after such a forme and manner as wise men learned and playn men do speake And to do wisely and godly is to do in such sort and fashion as wise and godly men do And sometyme the aduerbe ly signifieth the maner of a thing that is indede and sometyme the maner of a thing that is not As when a man speaketh wisely that is wise indede And yet somtyme we say fooles speake wisely which although they be not wise yet they vtter some speaches in such sorte as though they were wise The King we say vseth him selfe princely in all his doinges who is a prince in dede but we say also of an arrogant wilfull and proude man that he vseth him selfe princely and Imperiousely although he be neither Prince nor Emperoure and yet we vse so to speake of him bicause of the maner forme and fashion of vsing him selfe And if you aunswer foolishly and vnlearnedly be you therfore a foole and vnlearned Nay but then your aūswers be made in such wise maner sort and fashion as you were neither learned nor wise Or if you send to Rome or receaue priuate letters from thence be you therfore a Papist God is iudge therof but yet do you Popishly that is to say vse such maner and fashion as the Papistes do But where the forme and maner lacketh there the aduerbes of qualitie in ly haue no place although the thing be there indede As when a wise man speaketh not in such a sorte in such a fashion and wise as a wise man should speake not withstanding that he is wise in dede yet we say not that he speaketh wisely but foolishly And the godly King Dauid did vngodly when he took Bersabe and slew Urye her husband bicause that maner of doing was not godly So do all English men vnderstand by these wordes sensibly substancially corporally naturally carnally spiritually and such like the maner and forme of being and not the thing it selfe without the sayde formes and maners For when Christ was borne and rose from death and wrought miracles we say not that he did these thinges naturally bicause the meane maner was not after a naturall sort
although it was the selfe same Christ in nature But we say that he did eat drinke sleepe labour and sweat talke and speake naturally not bicause onely of his nature but bicause the maner and fashion of doing was such as we vse to do Likewise when Iesus passed through the people and they saw him not he was not then sensibly and visibly among them their eyes being letted in such sort that they could not see and perceaue him And so in all the rest of your aduerbes the speach admitteth not to say that Christ is there substancially corporally carnally and sensibly where he is not after a substanciall corporall carnall and sensuall forme and maner This the husband man at his plough and his wife at her rock is able to iudge and to condemne you in this poynt and so can the boyes in the gramer schole that you speake neither according to the english tonge grammer nor reason when you say that these wordes and aduerbes sensibly corporally and naturally do not signifie a corporall sensible and naturall maner I haue bene here somewhat long and tedious but the reader must pardon me for this subtill and euill deuise of your owne brayne without ground or authoritie contayneth such absurdities and may cast such mistes before mens eies to blind them that they should not see that I am constrayned to speake thus much in this matter and yet more shall do if this suffice not But this one thing I wonder much at that you being so much vsed and accustomed to lye do not yet know what lye meaneth But at length in this mater when you see none other shift you be faine to flye to the church for your shotte anker And yet it is but the Romish church For the olde first Church of Christ is cleerely agaynst you And Origen sayth not as you do that to vnderstand the sayd wordes of Christ spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church but to vnderstand them spiritually is to vnderstand them otherwise then the wordes sound for he that vnderstādeth them after the letter sayth Origen vnderstandeth them carnally and that vnderstanding hurteth and destroyeth For in playne vnderstanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure Christes flesh cannot be eaten nor his bloud dronken Next followeth in order S. Cyprian of whom I write thus And likewise ment Ciprian in those places which the aduersaries of the truth allege of him concerning the true eating of Christes very flesh and drinking of his bloud For Ciprian spake of no grose and carnall eating with the mouth but of an inward spirituall and pure eating with hart and mind which is to beleue in our hartes that his flesh was rent and torne for vs vpon the crosse and his bloud shed for our redemption and that the same flesh and bloud now sitteth at the right hand of the father making continuall intercession for vs and to imprint and digest this in our mindes putting our whole affiance and trust in him as touching our saluation and offering our selues clearly vnto him to loue and serue him all the dayes of our life This is truely sincerely and spiritually to eat his flesh and to drincke his bloud And this sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was that oblatiō which Cipriā sayth was figured and signified before it was done by the wine which Noe dranke and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gaue to Abraham and by many other figures which S. Cyprian there reherseth And now when Christ is come and hath accomplished that sacrifice the same is figured signified and represēted vnto vs by that bread and wine which faythfull people receaue dayly in the holy communion Wherin like as with their mouthes carnally they eate the breade and drincke the wine so by their fayth spiritually they eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud And hereby it apeareth that S. Ciprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine and is wholy vpon our side And agaynst the papistes he teacheth most playnly that the Communion ought to be receaued of all men vnder both kindes and that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that there is not transubstantiation but that bread remayneth there as a figure to represent Christes body and wine to represent his bloud and that those which be not the liuely members of Christ do eat the bread and drincke the wine and be not nourished by them but the very flesh and bloud of Christ they neither eate nor drincke Thus haue you declared the mynd of S. Cyprian Winchester As touching Ciprian this author maketh an exposition of his owne deuise which he would haue taken for an answer vnto him Where as Ciprian of all other like as he is auncient within 250. yeares of Christ so did he write very openly in the matter and therfore Melancthon in his epistle to Decolampadius did chuse him for one whose words in the affirmation of Christes true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguitie And like iudgement doth Hippinus in his book before alleaged geue of Cyprianus faith in the sacrament which two I allege to counteruayle the iudgement of this author who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him playing with the words grosse and carnall and vsing the word represent as though it expressed a figure only Hippinus in the sayd booke alleadgeth Cyprian to say Lib 3. ad Quirinum that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh meaning as Hipinus sayth Eucharistiam wherin S Augustin as Hippinus saith further in the praier for his mother speaking of the bread and wine of Eucharistia sayth that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice whereby was cancelled the byl obligatory that was agaynst vs. And further Hippinus sayth that the olde men called the bread and wine of our Lordes supper a sacrifice an host and oblation for that specially because they beleued taught the true body of Christ and his true bloud to be destribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia and as S. Augustin sayth ad Ianuarium to enter in be receiued with the mouth of them that eat These be Hippinus very words who because he is I thinke in this authors opinion taken for no Papist I rather speake in his words then in myne owne whom in an other part of this worke this author doth as it were for charity by name sclaunder to be a Papist Wherfore the sayd Hippinus wordes shal be as I thinke more weighty to oppresse this authors talke then mine be and therfore howsoeuer this author handleth before the wordes of S. Cyprian De vnctione chrismatis and the word shewing out of his epistles yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certayne otherwise as those places shall need no further aunswere of me here hauing brought forth the iudgement of Hippinus Melancton how they vnderstand S. Cyprians fayth which thou reader oughtest to regard
more then the assertion of this Author specially when thou hast red how he hath handled Hilray Cyrill Theophilact and Damascene as I shall hereafter touch Caunterbury WHether I make an exposition of Cyprian by myne own deuise I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader And if I so doe why do not you proue the same substancially agaynst me For your own bare words without any proofe I trust the indifferent reader will not allow hauing such experience of you as he hath And if Cyprian of all other had writ most plainly agaynst me as you say without profe who thinketh that you would haue omitted here Cyprians wordes and haue fled to Melancthon and Epinus for succor And why do you alleage their authority for you which in no wise you admit when they be brought agaynst you But it semeth that you be faint harted in this mater and beginne to shrinke and like one that refuseth the combat and findeth the shift to put an other in his place euen so it semeth you would draw backe your selfe from the daunger and set me to fight with other men that in the meane tyme you might be an idle looker on And if you as graund capitayne take them but as meane souldiours to fyght in your quarell you shall haue little ayd at their hands for their writings declare opēly that they be agaynst you more then me although in this place you bring them for your part and report them to say more and otherwise then they say indeed And as for Cyprian and S. Augustine here by you alleaged they serue nothing for your purpose nor speake nothing against me by Epinus own iudgement For Epinus sayth that Eucharistia is called a sacrifice because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice which was offred vpon the cros and that in it is dispensed the very body and bloud yea the very death of Christ as he alleadgeth of S. Augustine in that place the holy sacrifice wherby he blotted out and canceled the obligation of death which was against vs nayling it vpon the crosse and in his owne person wanne the victory and tryumphed agaynst the princes powers of darknesse This passion death and victory of Christ is dispēsed and distributed in the Lords holy supper and dayly among Christs holy people And yet all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament nor the words of Cypriā ad Quirinum neither For if they did then was Christes flesh corporally present in the sacrifice of the old testament 1500. yeares before he was borne for of those sacrifices speaketh that text alleaged by Cyprian ad Quirinum whereof Epinus and you gather these wordes that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh And how so euer you wrast Melancthon or Epinus they condemne clearely your doctrine that Christes body is corporally contayned vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wine Next in my book of Hilarius But Hylarius thinke they is playnest for them in this matter whose words they translate thus If the word were made very flesh and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh in our lords meat how shal not Christ be thought to dwel naturally in vs Who beyng borne man hath taken vnto him the nature of our flesh that can not be seuered 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 he must deny fyrst eyther himselfe to be naturally in Christ or Christ to be naturally in him For the beyng of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ haue taken verily the flesh of our body and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ and also we receaue vnder thè true 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 vnity of will when the naturall property brought to passe by the Sacrament is the sacrament of vnity Thus doth the Papists the aduersaries of Gods word of his truth alleage the authority of Hilarius eyther peruersely and purposely as it semeth vntruely reciting hym and wrasting his words to their purpose or els not truely vnderstanding him For although he sayth that Christ is naturally in vs yet he sayth also that we be naturally in him And neuerthelesse in so saying he ment not of the natural and corporall presence of the substaunce of Christes body and of ours for as our bodyes be not after that sort within his body so is not his body after that sort within our bodies but he ment that Christ in his incarnation receyued of vs a mortal nature and vnited the same vnto his diuinity and so be we naturally in him And the sacraments of Baptisme of his holy supper if we rightly vse the same do most assuredly certify vs that we be partakers of his godly nature hauing geuen vnto vs by him immortality and life euerlasting and so is Christ naturally in vs. And so be we one with Christ and Christ with vs not onely in will and mind but also in very naturall properties And so concludeth Hylarius agaynst Arrius that Christ is one with his father not in purpose and will onely but also in very nature And as the vnion betwene Christ and vs in baptisme is spirituall and requireth no real and corporall presence so likewise our vnion with Christ in his holy supper is spirituall and therfore requireth no reall and coporall presence And therfore Hilarius speaking therof both the sacraments maketh no difference betwene our vnion with Christ in baptisme and our vnion with him in his holy supper And sayth further that as Christ is in vs so be we in him which the Papistes cannot vnderstand corporally and really except they will say that all our bodyes be corporally within Christes body Thus is Hylarius answered vnto both playnly and shortly Winchester This answere to Hylary in the lxxviii leafe requyreth a playne precise issue worthy to be tried apparant at hand The allegation of Hylary toucheth specially me who do say and mayntayne that I cited Hylary truely as the copy did serue and translate him truely in English after the same words in latin This is one issue which I qualyfy with the copy because I haue Hilary now better correct which better correctiō setteth forth more liuely the truth then the other did and therfore that I did translate was not so much to the aduantage of that I aledged Hylary for as is that in the book that I haue now better correct Hilaries words in the booke newly corrected be these Si enim verè verbum caro factum est nos
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
you say that he is corporally in all them that receaue the sacrament whether it be worthely or vnworthely Now foloweth thus in my booke And here may be well enough passed ouer Basilius Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Nazianzenus partely bicause they speake little of this matter partly bicause they may be easely āswered vnto by that which is before declared oftē repeted which is that a figure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure therfore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spokē of the thing it selfe And as cōcerning the eating of Christs flesh drincking of his bloud they spake of the spirituall eating drincking therof by fayth not of corporal eating and drincking with the mouth and teeth Winchester As for Basill Gregory Nissen and Gregory Nazianzen this author sayth they speake little of this matter and indeede they spake not so much as other doe but that they speake is not discrepant nor contrarieth not that other afore them had written For in the olde church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned openly and directly that we reade of before Berengarius v. C. yeares past and secretly by one Bertrame before that but onely by the Messalians who sayd the corporall eating did neither good nor hurt The Antropomorphites also who sayd the vertue of the misticall benediction endured not to the next day of whome Cirill speaketh and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning that deuided Christes flesh from the deity And where this author would haue taken for a true supposall that Basill Gregory Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue onely that is to be denyed And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it selfe And that I will declare thus Of the thing it selfe that is Christes very body being present indeede it may be sayd Adore it worship it there which may not besayd of the figure It may be sayd of the very thing being present there that it is a highe miracle to be there it is aboue nature to be there it is an high secret mistery to be there But none of these speaches can be conueniently sayd of the onely figure that it is such a miracle so aboue nature so high a mistery to be a figure And therfore it is no true doctrine to teach that we may say the same of the figure that may be sayd of the thing it selfe And where this author speaketh of the spiritual eating corporal eating he remayneth in his ignorāce what the word corporal meaneth which I haue opened in discussing of his answere to Cirill Fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually and the corporall eating institute in Christes supper requireth the reuerent vse of mans mouth to receiue our Lords meat drinke his owne very flesh and bloud by his omnipotency prepared in that supper which not spiritually that is to say not innocently as S. Angustine in one place expoūdeth spiritually receiued bringeth iudgement and condempnation according to S Paules wordes Caunterbury WHere you say that in the old church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned opēly you say herin very truly for the truth which I haue set forth was openly receiued and taught of al that were catholick without coutradiction vntil the papists diuised a contrary doctrine And I say further that the vntruth which you teach was not at that time improued of no man neither openly nor priuily For how could your doctrine be impugned in the olde church which was then neither taught nor knowen And as concerning Bertrame he did not write secretly for he was required by king Charles to write in this matter and wrot therin as the doctrine of the Church was at that tyme or els some man would haue reprehended him which neuer none did before you but make mention of his workes vnto his great prayse and commendation And the Massalians were not reproued for saying that corporall eating doth neither good nor hurt neither Epiphanius nor of S. Augustine nor Theodoret nor of any other auntient author that I haue red Mary that the sacraments do neither good nor hurt namely Baptisme is layd vnto the Massaliās charge and yet the corporall receiuing without the spirituall auaileth nothing but rather hurteth very much as appeared in Iudas and Simon Magus And as for the three heresies of the Massalians Anthropomorphites and Nestorians I allow none of them although you report thē otherwise thē either Epiphanius or S. Augustine doth And wherē you say that I would haue taken for a supposall that Basil Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue only still you charge me vntruly with that I nether say nor think For I knowledge as al good christen mē do that almighty God worketh effectually with his sacraments And where you report me to say an other vntruth that of a figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it self that I say true therin witnesseth plainly S. Augustin and Cyprian And yet I speake not vniuersally nor these examples that you bring make anything agaynst my sayings For the first example may be sayd of the figure if D. Smith say true And because you .ii. write both agaynst my book and a gree so euil one with an other as it is hard fo vntrue sayers to agree in one tale therfore in this poynt I commit you togither to see which of you is most valiant champion And as for your other iii. examples it is not true of the thing it selfe that Christes body is present in the sacrament by miracle or aboue nature although by miracle and aboue nature he is in the ministration of his holy supper amōg them that godly be fed therat And thus be your friuolous cauillations aunswered And where you say that I am ignorant what this word corporal meaneth surely then I haue a very grosse wit that am ignorant in that thing which euery plough man knoweth But you make so fine a cōstruction of this word corporall that neither you can tell what you meane your self nor no man can vnderstand you as I haue opened before in the discussing of Cyrils mind And as for the reuerent vse of mans mouth in the Lordes holy supper the bread and wine outwardly must be reuerently receaued with the mouth because of the things therby represented which by fayth be receaued inwardly in our hartes mindes not eatē with our mouthes as you vntruely allege S. Paule to say whose wordes be of the eating of the sacramentall bread and not of the body of Christ. Now followeth next mine aunswer to Eusebius Emissenus who is as it were your chefe trust and shot ancre Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly aunswered vnto for he speaketh not of
where Emissene declareth the meaning of his wordes there you leaue all the rest out of your booke which can not be without a great vntruth and fraud to deceaue the simple reader For when you haue recited these wordes of Emissene that the inuisible priest by the secret power with his word tourneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud and so further as serueth to your affection when you come euen to the very place where Emissen declareth these words there you leaue and cut of your writing But because the reader may know what you haue cut of and thereby know Emissens meaning I shall here rehearse Emisenes words which you haue left out If thou wilt know sayth Emissene how it ought not to seeme to thee a thing new and impossible that earthly and incorruptible things be tourned into the substance of Christ looke vpō thy self which art made new in baptisme When thou wast far from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast dead yet sodenly thou beganst an other new life in Christ and wast made new by holesome misteries and wast tourned into the bodye of the church not by seing but by beleuing of the child of damnatiō by a secret purenes thou wast made the sonne of God Thou visibly didst remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any encrease of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was mā made the sonne of Christ and Christ formed in the mind of man Therefore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receiue a new dignity not feling any chaunge in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not seene with thine eyes but beleued in thy minde so likewise when thou doost goe vp to the reuerend aulter to feed vpon the spirituall meat in thy fayth looke vpon the body and blud of him that is thy God honour hym touch him with thy minde take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man These be Emissens own wordes Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleadged For where you bring in these wordes that Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud straightwaies in these wordes by me now rehearsed he sheweth what maner of turning that is after what maner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ euē so saith he as it is in baptisme wherin is no Transubstantiation So that I gather his meaning of his own playne words and you gather his meaning of your own imagination deuisyng such phantasticall things as neither Emissen sayth nor yet be catholike And this word truth you haue put vnto the wordes of Emissen of your own head which is no true dealing For so you may proue what you lift if you may adde to the authors what words you please And yet if Emissē had vsed both the wordes substaunce and trueth what should that helpe you For Christ is in substaunce and truth present in baptisme aswell as he is in the Lords supper and yet is he not there carnally corporally and naturally I will passe ouer here to aggrauate that matter how vntruely you adde to my wordes this word onely in an hundred places where I say not so what true and sinsere dealing this is let all men iudge Now as concerning my coupling togither of the ii sacraments of baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ Emissene himself coupleth thē both together in this place sayth that the one is like the other without putting any difference euen as I truely recited him So that there appereth neither malice nor ignorāce in me but in you adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not to deceaue the simple reader and adding such your own inuentions as be neither true nor catholick appereth much shift and craft ioyned with vntruth and infidelity For what christian man would say as you do that Christ is not inded which you call really in baptisme Or that we be not regenerated both body and soule as well in baptisme as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ Or that in baptisme we be not vnited to Christes diuinity by his manhood Or that baptisme represēteth not to vs the high state of our glorification and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurrection In which thinges you make difference betweene baptisme and the sacrament as you call it of the aultare Or what man that were learned in gods word would affirme that in the general resurrection our bodies and soules shal be all spirituall I know that S. Paule sayth that in the resurrection our bodies shal be spirituall meaning in the respect of such vilenes filthines sinne and corruption as we be subiect vnto in this miserable world Yet he sayth not that our bodies shal be all spirituall For not withstanding such spiritualnes as S. Paule speaketh of we shall haue all such substantiall partes and members as pertaine to a very naturall mans body So that in this part our bodyes shall be carnall corporall reall and naturall bodies lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect mens bodies And in the respect is the body of Christ also carnall and not spirituall And yet we bring none other carnall imaginations of Christes body nor meane none other but that Christes body is carnall in this respect that it hath the same flesh and naturall substaunce which was borne of the virgine Mary and wherin he suffered and rose agayne and now sitteth at the right hand of his father in glory and that the same his naturall body now glorified hath all the naturall partes of a mans body in order proportion place distinct as our bodies shal be in these respects carnall after our resurrection Which maner of carnalnes and diuersitie of partes and members if you take away now from Christ in heauen from vs after our resurrectiō you make Christ now to haue no true mās body but a phantasticall body as Martion Ualentine did as concerning our bodies you run into the error of Origen which phansied imagined that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual that women should be turned into men and bodies into soules And yet it is to be noted by the way that in your aunswere here to Emissene you make spiriturally and a spirituall manner all one Now followeth myne aunswere to S. Ambrose in this wise And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose which is alwayes in their mouthes Before the consecration sayth he as
nature must needs be vnderstād fyguratiuely by some similitude or propriety of one substance vnto an other and can in no wise be vnderstand properly and playnly without a figure And therfore when Christ is called the sonne of God or bread is called bread it is a most playne and proper spech but when Christ is called bread or bread is called Christ these can in no wise be formall and proper speches the substāces and natures of them being so diuers but must nedes haue an vnderstanding in figure signification or similitude as the very nature of all sacramentes require as al the old writers do playnly teach And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ his body bycause it is so in deed for then it were no figuratiue speach as all the old authors say it is And as for this word corporall you openly confessed your owne ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambheth when I asked you what corporall body Christ hath in the sacrameut whether he had distinction of members or no your answere was in effect that you could not tell And yet was that a wiser saying then you spake before in Cyril where you sayd that Christ hath onely a spirituall body and a spirituall presence and now you say he hath a corporall presēce And so you confoūd corporal spiritual as if you knew not what either of them ment or wist not or cared not what you sayd But now I will returne to my booke rehearse myne aunswere vnto S. Iohn Chrysostome which is this Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrisostome who in sound of words maketh most for the aduersaries of the truth but they that be familiar and acquanted with Chrisostomes manner of speaking how in all his writynges he is full of allusions schemes tropes and figures shall soone perceyue that he helpeth nothing their purposes as it shall well appeare by the discussing of those places which the Papistes do alleadge of him which be spicially two One is in Sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs And the other is De proditione Iudae And as touching the first no man can speake more playnly agaynst them then S. Iohn Chrisostome speaketh in that sermon Wherfore it is to be wondred why they should alleage hym for their partie vnlesse they be so blind in their opinion that they can se nothing nor discerne what maketh for them nor what against thē For there he hath these wordes When you come to these misteries speaking of the Lordes boord and holy communion do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God meaning of Christ. These be S. Iohn Chrisostome his owne wordes in that place Than if we receiue not the body of Christ at the hands of a man Ergo the body of Christ is not really corporally and naturally in the Sacrament and so geuen to vs by the Priest And then it followeth that all the Papistes be lyers because they fayne and teach the contrary But in this place of Chrisostome is touched before more at lēgth in answering to the Papistes Transubstantiation Wherfore now shall be answered the other place which they alleadge of Chrisostome in these wordes Here he is present in the sacramēt and doth cōsecrate which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper For it is not man which maketh of the bread and wine being set forth to be consecrated the body and bloud of Christ but it is Christ himselfe which for vs is crucified that maketh himselfe to be there present The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest but the consecration is by the vertue might grace of God himselfe And as this saying of God Increase be multiplied fill the earth once spoken by God tooke alwayes effect toward generation euen so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken doth throughout all churches to this present shall to his last comming geue force and strength to this sacrifice Thus farre they reherse of Chrisostomes words Which wordes although they sound much for the purpose yet if they be throughly cōsidered and conferred with other places of the same author it shal well appeare that he ment nothing lesse thē that Christes body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine but that in such sort he is in heauen onely and in our mindes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen to eate him there although sacramētally as in a signe and figure he be in the bread wine and so is he also in the water of Baptisme and in them that rightly receaue the bread wine he is in a much more perfection then corporally which should auayle them nothing but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power geuing them eternall lyfe And as in the first creatiō of the world all liuing creatures had their first life by gods onely word for God onely spake his word and all things were created by and by accordingly and after their creation he spake these wordes Increase and multiply and by the vertue of those wordes all thinges haue gendred increased euersince that tyme euen so after that Christ sayd Eat this is my body drinke this is my bloud Do this hereafter in remembraunce of me by vertue of these wordes and not by vertue of any man the bread and wine be so cōsecrated that whosoeuer with a liuely fayth doth eat that bread and drinke that wine doth spiritually eat drinke and feede vpon Christ sitting in heauen with his Father And this is the whole meaning of S. Chrisostome And therfore doth he so often say that we receaue Christ in baptisme And when he hath spoken of the receauing of him in the holy communion by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme without declaring any diuersity of his presence in the one from his presence in the other He sayth also in many places that We ascend into heauen and do eat Christ sitting there aboue And where S. Chrisostome and other Authors do speak of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes passing all mans wit senses and reason they meane not of the working of God in the water bread wine but of the maruaylous working of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramētes secretly inwardly and spiritually transforming them renuing feding comforting and nourishing them with his flesh and bloud through his most holy spirite the same flesh and bloud still remayning in heauen Thus is this place of Chrisostome sufficiently aunswered vnto And if any man require any more thē let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of Transubstantiation Winchester This author noteth in Chrisostome two places and bringeth them forth and in handling the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reprofe For where in the second booke
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
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
bread shall liue for euer This taught our sauiour Christ as well his disciples as the Iewes at Capernaum that the eating of his flesh and drincking of his bloud was not like to the eating of Manna For both good and bad did eate Manna but none do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud but they haue euerlasting lyfe For as his father dwelleth in him and he in his father and so hath life by his father so he that eateth Christes flesh and drinketh his bloud dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him and by Christ he hath eternall life What neede we any other witnes when Christ himselfe doth testifie the mater so playnly that who so euer eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath euerlasting life and that to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud is to beleue in him And who so euer beleueth in him hath euerlasting lyfe wherof it followeth necessarily that vngodly persons being limmes of the deuill do not eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud except the Papistes would say that such haue euerlasting life But as the diuell is the food of the wicked which he nourisheth in all iniquitie and bringeth vp into euerlasting damnatiō so is Christ the very foode of all them that be the liuely members of his body and them he nourisheth fedeth bringeth vp and cherisheth vnto euerlasting life And euery good and faythfull Christian man seleth in himselfe how he fedeth of Christ eating his flesh and drincking of his bloud For he putteth the whole hope and trust of his redemption and saluation in that onely sacrifice which Christ made vpon the Crosse hauing his body there broken and his bloud there shedde for the remission of his sinnes And this great benefite of Christ the faythfull man earnestly considereth in his mynd chaweth and digesteth it with the stomake of his hart spiritually receauing Christ wholy into him and giuing agayne him selfe wholy vnto Christ. And this is the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud the feeling wherof is to euery man the feling how he eateth and drincketh Christ which none euill man nor member of the deuill can do For as Christ is a spirituall meate so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spirituall part of vs and giueth vs spirituall and eternall lyfe and is not eaten swallowed digested with our teeth tongues throtes bellies Therfore sayth S. Ciprian he that drincketh of the holy cup remembring this benefite of God is more thirsty then he was before And lifting vp his hart vnto the liuing God is taken with such a singular hunger and apetite that he abhorreth all gally and bitter drinkes of sinne and all sauor of carnall pleasure is to him as it were sharp and sowre viniger And the sinner being conuerted receauing the holy misteries of the Lordes supper geueth thankes vnto God and boweth downe his head knowing that his sinnes be forgeuen and that he is made clean and perfect and his soule which God hath sanctified he rendreth to God agayne as a faythfull pledge and then he glorieth with Paule and reioyseth saying Now it is not I that liue but it is Christ that liueth within me These thinges be practised and vsed among faythful people and to pure myndes the eating of his flesh is no horror but honor and the spirit deliteth in the drinking of the holy and sanctifiing bloud And doing this we whet not our teeth to bite but with pure fayth we breake the holy bread These be the wordes of Ciprian And according vnto the same S. Augustine sayth Prepare not thy iawes but thy hart And in an other place he sayth why doest thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten But of this matter is sufficiently spoken before where it is proued that to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud be figuratiue speaches And now to returne to our purpose that onely the liuely members of Christ do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud I shall bring forth many other places of auncient authors before not mentioned Fyrst Origen writeth playnly after this maner The word was made flesh and very meat which who so eateth shall surly liue for euer which no euill man can eate For if it could be that he that continueth euill might eat the word made flesh seing that he is the word and bread of life it should not haue bene written Who so euer eateth this bread shall liue for euer These wordes be so playne that I need say nothing for the more clere declaration of them Wherfore you shall heare how Ciprian agreeth with him Cyprian in his sermon ascribed vnto him of the Lordes supper sayth The author of this tradition sayd that except we eat his flesh drincke his bloud we should haue no life in vs instructing vs with a spirituall lesson opening to vs a way to vnderstand so priuy a thing that we should know that the eating is our dwelling in him and our drincking is as it were an incorporation in him being subiect vnto him in obedience ioyned vnto him in our willes and vnited in our affections The eating therfore of this flesh is a certayne hunger and desire to dwell in him Thus writeth Cyprian of the eating and drinking of Christ ' And a litle after he sayth that none do eate of this lambe but such as be true Israelites that is to say pure christian men without colour or dissimulation And Athanasius speaking of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud sayth that for this cause he made mention of his ascentiō into heauen to plucke them from corporall phantasy that they might lerne hereafter that his flesh was called the celestiall meate that came from aboue and a spirituall food which he would geue For those thinges that I speake to you sayth he be spirit and life Which is as much to say as that thing which you se shal be slayne and giuen for the nourishment of the world that it may be distributed to euery body spiritually and be to all men a conseruation vnto the resurrectiō of eternall life In these wordes Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made mention of his ascension into heauen when he spake of the eating and drincking of his flesh and bloud The cause after Athanasius mynd was this that his hearers should not thinke of any carnal eating of his body with their mouthes for as concerning the presence of his body he should be taken from them and ascend into heauen but that they should vnderstād him to be a spirituall meate spiritually to be eaten and by that refreshing to giue eternall life which he doth to none but to such as be his liuely members And of this eating speaketh also Basilius that we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud being made by his incarnation and sensible lyfe partakers of his word and wisedome For his flesh and bloud he calleth
neuer be able for your part to bring any scripture that serueth for your purpose except you may be suffered to adde therto such wordes as you please Than come you to my questions wherin I write thus And now for corroboration of Cyrils saying I would thus reason with the Papistes and demaund of them Whan an vnrepentant sinner receaueth the sacrament whether he haue Christes body within him or no If they say no than haue I my purpose that euell men although they receaue the sacrament of Christes body yet receaue they not his very body If they say yea Than I would aske them further Whether they haue Christes spirite within them or no If they say nay than do they separate Christes body from his spirite and his humanitie from his diuinitie and be condemned by the Scripture as very Antichristes that diuide Christ. And if they say yea that a wicked man hath Christes spirit in him then the scripture also condemneth them saying that as he which hath not the spirite of Christ is none of his so he that hath Christ in him lyueth bycause he is iustified And if his spirite that raysed Iesus from death dwell in you he that raysed Iesus from death shall geue life to your mortall bodies for his spirites sake which dwelleth in you Thus on euery side the scripture condemneth the aduersaries of gods word And this wickednes of the Papistes is to be wondred at that they affirme Christes flesh bloud soule holy spirite and his deitie to be in a man that is subiect to sinne and a lim of the deuill They be wonderful iuglers and coniurers that with certayne wordes can make God and the diuell to dwell together in one man and make him both the temple of God and the temple of the Deuill It appeareth that they be so blind that they cānot see the light from darknes Beliall from Christ nor the table of the Lord from the table of diuels Thus is cōfuted this third intolerable error heresie of the Papists That they which be the limmes of the dyuell do eate the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud manifestly and directly contrary to the wordes of Christ him selfe who sayth Who soeuer eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe Winchester But to encounter directly with this author where he opposeth by interogation and would be answered whether an vnrepentant sinner that receaueth the sacrament hath Christes body within him or no. Marke reader this question which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament not as him selfe teacheth but as the true teaching is although he meane otherwise for els how could an vnrepentant sinner receaue Christes body but onely in the sacrament vnworthely and how could he receaue it vnworthely and it were not there but to answer to this question I answer no for it foloweth not he receaued him ergo he hath him in him for the vessel being not meet he departed from him because he was a sinner in whom he dwelleth not And where this author now become a questionist maketh two questions of Christes body and his spirite as though Christes body myght be deuided from his spirite he supposeth other to be as ignoraunt as him selfe For the learned man will aunswere that an euell man by force of Gods ordinance in the substance of the sacrament receaued in deed Christes very body there present whole Christ God and man but he taried not nor dwelled not nor fructified not in him nor Christes spirite entered not into that mannes soule bycause of the malice and vnworthines of him that receaued For Christ will not dwell with Beliall nor abide with sinners And what hath this author won now by his forked question wherin he seemeth to glory as though he had imbrased an absurditie that he hunted for wherin he sheweth onely his ignoraunce who putteth no difference betwene the entring of Christ into an euell man by Gods ordinance in the sacrament and the dwelling of Christes spirite in an euell man which by scripture can not be ne is by any catholike man affirmed For S. Paule sayth In him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation And yet S. Paules wordes playnly import that those dyd eate the very body of Christ which dyd eate vnworthely and therfore were gilty of the body and bloud of Christ. Now reader consider what is before written and thou shalt easely see what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the xcvii leafe as though the teaching were that the same man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell with other termes wherewith it liketh this author to refresh himselfe and fayneth an aduersary such as he would haue but hath none for no catholike man teacheth so nor it is not all one to receaue Christ to haue Christ dwelling in him And a figure therof was in Christes conuersation vppon earth who tarieth not with all that receaued him in outward apparaunce and there is noted a difference that some beleued in Christ and yet Christ committed not him selfe to them And the gospell prayseth them that heare the word of God and keep it signifiing many to haue the word of god and not to keep it as they that receaue Christ by his ordinaunce in the sacrament and yet bycause they receaue him not according to the entent of his ordinance worthely they are so much the worse therby through theyr owne malice And therfore to conclude this place with the author who soeuer eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud hath euerlasting lyfe with S. Paules exposition if he doth it worthely or els by the same S. Paule he hath condemnation Caunterbury HEre the reader shall euidently see your accustomed maner that whē you be destitute of answer and haue none other shyft then fall you to scoffing and scolding out the matter as Sophisters sometymes do at theyr problemes But as ignorant as I am you shall not so escape me First you byd the reader marke that I talke of the sacrament not as I teach my selfe But I would haue the reader here marke that you report my wordes as you list your selfe not as I speake them For you report my question as I should say that an vnrepentant sinner should receaue Christes body where as I speake of the receauing of the sacrament of the body and not of the very body it selfe Moreouer I make my question of the being of Christes body in an vnpenitent sinner and you turne being into abiding because being biteth you so sore Fyrst you confes that an vnrepentaunt sinner receauing the sacrament hath not Christes body within him and then may I say that he eateth not Christes body except he eate it without him And although it followeth not he receaued Christ eego he hath him in him yet it followeth necessarily he receaueth him ergo he hath him within him for the tyme of the receipt As a bottomleffe vessell although it keepe no licour
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
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
Gods worke in the sacrament but to exclude carnall imagination from musing of the manner of the worke which is in mistery such as a carnall man can not comprehend In which matter if S. Augustine had had such a fayth of the visible sacrament as the author sayth him selfe hath now of late and calleth it catholicke S. Augustine would haue vttered it as an expositor playnly in this place and sayd there is but a figure of Christes body Christes body and flesh is in heauen and not in this visible sacrament Christes speach that was estemed so hard was but a figuratiue speach And where Christ sayd This is my body he ment onely of the figure of his body which manner of saying S. Augustine vseth not in this place and yet he could speake playnly and so doth he declaring vs first the truth of the flesh that Christ geueth to be eaten that is to say the same flesh that he tooke of the virgine And yet bicause Christ giueth it not in a visible manner nor such a maner as the Capernaites thought on nor such a maner as any carnall man can conceaue being also the flesh in the sacrament giuen not a common flesh but a liuely godly and spirituall flesh Therfore S. Augustine vseth wordes and speach wherby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ which we did see and of the bloud that was shed so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen and the same not to be giuen the mistery should be thus farre opened that for the truth of the thing giuen it is the same and touching the manner of the giuing and the quality of the flesh giuen it is not the same And bicause it is the same S. Augustine sayth before we must worship it and yet bicause it is now an hidden godly mistery we may not haue carnall imaginations of the same but godly spiritually and inuisibly vnderstand it Caunterbury AS concerning the wordes of S. Augustine which you say I do wrong report let euery indeferēt reader iudge who maketh a wrong report of S. Augustine you or I. For I haue reported his wordes as they be and so haue not you For S. Augustine sayth not that Christes body is eaten in the visible sacrament as you report but that Christ hath giuen vs a sacrament of the eating of his body which must be vnderstand inuisibly and spiritually as you say truly in that poynt But to the spirituall eating is not required any locall or corporall presence in the sacrament nor S. Augustine sayth not so as you in that poynt vniustly report him And although the worke of God in his sacraments be effectuall and true yet the working of God in the sacraments is not his working by grace in the water bread and wine but in them that duely receaue the same which worke is such as no carnall man can comprehend And where you say that if S. Augustine had ment as I do he would in this place haue declared a figure and haue sayd that here is but a figure and we eate onely a figure but Christ himselfe is gone vp into heauen and is not here it is to much arrogancy of you to appoynt S. Augustin his wordes what he should say in this place as you would lead an hound in a line where you list or draw a beare to the stake And here still you cease not vntruly to report me For I say not that in the Lordes supper is but a figure or that Christ is eaten only figuratiuely but I say that there is a figure and figuratiue eating And doth not S. Augustine sufficiently declare a figure in Christes wordes when he sayth that they must be vnderstād spiritually And what man can deuise to expresse more playnly both that in Christes speach is a figure and that his body is not corporally present and corporally eaten then S. Augustine doth in a thousand places but specially in his epistle ad Bonifacium ad Dardanum ad Ianuarium De doctrina Christiana De catechisandis rudibus in quest super leuit De ciuitate Dei Contra Adamatium contra aduersarium legis prophetarum In epistolam Euangelium Iohannis In sermone ad infantes De verbis apostoli The flesh of Christ is a true flesh and was borne of a woman dyed rose agayne ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father but yet is he eaten of vs spiritually and in the maner of the eating there is the mistery and secret and yet the true worke of God And where you vnderstand the inuisible mistery which S. Augustin speaketh of to be in the diuersity of the body of Christ seene or not seene you be farre deceaued For S. Augustine speaketh of the mistery that is in the eating of the body and not in the diuersity of the body which in substaūce is euer one without diuersity The meaning therfore of S. Augustine was this that when Christ sayd Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in you he ment of spirituall and not carnall eating of his body For if he had entended to haue described the diuersity of the maner of Christes body visible and inuisible he would not haue sayd this body which you see but this body in such maner as you see it or in such like termes you shall not eate But to eate Christes flesh sayth S. Augustine is fructifully to remember that the same flesh was crucified for vs. And this is spiritually to eate his flesh and drincke his bloud Winchester And bicause S. Hierome who was of S. Augustines tyme writeth in his commentaries vpon S. Paule ad Ephesios that may serue for the better opening hereof I will write it in here The wordes be these The bloud and flesh of Christ is two wayes vnderstanded either the spirituall and godly of which him selfe sayd My flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drincke And vnles ye eate my flesh drincke my bloud ye shall not haue euerlasting lyfe Or the flesh which was crucified and the bloud which was shed with the spere According to this diuision the diuersity of flesh and bloud is taken in Christes sayntes that there is one flesh that shall see the saluation of God an other flesh and bloud that cannot possese the kingdome of heauen There be S. Hieromes wordes In which thou reader seest a deniall of that flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten that was crucified but the flesh geuen to be eaten to be a godly and spirituall flesh and a distinction made betwen them as is in our flesh of which it may be sayd that the flesh we walke in here shall not see God that is to say as it is corruptible according to the text of S. Paule flesh and bloud shall not possesse heauen and yet we must beleue and hope with Iobe truly that the same our flesh shall see God
by some persons they know right well that were then present But after when it pleased almighty God more clearly to shine vnto vs by the light of this word our eyes by his goodnes were opened darkenes discussed and that which was done in ignoraunce and darkenes was by knowledge and light in publique Counsell rehersed and taken away as well concerning the doctrine as the hardnes of the law For if the doctrine had bene true and godly there is no christen harted man but he would haue desired the establishment and continuaunce therof But the doctrine being false and such as came onely from Rome they be not worthy to be likened to those truthes which came from God and were vttered by Balaam and Cayphas but to be numbred among those lyes which came from his vicar who when he speaketh lyes ex proprijs loquitur he speaketh properly of himselfe And the Byshop of Rome was not cleane gone out of England as sone as the lawes were made agaynst his authority but remayned still by his corrupt doctrine as I feare me he doeth yet in some mennes hertes who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresayd law But yet is all togither to be imputed to the Byshop of Rome forasmuch as from thens came all the foresayd errours ignorance and corruption into these parties Now where you take vpon you here to purge your selfe of Papistry by me and Zuinglius if you haue no better compurgators then vs two you be like to fayle in your purgation For neyther of vs I dare say durst swere for you in this matter though Zuinglius were aliue Or if your purgatioÌ„ stand to this poynt that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body although in a formall and proper speach bread is not in deede his body you may be as rancke a Papist as euer was for any purgation you can make by this way For Christ called bread made of wheate his body as the wordes of the Euangelistes playnly declare and all old writers teach and in your booke of the deuils sophistrie you haue confessed saying that Christ made demonstration of bread when he sayd This is my body And therfore bring some better purgation then this or els had you bene better not to haue offered any purgation in a matter that no man charged you withall than by offering a purgation aud fayling therin to bring your selfe into more suspition And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation you make your argument thus That forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament there is of necessity TransubstantiatioÌ„ also This your argument hath two great faultes in it The first is that your antecedent is false and then you can not conclude therof a true consequent The second fault is that although the autecedent were graunted vnto you that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament yet the consequent can not be inferred therof that there is of necessity Transubstantiation For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament as well with the substance of the bread as without it and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents forasmuch as neyther Christes body there occupieth any place as you say yourselfe nor no more doth the substance of bread by it selfe but by meanes of the accidentes as you say also Now forasmuch as you say that you will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes which you heard me once more seriously reherse in solemne open audience I knowledge that not many yeares passed I was yet in darkenes concerning this matter being brought vp in scholasticall and Romish doctrine wherunto I gaue to much credite And therfore I graunt that you haue heard me stand and defend the vntruth which I then tooke for the truth and so did I heare you at the same tyme. But prayse be to the euerliuing God who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from myne eyes and I pray vnto his diuine maiesty with all my hart that he will likewise do once the same to you Thy will be fulfillid O Lord. But forasmuch as you passe ouer my handling of Christes wordes as you vse commonly to passe in post when you haue no direct answer to make I shall here repete my wordes agayne to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I haue handled them and then iudge whether you ought so slenderly to pas them ouer as you do My wordes be these ¶ The second booke THus haue you heard declared fower thinges wherin chiefly the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the trew word of God and from the olde catholique Christian fayth in this matter of the Lordes supper Now least any man should thinke that I fayne any thing of myne owne head without any other grounde or authority you shall heare by Gods grace as well the errors of the Papistes confâ—ted as the catholique truth defended both by gods most certayne word and also by the most old approued authors and Martirs of Christes Church And first that bread and wine remayne after the wordes of consecration and be eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper is most manifest by the playn wordes of Christ himselfe when he ministred the same supper vnto his desciples For as the Euangilistes write Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body Here the Papistes triumph of these wordes when Christ sayd This is my body which they call the wordes of Consecration For say they assone as these wordes be fully ended there is no bread left nor none other substance but onely Christes body When Christ sayd this the bread say they remayned And when he sayd is yet the bread remayned Also whan he added my the bread remayned still And when he sayd bo yet the bread was there still But when he had finished the whole sentence This is my body then say they the bread was gone and there remayned no substance but Christes body as though the bread could not remayne when it is made a Sacrament But this negatiue that there is no bread they make of theyr owne braynes by their vnwritten verities which they most highly esteme Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread but Christ spake not that negatiue This is no bread but sayd affirmingly This is my body not denying the bread but affirming that his body was eaten meaning spiritually as the bread was eaten corporally And that this was the meaning of Christ appeareth playnly by S. Paule in the tenth chap. to the Corinth the first epistle where he speaking of the same matter sayth Is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ Who vnderstood the mynd of Christ better then S. Paule to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsailes And S. Paule is not afrayd for our better
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
catholike Church But now what illusions and dreames you fantasy of Emissenes wordes it is a wonder to heare First that the substance of bread and wine is an inward nature and that in baptisme the whole man is not regenerated but the soule onely and that the soule of man is the substance of man and made the sonne of God And now when it serueth for your purpose the body of Christ is a corporall substance which in all your booke before was but a spirituall body and the substance of bread and wine be visible creatures which were wont with you to be inward and inuisible natures and now is the inward nature of the bread the substance of the bread where as in other places the outward fourmes be the substance so litle substance is in your doctrine that from tyme to tyme you thus alter your sayings This is no tripping but so shamefull a fall and in so foule and stincking a place that you shall neuer be able to spunge the filthines out of your clothes and to make your selfe sweete agayne And you appoynt at your pleasure both terminum a quo terminum ad quem and the changes and the thinges that be changed altogither otherwise then Emissene doth For in Emissene the changes be regeneration and nourishing or augmentation the thing that is changed is the man both in regeneration and in nutrition or augmentation and in regeneration terminus a quo is the sonne of perdition and terminus ad quem is the sonne of God And in nutrition terminus a quo is the hunger and thirst of the man and terminus ad quem is the feeding and satisfying of his hunger and thirst But you appoynt the changes to be Transubstātiatiō and regeneration and the thinges that be changed in Transubstantiation you say is the substance of bread and wine and the same to be terminum a quo and the flesh and bloud of Christ say you is terminus ad quem And in regeneration you assigne terminum a quo to be the soule of man onely and terminum ad quem to be regenerated the sonne of God And so being viii thinges in these ii mutations in each of them the change the thing that is changed the thing from whence it is changed and the thing wherunto it is changed you haue mist the butte clearly in all sauing ii that is to say regeneration and the thing wherunto regeneration is made and in all other vi you missed the quishion quite And yet if the change were in the substance of bread and wine proportionably to the change of the soule being the substance of man as you say if you should make the proportions agree then as the soule being the mans substance remayneth without Transubstantiation so must the bread and wine remayne without transubstantiation And if the substance of the bread and wine be not the visible signe in the lordes supper because substance as you say is a thing inuisible then is not the substance of water the visible signe in baptisme bring no more visible the substance of the one then the substance of the other Now of Hilary I write thus Hilarius also in few wordes sayth the same There is a figure sayth he for bread and wine be outwardly seene And there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued And this Hilarius was within lesse then 350. yeares after Christ. Winchester But I will examine moe particularieties I haue before answered to Hilary so whome neuerthelesse I would aptly haue sayd somewhat now to note how he distincteth outwardly and inwardly by beleefe and corporall sight For outwardly as Emissene sayth we see no change and therfore we see after Consecration as before which we may therfore call bread but we beleue that inwardly is which as Emissene sayth is the substance of the body of Christ wherunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread as by the comparison of Emissene doth appeare Caunterbury YOur distinction made here of outwardly and inwardly is a playne confusion of Hilarius mynd and contrary to that which you wrote before in Emissene For there you sayd that the visible creatures be changed meaning by the visible creatures the substances of bread and wine and now when Hilary sayth that bread and wine be seene you say that their substances be not seene but the outward formes onely which you say be called bread and wine But here appeareth into how narrow a straight you be driuen that be fayne for a shift to say that the accidents of bread without the substance be called bread Epiphanius is next in my booke And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme sayth that the bread is meat but the vertue that is in it is it that giueth life But if there were no bread at all how could it be meate Winchester These wordes of Epiphanius do playnly ouerturne this authors doctrine of a figuratiue speach for a figure can not geue life onely God giueth life and the speach of this Epiphanius of the sacrament doth necessarily imply the very true presence of Christes body author of life And then as often as the author is ouerthrowen in the truth of the presence so often is he by Zuinglius rule ouerthrowen in Transubstantiation As for the name of bread is granted bicause it was so and Transubstantiation doth not take away but it is meate bicause of the visible matter remayning These sayings be sought out by this author onely to wrangle not taken out where the mistery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine therof but onely signified by the way and spoken of vpon occasion the sence wherof faythfull men know otherwise then appeareth at the first readings to the carnall man but by such like speaches the Arrians impugned the diuinity of Christ. Caunterbury Epiphanius speaking of the bread in the Lordes supper and the water in baptisme sayth that they haue no power nor strength of thē selues but by Christ. So that the bread feedeth and the water washeth the body but neither the bread nor water giue life nor purge to saluation but onely the might and power of Christ that is in them And yet not in them reserued but in the action and ministration as it is manifest of his wordes And therfore as in baptisme is neyther the reall and corporall presence of Christes body nor transubstantiation of the water no more is in the Lordes supper eyther Christes flesh and bloud really and corporally present or the bread and wine transubstantiated And therfore Epiphanius calleth not bread by that name bicause it was so but bicause it is so in deede and nourished the body As Hilary sayd there is a figure for bread and wine be openly seene he sayth not there was a figure for bread and wine were openly seene And the figure giueth not life nor washeth not inwardly but Christ that is in the figure tanquam
what is this to make foundation of an argument vpon a secret copy of an epistle vttered at one tyme in diuers senses I shall touch one speciall poynt Peter Martyr sayth in Latin whome the translator in English therin followeth that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body This author Englishing the same place termeth it exalted to the name of the Lordes body which wordes of exalting come nearer to the purpose of this author to haue the bread but a figure and therwith neuer the holier of it selfe But a figure can neuer be accompted worthy the name of our Lordes body the very thing of the Sacrament onles there were the thing in deede as there is by conuersion as the church truely teacheth Is not heare reader a meruaylous diuersity in report and the same so set forth as thou that canst but reade English mayst euidently see it God ordring it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appeare where the truth is impugned Agayne this author maketh Chrisostome to speake strangely in the end of this authority that the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ as though the nature of man were the stay to the diuine nature where as in that vnion the rest is an ineffable mistery the two natures in Christ to haue one substance called and termed an hipostasie and therfore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus The diuine constitution the nature of the body adioyned these two both togither make one sonne and one person Thou reader mayst compare the bookes that be abroad of Peter Martyr in Latine of Peter Martyr in English and this authors booke with that I write and so deeme whither I say true or no. But to the purpose of S. Chrisostomes wordes if they be his wordes he directeth his argument to shew by the mistery of the Sacrament that as in it there is no confusion of natures but each remayneth in his property so likewise in Christ the nature of his godhead doth not confound the nature of his manhode If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christes body there truely present inuisible also as that body is impalpable also as that body is incorruptible also as that is then were the visible nature altred and as it were confounded which Chrisostome sayth is not so for the nature of the bread remayneth by which word of nature is conueniently signified the property of nature For proofe wherof to shew remayning of the property without alteration Chrisostome maketh onely the resemblance and before I haue shewed how nature signifieth the propriety of nature and may signifie the outward part of nature that is to say the accidents being substance in his proper signification the inward nature of the thyng of the conuersion wherof is specially vnderstand transubstantiation Caunterbury WHere you like not my translatiō of Chrisostomes wordes I trow you would haue me to learne of you to trāslate you vse such sincerity and playnnes in your translation Let the learned reader be iudge I did translate the wordes my selfe out of the copye of Florence more truely than it seemeth you would haue done But whan you see the wordes of Chrisostome so manifest and cleare agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation for he sayth that the nature of bread remayneth still you craftely for a shift fall to the carping of the translation bicause you cannot answere to the matter And yet the wordes of Chrisostome cyted by master Peter Martyr in latine out of Florence copy and my translation and the translation of master Peters booke in English do agree fully here in sense although the wordes be not all one which neyther is required nor lightly found in any two translators so that all your wrangling in the diuersity of the translations is but a fleight and common practise of you whan you cannot answer the matter to seeke faultes in the translation where none is And for the speciall poynt wherin you do note a meruaylous diuersity in report and would gather therof no truth to be where such diuersity is let the reader be iudge what a wonderfull diuersity it is The Latine is this Panis dignus habitus est dominici corporis appellatione The translator of M. Peter Martyrs booke sayth The bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body My translation hath The bread is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord. When a man is made a Lord or Knight if one say of him that he is reputed worthy the name of a Lord or Knight and an other say that he is exalted to the name of a Lord or Knight what difference is betwene these two sayinges Is not this a wonderfull diuersity I pray thee iudge indifferently good reader But say you a figure can neuer be counted worthy the name of the thing onles the thing were there in deede Wrangle then with S. Ihon Chrisostome himselfe and not with me who sayth that the bread is exalted to the name of the Lords body or is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body after the sanctificatiō and yet the nature of the bread remayneth still which can not be as you say if the body of Christ were there present And who heard euer such a doctrine as you here make that the thing must be really and corporally present where the figure is For so must euery man be corporally buried in deede when he is Baptised which is a figure of our buriall And when we receaue the Sacrament of Christes body then is accomplished the resurrectiō of our bodies for that Sacrament you affirme to be the figure therof But your doctrine herein is cleane contrary to the iudgement of Lactantius and other olde writers who teach that figures be in vayne and serue to no purpose when the thinges by them signified be present And where you thinke it strange to say that the diuine nature is or resteth in the body of Christ it is nothing els but to declare your ignorance in Gods word and auncient authors in reading of whome forasmuch as you haue not bene much exercised it is no meruayle though their speach seeme strange vnto you The greeke word of Chrisostome is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I pray you english and then we shall see what a strange speach you will make Did you neuer heare tell at the least that the word was incarnated or Verbum caro factum est And what signifieth this word Incarnate but God to be made man and his diuine nature to be in flesh Doth not S. Iohn bid vs beware that we beleue not euery spirite for there be many false prophets and euery spirite sayth he that confesseth not Iesus Christ to haue come in flesh is not of God but is the spirite of Antichrist Is this then a strange speach to you that the diuine nature resteth in the flesh that is to say in the body of Christ which
one of the body and soule which the Church doth professe in Symbolo Athanasij of all receaued For Christ is one person of two perfite natures whereof the one was before the other in perfection and creation of the other the one impassible and the other passible Man is of the soule and body one two different natures but such as for their perfection required that vnitie wherof none was before other perfect of Christ we say he is consubstantiall to his Father by the substaunce of his Godhead and consubstantiall to man by the substaunce of his manhoode but we may not say man is consubstantiall by his soule to Aungels and consubstantiall in his body to beastes because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantiall beastes And thus I write to shew that we may not presse the exāple in euery part of it as the author of this booke noteth vpon Gelasius who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure Caunterbury I Pitie you to see how ye swinke and sweate to confounde this author Gelasius And yet his woordes be so playne agaynst your Papisticall Transubstantiation that you haue clearely lost all your paynes labours and costes For these be his wordes spoken of the Sacrament Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substaunce or nature of bread and wine ceasseth not to be But to auoyde and dalye away these wordes that be so cleare and playne must needes bee layd on loade of wordes the wit must be stretched out to the vtmost all fetches must brought in that cā be deuised all colours of Rethorike must be sought out all the ayre must be cast ouer with cloudes all the water darkned with the cuttyls ynke and if it could be at the least asmuch as may be all mens eyes also must be put out that they should not see But I would wish that you stode not so much in your owne conceite trusted not so much in your inuentions and deuise of wit in eloquence and in craftines of speach multitude of wordes looking that no mā should dare encounter you but that all men should thinke you speake well bicause you speake much that you shuld be had in great reputation among the multitude of them that be ignoraunt can not discerne perfectly those that folow the right way of truth from other that would lead them out of the way into errour blindnesse This standyng in your conceite is nothyng els but to stand in your owne light But where you say that these heresies of Nestorius Eutiches were not so grosse as I report that the one should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other should say cleane cōtrary that he was very God but not mā of the grossenes of these two heresies I will not much contēd For it might be that they were of some misreported as they were in deede if credite be to be giuen to diuers auncient hystories but this I dare say that there be diuers authors that report of them as I do write and consequently you graunt the same in effect For you report of the Eutichiās that they did pernitiously say that there was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature in Christ. And of the Nestorians you say that they denyed Christ to be conceiued God or borne God but onely man and than could not he be naturally God but onely man And therfore neither by ignoraunce nor of purpose do I report them otherwise than you confesse your selfe and then I haue learned of other that were before my tyme. For S. Augustine in the place which you do cite of him hath these wordes of Nestorius Dogmatizare ausus est Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum hominem tantum he presumed to teach sayth S. Augustine that our Lord Iesus Christ was but man onely And of Eutiches he sayth Humanitatis in Christo denegauit veritatem he denied the truth of Christes manhode And Gelasius writeth also thus Eutichiani dicunt vnam esse naturam id est diuinam ac Nestorius nihilominus memerat singularem The Eutichians say that there is but one nature in Christ that is to say the Godhead and also Nestorius sayth there is but one nature meanyng the manhode By which wordes of S. Augustine and Gelasius appeareth as playnly as can be spokē the playne contradiction betwene the Nestorians and the Eutichians that the one denyed the humanitie of Christ and the other his diuinitie as I haue writtē in my booke so that neither of ignoraunce nor of purpose haue I fayned any thyng but you either of malice or of your accustomed maner to calumniate and find faulte with euery thyng that misliketh you be it neuer so well seeke occasion likewise hereto carpe and reprehend where no fault is being like vnto Momus which when he could finde no fault with Uenus person yet he picked a quarell to her slipper And not in this place onely but throughout your whole booke you vse this fashiō that when you cā not aunswere to the principall matter thē you finde fault with some bye matter wherby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the Readers mynde that he should not see how craftely you cōuey your selfe frō direct aūsweryng of the chief poynt of the Argumēt which when you come vnto you passe it ouer slenderly aūsweryng either nothyng or very litle nothyng to the purpose But yet this bye matter which you bryng in of the grossenes of these two errours helpeth litle your intēt but rather helpeth to fortifie my saying agaynst your doctrine of transubstātiation that your doctrine herein maketh a playne way for the Nestorians the Eutichians to defend their errours For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures and after the cōsecration in that mysterie is but one nature and that is the body of Christ into which the nature of bread in your fantasie is transformed and confounded and if also this mysterie be an example of the mysterie of Christes incarnation as the old authours report why may not then the Eutichians say that before the adunation in the virgins wombe the Godhead manhode were two natures yet after the adunation in that mysterie of Christes incarnation there was but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fantasie transfused and confounded And thus haue you made by your transubstantiation a goodly paterne and example for the Eutichians to folow in maintenaunce of their errour And yet although the Eutichians sayd that the nature of God and of mā before their vniting were two yet I read not that they sayd that they were two in the virgines wombe as you report of thē which is no great matter but to declare how ignoraūt you be in the thing wherof you make so great boast or how litle you regard the truth that wittingly wil
the bread of life which came from heauen and of spirituall eating by fayth after which sorte he was at the same present tyme eaten of as many as beleued on him although the sacrament was not at that tyme made and instituted And therfore he sayd Your fathers did eate Manna in the desert and dyed but he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Therfore this place of S. Ihon can in no wise be vnderstande of the sacramentall bread which neither came from heauen neither giueth life to all that eate Nor of such bread Christ could haue then presently sayd This is my flesh except they will say that Christ did than consecrate so many yeares before the institution of his holy Supper Winchester A third reason this author frameth himselfe wherby to take occasion to affirme how the vi chapiter of S. Ihon should not appertayne to the Sacramentall manducation the contrary wherof appeareth aswell by the wordes of Christ in that vi chapiter saying I will geue not I doe giue which promise was fulfilled in the supper as also by the catholique writers and specially by Cirill and therfore I will not further striue with this author in that matter but see how he can assoyle the authorities wherunto he entreth with great confidence Caunterbury THe third reason I framed not my selfe as you say I did but had it ready framed out of your owne shoppe in your booke of the Diuels sophistry And as for the vi chapiter of Ihon I haue sufficiently shewed my mind therin in my answere to Doctor Smithes preface which shall suffice also for aunswere to you in this place And as for Cirill is clearly agaynst you who declareth that when Christ sayd I will geue my flesh for the life of the world he fulfilled not that promise in his supper but in the crosse For if Christ had geuen to vs life in his supper what should he haue needed after to dye for the same purpose The wordes of Cirill be these vpon the wordes of Christ Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Morior inquit pro omnibus vt permeip sum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur euim mors morte mea Which wordes meane thus much in English I will dye for all that by my death I may geue life to all and that my flesh may be the redemption of all for death shall dye by my death Thus expoundeth Cirill the wordes of Christ that when he sayd I will geue he did not fulfill that promise in his spuper but in the crosse giuing vs life by his death not by eating and drinking of him in his supper as you most ignorantly say And yet all men may iudge how much I beare with you when I call it but ignorance Now followeth myne answere to the authors wrested by the papistes Now that I haue made a full direct and playne answer to the vayne reasons and cauilations of the Papists order requireth to make likewise answer vnto their sophisticall allegations and wresting of authors vnto their phantasticall purposes There be chiefely three places which at the first shew seeme much to make for their intent but when they shall be throughly wayed they make nothing for them at all The first is a place of Ciprian in his sermon of the Lords supper where he sayth as is alledged in the Detection of the deuils Sophistry This bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples changed in Nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotency of gods word made flesh Here the Papists sticke tooth and nayle to these wordes Changed in nature Ergo say they the nature of the bread is changed Here is one chiefe poynt of the diuels sophistry vsed who in the allegation of Scripture vseth euer eyther to adde therto or to take away from it or to alter the sence therof And so haue they in this author left out those wordes which would open playnly all the whole matter For next the wordes which be here before of them recited do follow these wordes As in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity was hid euen so did the diuinity ineffably put it selfe into the visible sacrament Which wordes of Ciprian do manifestly shew that the sacrament doth still remayne with the diuinity and that sacramentally the diuinity is poured into the bread and wine the same bread wine still remayning like as the same diuinity by vnity of person was in the humanity of Christ the same humanity still remayning with the diuinite And yet the bread is changed not in shape nor substance but in nature as Ciprian truly sayth not meaning that the naturall substance of bread is cleane gone but that by Gods word there is added therto an other higher propertie nature and condition farre passing the nature and condition of common bread that is to say that the bread doth shew vnto vs as the same Ciprian sayth that we be partaker of the spirite of God and most purely ioyned vnto Christ and spiritually fead with his flesh and bloud so that now the sayde misticall bread is both a corporall food for the body and a spirituall foode for the soule And likewise is the nature of the water changed in baptisme for as much as beside his common nature which is to wash and make cleane the body it declareth vnto vs that our soules be also washed and made cleane by the holy ghost And thus is answered the chiefe authoritie of the doctours which the Papists take for the principall defence of their errour But for further declaration of S. Ciprians mind herein reade the place of him before recited fol. 320. Winchester First in Ciprian who speaketh playnly in the matter this author findeth a fault that he is not wholy alleadged wherupon this author brought in the sentence following not necessary to be rehersed for the matter of Transubstantiation and handsome to be rehersed for the ouerthrowe of the rest of this authors new catholique fayth and whither that now shall be added was materiall in the matter of Transubstantiation I require the Iudgement of thee O reader The first wordes of Ciprian be these This bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples changed in nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotencye of gods word made flesh These be Ciprians wordes and then follow these As in the persone of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden euen so the diuinite ineffably infused it selfe into the visible Sacrament Thus sayth Ciprian as I can English him to expresse the word Infudit by Latin English not liking the English word shed bicause in our English tongue it resembleth spilling euacuation of the whole and much lesse I can agree to vse the word powring although Iufundo in Latine may in the vse of earthly thinges signifie so bicause powring noteth a successiue working
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
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
ghostly enemies the subtill and puisant wicked spirites and diuels The same manner of speach vsed also S. Peter in his first epistle saying That the apparaile of women should not be outwardly with brayded here and setting on of gold nor in putting on of gorgious apparayle but that the inward man of the hart should be without corruption In which manner of speach he intended not vtterly to forbid all broyding of here all gold and costly apparell to all women for euery one must be apparayled according to their condition state and degree but he ment hereby clerely to condemne all pride and excesse in apparayle and to moue all women that they should study to decke their soules inwardly with all vertues and not to be curious outwardly to decke and adourne their bodyes with sumptuous apparayle And our sauiour Christ himselfe was full of such maner of speaches Gather not vnto you sayth he treasure vpon earth willing therby rather to set our mindes vppon heauenly treasure which euer indureth than vppon earthly treasure which by many sundry occasions perisheth and is taken away from vs. And yet worldly treasure must needes be had and possessed of some men as the person tyme and occasion doth serue Likewise he sayd When you be brought before kinges and princes thinke not what and how you shall answer Not willing vs by this negatiue that we should negligently and vnaduisedly answere we care not what but that we should depend of our heuenly father trusting that by his holy spirite he will sufficiently instruct vs of answer rather then to trust of any answer to be deuised by our owne witte and study And in the same maner he spake when he sayd It is not you that speake but it is the spirite of God that speaketh within you For the spirite of God is he that principally putteth godly wordes into our mouthes and yet neuerthelesse we do speake according to his mouing And to be short in all these sentences following that is to say Call no man your father vpon earth Let no man call you lord or master Feare not them that kill the body I came not to send peace vpon earth It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand You shall not worship the father neyther in this mountnor in Ierusalem I take no witnes at no man My doctrine is not mine I seeke not my glory In all these negatiues our sauiour Christ spake not precisely and vtterly to deny all the foresayd thinges but in comparison of them to prefer other thinges as to prefer our father and Lord in heauen aboue any worldly father lord or master in earth and his feare aboue the feare of any creature and his word and gospell aboue all worldly peace Also to prefer spirituall and inward honoring of God in pure hart and mynd aboue locall corporall and outward honour and that Christ preferred his fathers glory aboue his owne Now for as much as I haue declared at length the nature and kind of these negatiue speaches which be no pure negatiues but by comparison it is easye hereby to make answer to S. Iohn Chrisostom who vsed this phrase of speach most of any author For his meaning in his foresayd Homily was not that in the celebration of the Lordes supper is neyther bread nor wine neither priest nor the body of Christ which the Papistes themselues must needes confesse but his intent was to draw our mindes vpward to heauen that we should not consider so much the bread wine and priest as we should consider his diuinity and holy spirite giuen vnto vs to our eternall saluation And therfore in the same place he vseth so many tymes these wordes Thinke and thinke not willing vs by these wordes that we should not fixe our thoughts and myndes vpon the bread wine priest nor Christes body but to lift vp our hartes higher vnto his spirite and diuinity without the which his body auayleth nothing as he sayth himselfe It is the spirite that giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing And as the same Chrisostome in many places moueth vs not to consider the water in baptisme but rather to haue respect to the holy ghost receaued in baptisme and represented by the water euen so doth he in this homily of the holy communion moue vs to lift vp our myndes from all visible and corporall things to thinges inuisible and spirituall In so much that although Christ was but once crucified yet would Chrisost haue vs to thincke that we see him dayly whipped and scourged before our eyes and his body hanging vpon the Crosse and the speare thrust into his side and the most holy bloud to flow out of his side into our mouthes After which manner S. Paule wrote to the Galathians that Christ was paynted and crucified before their eyes Therfore fayth Chrisostome in the same homily a litle before the place rehersed What doest thou O man diddest not thou promise to the prist which sayd Lift vp your myndes and hartes and thou diddest answere We lift them vp vnto the Lord Art not thou ashamed and afrayd being at that same houre found a liar A wonderfull thing The table is set forth furnished with Gods misteries the Lambe of God is offered for thee the priest is carefull for thee spirituall fier cometh out of that heauenly table the angels Seraphin be there present couering their faces with vi winges All the angelicall power with the priest be meanes aud intercestors for thee a spirituall fyer cometh downe from heauen bloud in the cup is druncke out of the most pure side vnto thy purification And art not thou ashamed afrayd and abashed not endeuoring thy selfe to purchase Gods mercy O man doth not thyne owne conscience condemne thee There be in the weeke 168. houres and God asketh but one of them to be giuen wholy vnto him and thou consumest that in worldly busines in trifling and talking with what boldnes then shalt thou come to these holy misteries O corrupt conscience Hitherto I haue rehersed S. Iohn Chrisostomes wordes which do shew how our myndes should be occupyed at this holy table of our Lord that is to say withdrawen from the consideration of sensible thinges vnto the contemplation of most heauenly and godly thinges And thus is answered this place of Chrisostom which the Papists tooke for an insoluble and a place that no man was able to answere But for further declaration of Chrisostoms mynd in this matter read the place of him before rehersed fol. 327. and 343 Winchester Answering to Chrisostome this author complayneth as he did in Ciprian of malicious leauing out of that which when it is brought in doth nothing empayre that went before Chrisostome would we should consider the secret truth of this mistery where Christ is the inuisible Priest and ministreth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest wherof
drinke very wine so we lift vp our hartes vnto heauen and with our fayth wee see Christ crucified with our spirituall eyes and eat his flesh thrust thorow with a speare and drinke his bloud springing out of his side with our spirituall mouthes of our fayth And as Emissene sayd when we go to the reuerend aultar to feede vpon spirituall meat with our fayth we looke vpon him that is both God and man wee honour him we touch him with our minds we take him with the hands of our hartes and drinke him with the draught of our inward man So that although we see and eat sensibly very bread and drinke very wine spiritually eat and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud yet may wee not rest there but lift vp our mindes to his deity without the which his flesh auaileth nothing as he sayth himself Further auÌ„swere needeth not to any thing that you haue here spoken For euery learned reader may see at the first shew that all that you haue spoken is nothing els but very triflyng in wordes Now followeth S. Ambrose Yet there is an other place of S. Ambrose which the Papists thinke maketh much for their purpose but after due examination it shall playnely appeare how much they be deceiued They alleadge these wordes of S. Ambrose in a booke intituled De ijs qui initiantur misterijs Let vs proue that there is not that thing which nature formed but which benediction did consecrate and that benedictioÌ„ is of more strength then nature For by the blessing nature it selfe is also chaunged Moyses held a rodde he cast it from him and it was made a serpent Agayn he took the serpent by the tayle and it was turned agayne into the nature of a rodde Wherefore thou seest that by the grace of the prophet the nature of the serpent and rod was twise thaunged The flouds of Egypt ran pure water and sodenly bloud began to brust out of the vaines of the springes so that men could not drinke of the floud but at the prayer of the Prophet the bloud of the floud went away and the nature of water came agayne The people of the Hebrues were compassed about on the one syde with the Egyptians and on the other side with the sea Moyses lifted vp his rod the water deuided it selfe and stood vp like a wall and betwene the waters was left a way for them to passe on foot And Iordan agaynst nature turned backe to the head of his spring Doth it not appeare now that the nature of the Sea flouds or of the course of fresh water was chaunged The people was dry Moyses touched a stone and water came out of the stone Did not grace her worke aboue nature to make the stone to bring forth the water which it had not of nature Marath was a most bitter floud so that the people being dry could not drinke thereof Moyses put wood into the water and the nature of the water lost his bitternes which grace infused did sodenly moderate In the tyme of Heliseus the prophet an axe head fell from one of the Prophets seruauntes into the water he that lost the yron desired the prophet Heliseus helpe who put the helue into the water and the iron swam aboue Which thing we know was done aboue nature for yron is heuier then the liquor of water Thus we perceiue that grace is of more force then nature and yet hetherto we haue rehersed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets Now if the blessing of a man bee of such valew that it may chaunge nature what do we say of the consecration of God wherein is the operation of the wordes of our sauiour Christ For this Sacrament which thou receiuest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Helias was of such power that it could bring fyre down from heauen shall not the word of Christ be of that power to chaunge the kindes of the elementes Of the making of the whole world thou hast red that God spake and the thinges were done he commaunded and they were created The word then of Christ that could of no things make things that were not can it not chauÌ„ge those thinges that be into that thing which before they were not For it is no les matter to geue to thinges new nature then to alter natures Thus far haue I rehearsed the woâ—â—es of S. Ambrose if the sayd book be his which they that be of greatest learning and iudgemeÌ„t do not thinke by which wordes the Papists would proue that in the supper of the Lord after the words of Consecration as they be commonly called there remayneth neither bread nor wine because that S. Ambrose sayth in this place that the nature of the bread and wine is chaunged But to satisfy their mindes let vs graunt for their pleasure that the foresayd booke was S. Ambrose owne worke yet the same booke maketh nothing for their purpose but quite agaynst them For he sayth not that the substaunce of bread and wine is gone but he sayth that their nature is chaunged that is to say that in the holy communion we ought not to receiue the bread and wine as other common meates and drinkes but as thinges cleane chaunged into a higher estate nature and condition to be taken as holy meates and drinkes whereby we receiue spirituall feeding and supernaturall nourishment from heauen of the very true body and bloud of our sauior Christ through the omnipotent power of God and the wonderful working of the holy ghost Which so well agreeth with the substaunce of bread and wine still remayning that if they were gone away and not there this our spiritual feeding could be taught vnto vs by them And therefore in the most part of the examples which S. Ambrose alleadgeth for the wonderfull alteration of natures the substances did still remayne after the nature and properties were chaunged As when the water of Iordane contrary to his nature stood still like a wale or flowed agaynst the streame towardes the head and spring yet the substaunce of the water remained the same that it was before Likewise the stone that aboue his nature and kinde flowed water was the self same stone that it was before And the floud of Marath that chaunged his nature of bitternesse chaunged for all that no part of his substaunce No more did that yron which contrary to his nature swam vpon the water lose thereby any part of the substaunce thereof Therefore as in these alterations of natures the substances neuertheles remayned the same that they were before the alterations euen so dooth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lords supper and be naturally receiued and disgested into the body notwithstanding the sacramentall mutation of the same into the bodye and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the supernaturall spirituall and explicable eating and drinking feeding and disgesting of the
body and bloud of Christ in all them that godly and according to their duety do receiue the sacramentall bread and wine And that S. Ambrose thus ment that the substaunce of bread and wine remayne still after the consecration it is most clere by three other examples of the same matter following in the same chapter One is of them that be regenerated in whom after their regeneration doth still remayn theyr former naturall substaunce An other is of the incarnation of our sauiour Christ in the which perished no substaunce but remayned aswell the substaunce of his godhead as the substaunce which he tooke of the blessed virgine Mary The third example is of the water in baptisme where the water still remaineth water although the holy ghost come vpon the water or rather vpon him that is baptised therein And although the same S. Ambrose in an other booke entituled de sacrameÌ„tis doth say that the bread is bread before the wordes of consecration but wheÌ„ the consecration is done of bread is made the body of Christ Yet in the same booke in the same chapter he telleth in what mâ—â—ner and forme the same is done by the wordes of Christ not by taking away the substaunce of the bread but adding to the bread the grace of Christes body and so calling it the bodye of Christ. And hereof he bringeth foure examples The first of the regeneration of a man the second is of the standing of the water of the red sea the third is of the bitter water of Marath and the fourth is of the yron that swam aboue the water In euery of the which examples the former substaunce remayned still not withstanding alteration of the natures And he concludeth the whole matter in these few wordes If there be so much strength in the wordes of the Lord Iesu that things had their beginning which neuer were before how much more be they able to worke that those thinges that were before should remayne and also be chauÌ„ged into other thinges Which wordes do shew manifestly that notwithstanding this wonderfull sacramentall and spirituall chaunging of the bread into the body of Christ yet the substaunce of the bread remayneth the same that it was before Thus is a sufficient answere made vnto iij. principall authorities which the Papistes vse to alleadge to stablish their errour of transubstantiation The first of Cyprian the second of S. Iohn Chrisostome and the third of S. Ambrose Other authorities and reasons some of them do bring for the same purpose but forasmuch as they be of smale moment and waight and easy to be aunswered vnto I will passe theÌ„ ouer at this time and not trouble the reader with them but leaue them to be wayed by his discretion Winchester Now let vs heare what this author will say to S. Ambrose He reherseth him of good length but translateth him for aduauÌ„tage As among other in one place where S. Ambrose sayth This Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Chryst. This author translateth Is done by the word of Christ because making must be vnderstanded in the substaunce of the Sacrament chiefly before it is receiued and doing may be referred to the effect chiefly for which purpose it should seeme the author of this book caÌ„not away with the word made whereat it pleaseth him in an other place of this book to be mery as at an absurdity in the Papistes when in deed both S. Ambrose here S. Cyprian and S. Hierome also in their places vse the same word speaking of this sacrament and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordayning the substaunce of it by such a conuersion as bread is made the body of Christ. But as touching the answere of this author to S. Ambrose it is diuers For first he doth trauerse the authority of the book which allegation hath bene by other heretofore made and aunswered vnto in such wise as the book remayneth S. Ambroses still and Melancthon sayth it séemeth not to him vnlike his and therefore alleadgeth this very place out of him agaynst Decolampadius Thys author will not sticke in that allegation but for aunswere sayth that S. Ambrose sayth not that the substaunce of the bread and wine is gone and that is true he sayth not so in sillables but he sayth so in sence because he speaketh so plainly of a chaunge in the bread into that it was not whereunto this author for declaration of chaunge sayth the breade and wine be chaunged into an higher estate nature and condition which thrée words of estate nature and condition be good wordes to expresse the chaunge of the bread into the body of Christ which body is of an other nature an other state and condition then the substaunce of the bread without comparison hier But then this author addeth to be taken as holy meates and drinkes wherin if he mean to be taken so but not to be so as his teaching in other places of this booke is the bread to be neuer the holier but to signifie an holy thing then is the change nothing in deed touching the nature but onely as a coward may be changed in apparayle to play Hercules or Sampsons part in a play himselfe therby made neuer the hardier man at all but onely appoynted to signifie an hardy man of which mans change although his estate and condition might in speach be called changed for the tyme of the play yet no man would terme it thus to say his nature were changed whether he ment by the word nature the substance of the mans nature or property for in these two poyntes he wer still the same man in Hercules coate that he was before the play in his owne so as if ther be nothing but a figure in the bread then for so much this authors other teaching in this booke where he sayth the bread is neuer the holier is a doctrine better then this to teach a change of the bread to an higher nature when it is onely appoynted to signifie an holy thing And therfore this authors answer garnished with these three gay wordes of estate nature and condition is deuised but for a shift such as agreeth not with other places of this booke not it selfe neyther And where S. Ambrose meruayleth at gods worke in the substance of the sacrament this author shifteth that also to the effect in him that receaueth which is also meruaylous in deede but the substance of the sacrament is by S. Ambrose specially meruayled at how bread is made the body of Christ the visible matter outwardly remayning and onely by an inward change which is of the inward nature called properly substance in learning and a substance in deede but perceaued onely by vnderstanding as the substance present of Christes most precious body is a very substance in deede of the body inuisibly present but present indeede and onely vnderstanded by most true and certayne knowledge of fayth And although this author noteth how in the examples of
mysterie of Christes incarnation the humanitie is extinguished by the presence of his Godhead and so there remayneth no more but the substaunce of his diuinitie as the Eutichians sayd And thus the similitude of Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete ioyned to the saying of the Papistes frameth a good Argument for the heretickes But those Authours framed their Argumēt cleane cōtrary on this wise that the bread and wyne be not transubstantiate or extinguished but continue still in their owne substaunces figures fashion and all naturall proprieties and therfore doth the humanitie of Christ likewise endure and remayne in proper substaunce with his naturall proprieties without extinction or transubstantiation For those Authours take no bread and wyne for the visible proprieties onely of bread and wyne but for very true bread and wyne with all their naturall qualities and conditions And the heretickes shall soone finde out your cauillation where to auoyde the matter you say that the mysterie of the Sacrament requireth not the truth of the substaunce For why should the Authours bryng them forth to proue the truth of the substaunce in Christ if there were no true substaunce in them Thus all your shiftes and Sophistications be but wynde or colours cast ouer the truth to bleare mens eyes which colours rubbed of the truth appeareth cleare and playne And your first marke is not clearely put out but turned to a marke spectacle for your selfe wherin you may clearely see your owne errour and how foule you haue bene deceaued in this matter and open your eyes if God will geue you grace to put away your inducate hart to see the cleare truth Winchester An other certaine token is the wondryng and great marueling that the old authors make how the substaunce of this Sacrament is wrought by Gods omnipotencie Baptisme is marueiled at for the wonderfull effect that is in man by it how man is regenerate not how the water or the holy Ghost is there But the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures how they be so chaunged into the body bloud of Christ which is a worke wrought of God before we receiue the Sacrament Which worke Cyprian sayth is ineffable that is to say not speakeable which is not so if it be but a figure for then it may be easely spoken as this authour speaketh it with ease I thinke he speaketh it so often of a presence by signification if it may so be called euery man may speake and tell how but of the very presence in déede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament no creature can tell how it may be that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body and therewith continually reignyng there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in déede which Christ in déede worketh being neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen as S. Chrisostome doth with a maruaile say If the maruaile were onely of Gods worke in man in the effect of the Sacrament as it is in Baptisme it were an other matter but I sayd before the wonder is in the worke of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receiued which declareth the old authours that so wonder to vnderstand the reall presence of Christes very body and not an onely signification which hath no wonder at all And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it and calleth the worke ineffable S. Chrisostome wondreth at it S. Ambrose wondreth at it Emissene wondreth at it Cyrill wondreth at it What should we now doubt whether their sayth were of a signification onely as this authour would haue it which is no wonder at all or of the reall presence which is in déede a wonderfull worke Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the old fathers there can no construction of sillables or wordes disswade or peruert the truth thus testified Caunterbury AS touchyng this your second marke in the ministration of the Sacramentes aswell of the Lordes holy Supper as of Baptisme God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receauers not in the outward visible signes For it is the person Baptised that is so regenerate that he is made a new creature without any reall alteration of the water And none otherwise it is the Lordes Supper for the bread wine remaine in their former substaunce neither be fed nor nourished yet in the man that worthely receiueth them is such a wonderfull nourishmēt wrought by the mighty power of God that he hath thereby euerlasting life And this is the ineffable worke of God wherof Cyprian speaketh So that aswell in the Lords Supper as in Baptisme the marueilous workyng of God passing the comprehension of all mans wit is in the spirituall receiuers not in the bread wine water nor in the carnall vngodly receauers For what should it auayle the liuely members of Christ that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures But in his members he is present not figuratiuely but effectually and effectually and ineffably worketh in them nourishyng and feedyng them so wonderfully that it passeth all wittes and toungues to expresse And neuerthelesse corporally he is ascended into heauen and there shall tarry vntill the world shall haue an end And therfore sayth Chrisostome that Christ is both gone vp into heauen and yet is here receaued of vs but diuersly For he is gone vp to heauen carnally is here receaued of vs spiritually And this wonder is not in the woorkyng of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receaued as you fayne it to be nor in thē that vnworthely receaue it carnally but in them that receaue Christ spiritually beyng nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated that they may be fed of the same thyng wherof they be regenerated and so be throughly Os ex ossibus eius caro ex carne eius Bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh And consideryng deepely this matter Cyprian wondreth as much at Gods worke in Baptisme as in the Lordes Supper Chrisostome wondreth as much Emissene wondreth as much Cyrill wondreth as much all Catholicke writers wonder as much as well how God doth spiritually regenerate vs to a new lyfe as how he doth spiritually feede and nourish vs to euerlastyng lyfe And although these thyngs be outwardly signified vnto vs by the Sacramentall bread wine and water yet they be effectually wrought in vs by the omnipotent power of God Therefore you had neede to seeke out some other marke or token for your purpose for this serueth nothyng at all For by his wonderfull workyng Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine then in the water of Baptisme Winchester A thyrd token there is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierome when he declareth vpon the Epistle Ad Titum so aduisedly at lēgth how Panes propositionis
be Baptised for an other and if he be it auayleth nothyng so ought not one to receiue the holy Communion for an other For if a man be dry or hungry he is neuer a whit eased if an other man drinke or eate for him or if a man be all befiled it helpeth him nothing an other man to bewashed for him So auayleth it nothyng to a man if an other man be Baptised for him or be refreshed for him with the meate and drinke at the Lordes Table And therfore sayd S. Peter Let euery man be Baptised in the name of Iesu Christ. And our Sauiour Christ sayd to the multitude Take and care And further he sayd Drinke you all of this Whosoeuer therfore will be spiritually regenerated in Christ he must be Baptised him selfe And he that will liue him selfe by Christ must by him selfe eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud And briefly to conclude He that thinketh to come to the kyngdome of Christ him selfe must also come to his Sacramentes him selfe and keepe his Commaundements him selfe and do all thynges that pertayne to a Christian man and to his vocation him selfe least if he referre these thynges to an other man to do them for him the other may with as good right clayme the kyngdome of heauen for him Therfore Christ made no such difference betwene the priest and the lay mā that the priest should make oblation and sacrifice of Christ for the lay man and eate the Lordes Supper from him all alone and distribute and apply it as him liketh Christ made no such difference but the difference that is betwene the priest and the lay man in this matter is onely in the ministration that the priest as a common minister of the Church doth minister and distribute the Lords Supper vnto other and other receaue it at his handes But the very Supper it selfe was by Christ instituted and geuen to the whole Church not to be offered and eaten of the priest for other men but by him to be deliuered to all that would duely aske it As in a princes house the officers and ministers prepare the Table and yet other aswel as they eate the meate and drinke the drinke so do the priests and ministers prepare the Lordes Supper read the Gospell and rehearse Christes wordes but all the people say therto Amen All remember Christes death all geue thankes to God all repent and offer them selues an oblation to Christ all take him for their Lord and Sauiour and spiritually feede vpon him and in token therof they eate the bread and drinke the wine in his mysticall Supper And this nothyng diminisheth the estimation and dignitie of priesthode and other ministers of the Church but aduaunceth and highly commendeth their ministration For if they are much to be loued honored and esteemed that be the kynges Chauncelours Iudges officers and ministers in temporall matters how much than are they to be estemed that be ministers of Christes wordes and Sacramentes and haue to them committed the keyes of heauen to let in and shut out by the ministration of his word and Gospell Now for asmuch as I trust that I haue playnly inough set forth the propitiatory sacrifice of our Sauiour Iesu Christ to the capacitie and comfort of all men that haue any vnderstandyng of Christ and haue declared also the haynous abhomination and Idolatry of the Popishe Masse wherein the priestes haue taken vpon them the office of Christ to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the people and I haue also told what maner of sacrifice Christen people ought to make it is now necessary to make aunswere to the subtle persuasions and Sophisticall cauillations of the Papistes whereby they haue deceaued many a simple man both learned and vnlearned The place of S. Paule vnto the Hebrues which they doe cite for their purpose maketh quite and cleane agaynst them For where S. Paule sayth that euery high priest is ordayned to offer giftes and sacrifices for sinnes he spake not that of the priestes of the new Testamēt but of the old which as he sayth offered Calues and Goates And yet they were not such priestes that by their offerynges and sacrifices they could take away the peoples sinnes but they were shadowes and figures of Christ our euerlastyng priest which onely by one oblation of him selfe taketh away the sinnes of the world Wherfore the Popish priestes that apply this text vnto thēselues do directly contrary to the meanyng of S. Paule to the great iniury and preiudice of Christ by whom onely S. Paule sayth that the sacrifice and oblation for the sinne of the whole world was accomplished and fulfilled And as litle serueth for the Papistes purpose the text of the Prophet Malachie that euery where should be offered vnto God a pure sacrifice and oblation For the Prophet in that place spake no word of the Masse nor of any oblation propitiatory to be made by the priestes but he spake of the oblation of all faythfull people in what place so euer they be which offer vnto God with pure hartes and myndes sacrifices of laude and prayse prophecying of the vocation of the Gentiles that God would extende his mercy vnto them and not be the God onely of the Iewes but of all nations from East to West that with pure fayth call vpon him and glorifie his name But the aduersaries of Christ gather together a great heape of Authours whiche as they say call the Masse or holy Communion a Sacrifice But all those Authours be aunswered vnto in this one sentence that they called it not a sacrifice for sinne bycause that it taketh away our sinne which is takē away onely by the death of Christ but bicause the holy Cōmunion was ordeined of Christ to put vs in remēbraūce of the sacrifice made by him vpō the crosse for that cause it beareth the name of that sacrifice as S. Augustin declareth plainly in his Epistle ad Bonifacium before rehearsed in this booke pag. 141. And in his booke De fide ad Petrum Diaconū And in his booke De Ciuitate Dei he sayth That which men call a sacrifice is a signe or representation of the true sacrifice And the Maister of the Sentence of whom all the Schoole Authours take their occasion to write iudged truely in this poynt saying That whiche is offered and consecrated of the priest Is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy oblation made in the aultar of the Crosse. And S. Iohn Chrisostome after he hath sayd that Christ is our Byshop which offered that Sacrifice that made vs cleane and that we offer the same now least any man might be deceiued by his maner of speakyng he openeth his meanyng more playnly saying That which we doe is done for a remembraunce of that whiche was done by Christ For Christ sayth Doe this in remembraunce of me Also
is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do when he sayth it is vinificum which can be onely sayd of the very body and bloud of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of laudes and thankesgeuing cannot be sayd a pure and cleane Sacrifice whereby to fulfill the prophecy of Malachy and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church vnderstanded to be spoken of the dayly offering of the body and bloud of Christ for the memory of Christes death according to Christes ordinaunce in his supper as may at more length be opened and declared Thinking to the effect of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chiefe poyntes of the authors doctrine with such contradiction to thē as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessity require the more particuler confutation of that is vntrue on the aduersary part and confirmation of that is true in the Catholique doctrine requiring more tyme and leysure then I haue now and therefore offering my selfe ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shal be required I shall here end for this time with prayer to almighty God to graunt his truth to be acknowledged and confessed and vniformely to be preached and beleued of al so as all contention for vnderstanding of religion auoyded which hindereth Charity we may geue suche light abroad as men may see our good workes and glorify our father who is in heauen with the sonne and holy ghost in one vnity of godhead reigning without end Amen Caunterbury HIpinus sayth that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not beleue that Hipinus so sayd vntill you appoint me both the booke and place where he so sayth For the effect of his booke is cleane contrary which he wrote to reproue the propitiatory sacrifice which the Papistes fayne to be in the Masse Thus in deede Hipinus writeth in one place Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis sanguinis Christipraesentiam primo vocauerunt sacrificium deinde propter oblationes munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur conferebantur ad sacraministeria ad necessitatem credentium In which wordes Hipinus declareth that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two consideratiōs one was for the present of Christes flesh and bloud the other was for the offerynges which the people gaue there of their deuotion to the holy ministratiō and reliefe of the poore But Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporall presence nor of propitiatory Sacrifice but generally of presence and sacrifice which maketh nothyng for your purpose nor agaynst me that graunt both a presence and a sacrifice But when you shall shew me the place where Hipinus sayth that the old Fathers called the Lordes Supper a propitiatory sacrifice I shall trust you the better and him the worse And as for Cyrill if you will say of his head that the Sacrifice of the Church giueth life how agreeth this with your late saying that the sacrifice of the Church increaseth lyfe as the sacrifice on the Crosse giueth lyfe And if the Sacrifice made by the Priest both geue lyfe and encrease lyfe then is the Priest both the mother and nurse and Christ hath nothyng to do with vs at all but as a straunger And the sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is the sacrifice laud and thankes which all deuoute Christian people geue vnto God whether it be in the Lordes Supper in their priuate Prayers or in any worke they do at any tyme or place to the glory of God all which Sacrifices not of the Priestes onely but of all faythfull people be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ by whose bloud all their filthy and vnpurenes is cleane sponged away But in this last booke it seemeth you were so astonied and amased that you were at your wits end wist not where to become For now the Priest maketh a Sacrifice propitiatory now he doth not now he giueth lyfe now he giueth none now is Christ the full Sauiour and satisfaction now the Priest hath halfe part with him now the Priest doth all And thus you are so inconstant in your selfe as one that had bene netteled and could rest in no place or rather as one that had receaued such a stroke vpon his head that hee staggered with all and reeled here and there and could not tell where to become And your doctrine hath such ambiguities such perplexities such absurdities and such impieties in it and is so vncertaine so vncomfortable so contrary to Gods word and the old Catholicke Church so contrary to it selfe that it declareth from whose spirite it commeth which can be none other but Antichrist him selfe Where as on the other side the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure Church from the begynnyng is playne certaine without wrynkels without any inconuenience or absurditie so chearefull and comfortable to all Christen people that it must needes come from the spirite of God the spirite of truth and all consolation For what ought to be more certaine and knowen to all Christen people then that Christ dyed once and but once for the redemption of the world And what can be more true then that his onely death is our lyfe And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner that is sory for his sinne and returneth to God in his hart and whole mynde then to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heauy lode of his sinne and taketh the burden vpon his owne backe And if we shall ioyne the Priest herein to Christ in any part and giue a portion hereof to his sacrifice as you in your doctrine giue to the priest the one halfe at the least what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner that he may not hang wholly vpon Christ what perplexities and doubtes rise hereof in the sinners conscience And what an obscuryng and darkenyng is this of the benefite of Christ Yea what iniury and contumely is it to him And furthermore when we heare Christ speake vnto vs with his own mouth and shew him selfe to be seen with our eyes in such sorte as is conuenient for him of vs in this mortall lyfe to be heard and sene what comfort can we haue more The Minister of the Churche speaketh vnto vs Gods owne wordes whiche we must take as spoken from Gods owne mouth because that from his mouth it came and his word it is and not the Ministers Likewise when he ministreth to our sightes Christes holy Sacramentes we must thinke Christ crucified and presented before our eyes because the Sacraments so represent him and be his Sacraments and not the Priestes As in Baptisme we must thinke that as the Priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly and washeth him with water so must we thinke that God putteth to his hand inwardly and washeth the infant with his holy spirite and
that tyme ouerflowing the world For the which and other mine offences in youth I do dayly pray vnto God for mercy and pardon saying Delicta inuentutis meae ignorantias meas ne memineris Domine Good Lord remember not mine ignorances and offences of my youth But after it had pleased God to shew vnto me by his holy word a more perfect knowledge of his sonne Iesus Christ from tyme to tyme as I grew in knowledge of him by little and little I put away my former ignorance And as God of his mercy gaue me light so through his grace I opened myne eyes to receaue it and did not wilfully repugne vnto God and remayne in darkenes And I trust in gods mercy and pardon for my former errors bicause I erred but of frailnes and ignoraunce And now I may say of my selfe as S. Paule sayd When I was like a babe or childe in the knowledge of Christ I spake like a childe and vnderstood like a child But now that I come to mans estate and growing in Christ through his grace and mercy I haue put away that childishnes Now after that D. Smith hath thus vntruely belyed both me and master Peter Martir he falleth into his exclamations saying O Lord what man is so mad to beleue such mutable teachers which chaūge their doctrine at mens pleasure as they see aduauntage and profit They turne and will turne as the winde turneth Do you not remember M. Smith the fable how the olde crab rebuked her young that they went not straight forth and the common experience that those that look a squint sometimes find fault with them that look right You haue turned twise retracted your errours and the third time promised and breaking your promise ran away And find you fault with me and M. Peter Martyr as though we for mens pleasures turne like the winde as we see aduauntage Shall the wethercocke of Paules that turneth about with euery wind lay the fault in the church say that it turneth I will not here aunswere for my selfe but leaue the iudgement to God who seeth the bottome of all mens hartes and at whose onely iudgement I shall stand or fall sauing that this I will say before God who is euery where present and knoweth all thinges that be done that as for seeking to please men in this matter I thinke my conscience cleare that I neuer sought herein but onely the pleasure and glory of God And yet will I not iudge my selfe herein nor take D. Smith for my iudge but will refer the iudgement to him that is the rightfull iudge of all men But as for D. Peter Martyr hath hee sought to please men for aduauntage who hauing a great yearly reuenue in his owne countrey forsooke all for Christes sake and for the truth and glory of God came into straunge countries wher he had neither land nor frendes but as God of his goodnes who neuer forsaketh them that put their trust in him prouided for him BUt after this exclamation this papist returneth to the matter saying Tell me why may not Christes body be as well in the sacrament in heauē both at once as that his body was in one proper place with the bodye of the stone that lay still vpō his graue whē he rose from death to life as his body was in one proper place at once with the body of the doore or gate whē the same being shut he entred into the house where the Apostles were Make you these two thinges all one M. Smith diuers bodies to be in one place and one body to be in diuers places If Christs body had bene in one place with the substaūce of the stone or doore and at the same time thē you might well haue proued thereby that his body may as well be in one place with the substāce of bread wine But what auayleth this to proue that his body may be in diuers places at one time which is nothing like to the other but rather cleane contrary Marry when Christ arose out of the sepulchre or came into the house when the dores were shut if you can proue that at the same time he was in heauen then were that to some purpose to proue that this dodye may bee corporally in heauen and earth both at one tyme. And yet the controuersy here in this matter is not what may bee but what is God can do many thinges which he neither doth nor will doe And to vs his will in thinges that appear not to our sences is not known but by his word Christes body may be aswell in the bread and wine as in in the dore and stone and yet it may be also in the dore and stone and not in the bread and wine But if we will stretch out our faith no further thē Gods word doth lead vs neither is Christs body corporally present in one proper place with the bread and wine nor was also with the stone or doore For the Scripture sayth in no place that the body of Christ was in the doore or in the stone that couered the Sepulchre but it sayth playnly that an Aungell came downe from heauen and remoued away the stone from the Sepulchre the womē that came to see the Sepulchre foūd the stone remoued away And although the Gospell say that Christ came into the house when the doore was shut yet it sayth not that Christes body was within the doore so that the doore and it occupyed both but one place But peraduenture M. Smith will aske me this question How could Christ come into the house the doore being shut except he came through the doore that his body must be in the doore To your wise questiō M. Smith I will aunswere by an other question Could not Christ come aswell into the house whē the doore was shut as the Apostles could go out of prison the doore beyng shut Could not God worke this thyng except the Apostles must go through the doore occuyy the same place that the doore did Or could not Christ do so much for his own selfe as he did for his Apostles But M. Smith is so blynd in his owne phantasies that he seeth not how much his owne examples make agaynst him selfe For if it be lyke in the Sacrament as it was in the stone and doore and Christes body was in one propre place with the body and substaunce of the stone and doore then must Christes body in the Sacramēt be in one propre place with the body and substaunce of bread and wine And so he must then confesse that there is no Transubstantiation THen from the doore and sepulchre Doct. Smith commeth to the Reuelations of Peter and Paule which saw Christ as he sayth bodily vpon earth after his Ascention Whiche declareth that although Christ departed hence at the tyme of his Ascention into heauen and there sitteth at the right hand of his father yet he
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
Pope I thinke it was accordyng to the other othes which he vseth to minister to Princes which is to be obedient to him to defend his person to maintaine his authoritie honour lawes landes and priuileges And if it be so then I beseech your Maiestie to looke vpon your othe made to the crowne and the Realme and to expēd and way the two othes together to see how they agree and then to do as your graces cōscience shall geue you for I am surely perswaded that willyngly your Maiestie will not offend nor do agaynst your conscience for nothyng But I feare me there be contradiction in your othes and that those which should haue enformed your grace throughly did not their dueties therein And if your Maiestie ponder the two othes diligently I thinke you shall perceaue that you were deceaued and then your highnes may vse the matter as God shall put in your hart Furthermore I am kept here from company of learned men from bookes from counsell from penne and incke sauyng at this tyme to write to your Maiestie which all were necessary for a man in my case Wherfore I beseech your Maiestie that I may haue such of these as may stand with your Maiesties pleasure And as for myne appearaunce at Rome if your Maiestie will geue me leaue I will appeare there and I trust that God shall put in my mouth to defend his truth there aswell as here but I referre it wholly to your Maiesties pleasure Your poore Oratour T. C. ¶ To the Lordes of the Counsell IN most humble wise sueth vnto your right honourable Lordshyps Thomas Cranmer late Archb. of Cant. beseechyng the same to be a meanes for me vnto the Queenes highnesse for her mercy pardō Some of you know by what meanes I was brought and trayned vnto the will of our late soueraigne Lord kyng Edward the vi what I spake agaynst the same wherein I referre me to the reportes of your honours Furthermore this is to signifie vnto your Lordshyps that vpon Monday Tuesday and Wednisday last past were open disputations here in Oxford agaynst me M. Ridley and M. Latymer in three matters concernyng the Sacrament First of the reall presence secondly of Trāsubstantiation and thyrdly concernyng the Sacrifice of the Masse How the other two were vsed I can not tel for we were separated so that none of vs knew what the other said nor how they were ordered But as concernyng my selfe I can report that I neuer knew nor heard of a more confused disputation in all my lyfe For albeit there was one appointed to dispute agaynst me yet euery man spake his mynde and brought forth what him lyked without order and such hast was made that no aunswere could be suffered to be geuen fully to any argumēt in such weighty large matters there was no remedy but the disputations must needes be ended in one day whiche can scantly well be ended in three monethes And when we had aunswered them then they would not appoint vs one day to bring forth our proofes that they might aunswere vs agayne beyng required of me thereunto whereas I my selfe haue more to say then can be well discussed in .xx dayes The meanes to resolue the truth had bene to haue suffered vs to aunswere fully to all that they could say and then they agayne to aunswere to all that we could say But why they would not aunswere vs what other cause can there be but that either they feared the matter that they were not able to aunswere vs or els as by their hast might well appeare they came not to speake the truth but to condemne vs in post hast before the truth might be throughly tryed and heard for in all hast we were all three condemned of heresie vpon Friday This much I thought good to signifie vnto your Lordshyppes that you may knowe the indifferent handlyng of matters leauyng the iudgement thereof vnto your wisedomes and I beseech your Lordshyppes to remember me a poore prisoner vnto the Queenes Maiestie and I shall pray as I doe dayly to God for the long preseruation of your good Lordshyppes in all godlynesse and felicitie ¶ A Letter wherein hee reproueth and condemneth the false and sclaunderous reportes of the Papistes which sayd that he had set vp Masse agayne at Canterbury AS the deuill Christes auncient aduersary is a lyer the father of lying Euē so hath he sturred vp his seruaunts and members to persecute Christ his true word and Religion with lying whiche he ceasseth not to do most earnestly at this present For whereas the Prince of famous memory kyng Henry the eight seyng the great abuses of the Latin Masse reformed some thyng therein in his tyme and also our late soueraigne Lord kyng Edward the vj. tooke the same whole away for the manifold errours and abuses therof and restored in the place therof Christes holy Supper accordyng to Christes owne institution and as the Apostles in the primatiue Church vsed the same the deuil goeth about by lying to ouerthrow the Lordes holy Supper and to restore his Latin satisfactory Masse a thyng of his owne inuention and deuise and to bryng the same more easely to passe some haue abused the name of me Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury brutyng abroad that I haue set vp the Masse at Canterbury and that I offred to say Masse at the buriall of our late soueraigne Prince kyng Edward the vj. and also that I offred to say Masse before the Queenes highnes and at Paules Church and I wot not where And although I haue bene wel exercised these xx yeares to suffer and beare euill reportes and lyes and haue bene much greued thereat but haue borne all thynges quietly yet when vntrue reportes and lyes turne to the hinderaunce of Gods truth they be in no wise to be suffred Wherfore these be to signifie vnto the world that it was a false flatteryng lying dissemblyng Monke which caused Masse to be set vp there without myne aduise or counsell Reddat illi Dominus in die illo And as for offering my selfe to say Masse before the Queenes highnes or in any other place I neuer did it as her grace well knoweth But if her grace giue me leaue I shal be ready to proue agaynst all that will say the contrary that all that is sayd in the holy Communion set out by the most innocent and godly Prince kyng Edward the vj. in his high Court of Parliament is conformable to the order which our soueraigne Christ did both obserue and commaunded to be obserued and which his Apostles and primatiue Church vsed many yeares whereas the Masse in many thyngs not onely hath no foundation of Christ his Apostles nor the primatiue Church but is manifestly contrary to the same and containeth many horrible abuses in it And although many vnlearned and malitious do report that M. Peter Martyr is vnlearned yet if the Queenes highnesse will graunt thereunto I with
of the Cardinalles Colledge in Oxford refused it Question of the kynges diuorce with Katherine Dowager Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe chief furtherers of the kynges diuorce Doct. Stephens D. Foxe Doct. Cranmer coÌ„ferryng together of the kynges cause Doct. Cranmers aunswere in the question of the kynges diuorce Doct. Cranmers deuise well lyked of The king troubled about the cause of his diuorce Doct. Cranmer sent for to the kyng in post Talke betwene the kyng and Doct. Cranmer The king troubled in coÌ„scieÌ„ce Doct. Cranmer excusing and disabling himselfe to the kyng Doct. Cranmer assigned by the kyng to searche the Scriptures in the cause of his diuorce The kyng first geuen to vnderstand that the Pope hath no authoritie to dispence with the word of God The kynges matter remoued from the popes Canon law to the triall of the Scriptures The kynges Mariage fouÌ„de by Gods word vnlawfull Doct. Cranmer with other sâ—nt to Rome Ambassadour to the Pope Arguing to the popes face that contrary to the word of God he had no power to dispense Doct. Cranmer made the popes Penitentiary Doct. Cranmer Ambassadour to the Emperour Conference betwene Byshop Cranmer and Cornelius Agrippa Doct. Cranmer made Archbyshop of Cant. 1. Tim. 3. Titus 1. The order of Doct. Cranmers study The gentle nature of Doctour Cranmer Doct. Cranmer stoute and constant in Gods cause Doct. Cranmer a stoute enemy agaynst the sâ—â— Articles Of this commyng of the I. Cromwell and the two Dukes to the Archbyshop ExaÌ„ple for Ecclesiasticall Pastours Archb. CraÌ„mer in displeasure about the imployng of Chauntrey landes The singular patience of this Archbyshop A story betwen the Archb. of Caunterbury a popish Priest his enemy The rayling of a popish Priest agaynst Doct. Cranmer Chersey â—â—yng for his kynseâ—â— to the Archb. The Priest sent for to the Archbyshop The Archbyshops wordes vnto the Parson The Priest coÌ„fesseth his fault to the Archb. The raâ—he tâ—â—ngeâ— of men sclaunderously speakyng â—uill by meÌ„ whoÌ„ they neuer knew nor saw before The Priestest aunswere The Masse Priest ignoraunt in the Scripture The giâ—e of popish Priests when they fauour not the Religion of a man they sclauÌ„der his person Euill will neuer sayd well The Archbyshop forgâ—â—eth and dismisseth the Priest The liberall doynges of this Archbyshop The Archbyshop clearyng all his debtes before his attainder The Archb. Cranmer euer constant in defence of Christs truth and Gospell The Archb. alone standeth in defence of the truth Bishop Heath and Byshop Skippe forsake the Archb. in the playne field The Archb. incensed by B. Heath and B. Skippe to geue ouer the defence of the Gospell The aunswere of the Archb. to Doct. Heath Skippe The Papistes busie to bryng the Archb. out of credit with the kyng The Archbyshop agayne accused to the kyng The kyng sent Syr Antony Deny at midnight for the Archb. The kynges wordes and aduise for the supportation of the Archbyshop The Archbyshops auÌ„swere to the kyng The kyngs fauourable care consideration towarde the Archb. of Cant. The kyng sendeth his â—â—gnet in the behalfe of the Archb. of Canterbury The Archbyshop beyng one of the Counsell made to staÌ„d at the Counsell chamber doore waityng Doct. Buttes the kings Phisition a frend of the Archb. The Archbyshop called before the Counsell The CouÌ„sel beyng set agaynst the Archb. hee sheweth the kyngs Kyng appealeth from them The kynges wordes to the Counsell in defence of the Archbyshop The Lordes of the Counsell glad to be freÌ„ds againe with the Archbyshâ—p The kyng a great supporter of Cranmer The Lord CroÌ„wels wordes to the Archbyshop The true and goâ—ly doctrine of the Sacrament in fiue bookes set forth by the Archb. of Canterbury An explication of StepheÌ„ Gardiner agaynst Cranmer Archbyshop of CaÌ„t. Manâ—taltameÌ„te repostum Iudicium paridis spraetaeque inniria matris Virg. AEneid 1. This Doctour Thornton was after the Byshop of Douer a cruell wicked persecuter This Byshop was Doctour Heath Byshop after of Yorkâ— Cranmer condemned of treason Cranmer released of treason and accused of heresie Cranmer had to Oxford Of this condeÌ„nation read in the last 〈◊〉 pag. 1554. The Archbyshop contented to recant Causes mouyng the Archbyshop to geue with the tyme. The Queenâ—s hart set agaynst Cranmer The Queene conferreth with Doct. Cole about Cranmers burnyng L. William of Thame L. ShaÌ„doys Syr Thomas Bridges Syr Iohn Browne appourted to be at Cranmers execution Cranmer writteth subscribeth the Articles with his owne handes Doct. Cranmer brought to D. Coles SerinoÌ„ Doct. Cranmer set vpoÌ„ a stage Doct. Coles Sermon deuided into three partes The summe effect of Doct. Coles Sermon at Oxford If Cole gaue this iudgement vpon Cranmer wheÌ„ hee had repented what iudgement is then to be geueÌ„ of Cole whiche alwayes hath pâ—â—dured in errour and neuer yet repented If all heretickes in England should be burned where should Doct. Cole haue bene ere now Lex non aequalitatis sed iâ—iquitatis No state in this earth so hye nor so sure but it may fall Doct. Cole encourageth the Archb. to take his death patiently 1. Cor. 10. Doct. Cole reioyseth in the Archbyshops conuersion bâ—t that reioysing lasted not long Dirâ—ges and Masses promised for Cranmers soule The teares of the Archb. Cranmer required to declare his fayth CraÌ„mer willing to declare his fayth The wordes of the Archb. to the people The Prayer of the Archb. The last words of exhortatioÌ„ of the Archb. to the people Exhortation to contempt of the world Exhortation to obedience Exhortation to brotherly loue Exhortation to rich meÌ„ of this world mouyng them to charitable almes Luke 18. 1. Iohn 3. The Archb. declareth the true coÌ„fession of his fayth without all colour or dissemblyng The Archb. reuoketh his former recantation and repenteth the same The Archb. refuseth the Pope as Christes enemy and Antichrist The Archb. standeth to his booke written agaynst Wincester The expectation of the Papistes deceaued The Popistes in a great chaffe agaynst the Archbyshop Cranmers aunswere to the Papistes Cranmer pulled downe from the stage Cranmer led to the fire The Archb. brought to the place of execution M. Ely refuseth to geue his haÌ„d to the Archb. The Archb. tyed to tht â—â—â—ke Cranmer putteth his right haÌ„d which subscribed first into the â—râ— The last wordâ— of Cranmer at his death The Friers lying report of Cranmer I would as much as may be do my due to the matter and him also The craft of winchester in the beginnyng The summe of the booke Because the author pretendeth a defence of the catholick faith it were reason to know what it is The effect of that this author calleth his faith Untrue report Bread wine water be not holy but holy tokens They be not bare tokens Christ is preseÌ„t in his sacramentes A catholike fayth Thus authors fayth hath no point of a catholike fayth Untrue report Scripture in letter fauoureth not thus autors fayth My doctrine is catholike by your owne description
1. Cor. 10. Ioh. 6. Ioh. 16. Heb. 7.9 10. Christ is spiritually present An issue No writer approued testifieth this authors faith The summe of the issue Outward teaching Your doctrine is not catholike by your owne description My issue I notable matter a man to be condemned by his owne former writinges Bertram confessed to be of this opinion This authors doctrine often reiected as false Actes v. My Catechisme Bertrame Berengarius Wickliffe Luther The Papistes haue bene the cause why the catholike doctrine hath bene hundered and hath not had good successe these late yeâ—es These wordes This is my body agre in sence with the rest of the scripture Vntrue report This author hath no wordes of scripture for the ground of his faith This is my body is no proper speach Gods omnipotencie Psal. 115. Rom. 9. An aunswer to the like speaches in apparance The fayth of this author is but to â—eleue a story The Lordes supper hath nâ— miracle in it by this authors vnderstanding No promise made to a token in the supper or in yâ— 6. of Iohn Iniury to baptisme Math. v â— Mark. vit Tokens be but tokens howsoeuer they be garnished with gay wordes without scripture For apparell pag. 30. numero 9. Untrue report Euery speciall sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a secret hiddeÌ„ truth Bread is not a vayn and bare token I warrant Ioh. 6. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10 A new teaching of onely figure How can â— fayth be called catholike that begunneth to be published nowe Marke 1. Tokens how to discern truth from falshood â— Reg. 3. A lesson of Salomons iudgement Truth nedeth no ayd of lies Truth loueth simplicity and playnnes The Church of Rome is not the true mother of the catholick fayth Absurda falsa The speaking of the true mother Rome to the mother of the papistical fayth The name of the Author great wherewith to put men to silence An impudent vntruth The sayth of the Sacrament in the Catechisme unproueth this Authors doctrine now Erasmus commendeth to the world the work of Algerus vpon the Sacrament The body of Christe hidden vnder the signes Erasmus would all to repent that follow Berengarius error Peter Martyr doth with lyes impugne the faith of the Sacrament An issue This Author would with the enuious words of papish oppresse the truth Foure manifest vntruthes The first vntruth that the faith of the reall presence to the faith of the papists Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Epinus Mine issue Cyrill and â—â—â—storius In baptisme we receaue Christs spirite to geue life in the Lords Supper we receaue his flesh bloud to continue life Chap. 1. The abuse of the Lordes supper Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. Iohn 6. The second vntrueth for verely meat translatyng very meat Origenes in Leuit. hom 7. Propterea er go caro cius verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus Et in Math. hom 12. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus verus est potus Hierom. in Eccle. cap. 3. Caro enim verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus August in Psal. 33. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus vere potus est Damas. lib. 4. ca. 14. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meus verus est potus Euthyimus in lo. cap. 9. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meas verus est potus The nature of a cuttil Plim lib. 9. ca. 29. Eccle. 37. Christ is verely and truely geueÌ„ in the Sacrament but yet spiritually Iohn 6 Cyrill Lanathematismo 11. Nestorius Iniury to baptisme Galat. 3 In the sixt chapiter of Iohn Christ spake not of corporall eating Iohn 6 Iohn 6. Iohn 8. Iohn 1. The 3. vntruth of the handling the wordes of S. Augustine Mine issue August in 10 an Tractat. 26. Eodem tract Aug. de Ciuit. lib. 21. cap. 25. worthely August de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 13. How Christes flesh is eaten Iohn 6. Cyprian in sermone de caena Domini August in Ioan. tra 26. Cap. 3. The eating of the Sacrament of his body Mat. 26. Marck 14. Luke 2â— 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 4. Christ called the materiall bread his body 1. Cor. 10. Marck vii 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 5. Euill men do eat the SacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 6. These thinges suffice for a christian mans faith concerning this Sacrament Cap. 7. The SacrameÌ„t which was ordayned to make loue and concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord Math. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. The 4. vntruth that by these words hoc est corpus meum Christ ment not to make the bread his body Neither Saint Paul nor the Euangelistes adde any words wherby to take away the signification of bread and wine The fourth vntruth the Christ intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body The variaunce between you Smith Against Smith Christ called bread his body Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. Ireneus Tertullianus Cyprianus Epiphanius Heironymus Augustinus Cyrillus Theodorus Gods miraculous workes in the Sacrament Imuty to baptisme Mine issue Gods omnipotency Mat. 16. Gen. 1. Eating signifieth beleeuing 3 vntruthes vttered by you in this one place The first Iohn 6. The secondâ— Iohn 6. The third That Christ fulfilled not his promise to geue vs life at his supper Iohn 6 Esay 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9. Gal. 6. Rom. 1. Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. Iohn 3. Gal. 3. Mat. 16. Marck 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. A warrant for apparrell Christes ambiguous speechess were not alwayes opened by the Euangelistes Luke 12. Luke 9. Iohn 12. 1 Math. 13. Psal. 77. This is my body is no proper speech Cap. 6. Cap. 9. The spirituall hunger thirstines of the soul. Eph. 2. Rom. 3 Psal. 41. Psal. 62. Rom. 4. Rom. 7. Rom. 8. Math. 5. Luke 1. Iohn 4. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. Cap. 10. Mat. 11. The spirituall foode of the soule Iohn 7. Iohn 6. Iohn 6. Gal. 2. Cap. 11. Christ farre excelleth all corporall foode Iohn 11. Cap. 12. The sacrameÌ„ts were ordayned to confirme our faith Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 13. Wherfore this sacrament was ordayned in bred and wine Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 14. The vnity of Christes misticall body 1. Cor. 10. Dionysios eccle Hie. cap. 31 Cap. 14. This sacrameÌ„t moueth all men to loue and freÌ„dship The doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—ion doth clean subuert our faith in Christ. Cap. 16. The spirituall eating in with the hart not with the teeth Iohn 6. Luke 21. 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. Luke 22. Mark 14. Iniury to both Sacramentâ—s D. Smith Cap. 17. 4 principall errors of the Papistes The first is of the presence of Christ. Innocent 3. De summa trin fide
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