and manifest vntruth and that I vntruely charge you with the enuious name of a papisticall faith But in your issue you terme the wordes at your pleasure and reporte mee otherwise then I doe say for I doe not say that the doctrine of the reall presence is the papistes faith onely but that it was the papists faith for it was their deuise And herein will I ioyne with you an issue that the papisticall church is the mother of transubstantiation and of all the foure principall errors which I impugne in my booke Winchester It shal be now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the Sacrament which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the maiesty therof requireth in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of S. Iohn he beginneth a litle to low and passeth ouer that pertaineth to the matter and therfore should haue begun a litle higher at this clause and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde The Iewes therfore striued between themselues saying How can this man geue his flesh to be eaten Iesus therfore sayd vnto theÌ„ Uerely verely I say vnto you except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man drink his bloud ye haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life I will rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meat and my bloud very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the lyuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father Euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here is also a faulte in the translation of the text which should be thus in one place For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke In which speach the verbe that coupeleth the words flesh and meate together knitteth them together in their proper signification so as the flesh of Christ is verely meate and not figuratiuely meate as the author would perswade And in these wordes of Christ may appeare plainly how Christ taught the mistery of the food of his humanity which he promised to geue for food euen the same flesh that he sayd he would geue for the life of the world and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholy brought forth that is to say and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I shall geue for the life of the world and so is it plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sence that S. Iohn speaketh in saying The word was made flesh signifying by flesh the whol humanity And so did Cyril agrée to Nestorius when he vpon these textes reasoned how this eating is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitye to which nature in Christes person is properly attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man dispenced and geuen in the Sacrament And betwéene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstanding the misterye that Nestorius estéeming of ech nature in Christ a seuerall person as it was obiected to him and so dissoluinge the ineffable Unitie did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man seperate Cyrill maintayned the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseperable vnited to the Godhead and for the ineffable mistery of that Union the same to be a flesh that geueth life And then as Christ sayth If we eate not the fleshe of the Sonne of man we haue not life in vs because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and bloud to nourish such as be by his holy Spirite regenerate And as in Baptisme we receaue the Spirite of Christe for the renuinge of our lyfe so doe wer in this Sacrament of Christes most precious body and bloud receaue Christes very flesh and drinke his very bloud to continue and preserue increase and augment the life receaued And therefore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme that he speaketh here of the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud and in both Sacramentes geueth dispenseth and exhibiteth in déede those celestiall giftes in sensible elementes as Chrisostome sayth And because the true faithfull beléeuing men doe only by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnity of person the sonne of God so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ in one person the flesh of the Sonne of man is the proper flesh of the sonne of God Saint Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ Uerely verely vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. to be a figuratiue speach because after the bare letter it séemeth vnprofitable considering that flesh profiteth nothing in it self estemed in the own nature alone but as the same flesh in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature so is it as Christ sayd after Cyrilles exposition spirite and life not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therunto It is viuificatrix as Cyrill sayde and as the holy Ephcâ—ine Councell decreed A flesh geuing life according to Christes wordes Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the later day And then to declare vnto vs how in géeuinge this life to vs Christe vseth the instrument of his very humayne body it followeth For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly spirite so doth he sanctifie vs by his godly flesh and therefore repeteth agayn to inculcate the celestiall thing of this mistery and saieth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth to me and I in him which is the naturall and corporall vnion betwéene vs and Christ. Whereupon followeth that as Christ is naturally in his Father and his Father in him so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ he is by nature in Christ and Christ is naturally in him and the worthy receauer hath life increase augmented and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ. And because of the ineffable vnion of the two natures Christ sayd This is the food that came downe from heauen because God whose proper flesh it is came downe from heauen and hath an other vertue then Manna had because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it which Manna being but a figure thereof did not but being in this foode Christes very flesh inseparably vnited to the Godhead the same is of such efficacye as he that worthely eateth of it shall liue for euer And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the
obstinately bent to peruert the true doctrine of this holy Sacrament you would neuer haue vttered this sentence That there was neuer man ouerturned his owne assertions more euidently then this Author doth For I am well assured that my doctrine is sound and therfore do trust that I shall able to stand by myne assertions before all men that are learned and be any thing indifferent and not bent obstinately to mayntayne errors as you be when you tumbling and tossing your selfe in your filthy fantasies of Transubstantiation and of the reall and carnall presence of Christes body shal be ashamed of your assertiōs But I meruayle not much of your stout bragging here bicause it is a common thing with you to dashe me in the teeth with your owne faultes And it is vntrue that you say that the sacrifice is parfited before the perfection For if the sacrifice be parfited before the perception it is parfited also before the consecration For betwene the consecration and perception was no sacrifice made by Christ as appeareth in the Euangelistes but the one followed immediately of the other And although Christ being in heauen be one of the partes wherof the sacrifice consisteth be present in the sacrifice yet he is not naturally there present but sacramentally in the sacrament and spiritually in the receauours And by this which I haue now answered I haue wrastled with you so in the matter of Christes presence that I haue not fallen vpon my back my selfe to pull you ouer me but I standing vp right my selfe haue geuen you such a fall that you shall neuer be able to recouer And now that I haue brought you to the ground although it be but a small peece of manhoode to strike a man when he is downe yet for the truthes sake vnto whome you haue euer bene so great an aduersary I shall beate you with your Transubstantiation as they say both backe and bone Now say you syr is whitenes or other colours the nature of bread and wine for the colours be onely visible by your doctrine or be they elements or be accidents the bodely matter Lye still ye shall be better beaten yet for your wilfulnes Be the accidents of bread substances as you sayd not long before And if they be substances what manner of substances be they corporall or spirituall If they be spirituall then be they soules deuils or angels And if they be corporall substances eyther they haue life or no life I trust you will say at the least that bread hath life bicause you sayd but euen now almost that the substance of bread is the soule of it Such absurdities they fall into that mayntayne errours But at length when the similitude of the two natures in Christ remayning both in their proper kindes must needes be answered vnto then commeth in agayne the cuttill with his colours to hide him selfe that he should not be seene bicause he perceaueth what danger he is in to be taken And when he commeth to the very nette he so stoutly striueth wrangleth and wresteth as he would breake the nette or els by some craft wind himselfe out of it but the net is so strong and he so surely masted therein that he shall neuer be able to gette out For the olde catholike Authors to declare that two natures remayne in Christ togither that is to say his humanity and his diuinity without corruption or wasting of any of the sayd two natures do geue two examples therof one is of the body and soule which both be in a man togither and the presence of the one putteth not away the other The other example is of the Lordes Supper or ministration of the Sacrament where is also togither the substaunce and nature of bread and wine with the body and bloud of Christ and the presence of the one putteth not away the other no more then the presence of Christes humanitie putteth away hys diuinitie And as the presence of the soule driueth not away the body nor the presence of the fleshe and bloud of Christ driueth not away the bread and wine so doth not the presence of Christes humanity expell his diuinitie but his diuinitie remayneth still with his humanitie as the soule doth with the body and the body of Christ with the bread And then if there remayne not the nature and substaunce of bread it must follow also that there remaineth not the diuine nature of Christ with his humanity or els the similitude is clearely dissolued But yet say you we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality but onely haue respect to the end wherfore the resemblance is made And do you not see how this your saying taketh away your owne argument of the reall presence in the sacrament and neuerthelesse setteth you no whitte more at liberty concerning Transubstantiation but masteth you faster in the nette and maketh it more stronger to holde you For the olde Authors make this resemblance onely to declare the remayning of two natures not the manner and forme of remayning which is farre diuers in the person of Christ from the vnion in the Sacrament For the two natures of Christ be ioyned togither in vnity of person which vnity is not betwene the Sacrament and the body of Christ. But in that poynt wherein the resemblance is made there must needes be an equality by your owne saying And for as much as the resemblance was made onely for the remayning of two natures therfore as the perfite natures of Christes manhod godhead do both remayne and the perfite nature of the soule and the body both also remayne so must the perfite nature of Christes body and bloud and of bread and wine also remayne But for as much as the similitude was not made for the manner of remayning nor for the place therfore the resemblance requireth not that the body and bloud of Christ should be vnited to the bread and wine in person or in place but onely that the natures should remayne euery one in his kind And so be you cleane ouerthrowen with your transubstantiation except you will ioyne your selfe with those Heretikes which denied Christes humanity diuinity to remayne both togithers And it seemeth that your doctrine varieth very little from Ualentine and Martion if it vary any thing at all when you say that Christes flesh was a spirituall flesh For when S. Paule speaking of Christes body sayd we bee members of his body of his fleshe and of his bones he ment not of a spirituall body as Ireneus sayth for a spirite hath no flesh nor bones but of a very mans body that is made of flesh sinewes and bones And so with striuing to gette out of the nette you roll your selfe faster in it And as for the wordes of S. Augustine make nothing for the reall presence as I haue before declared So that therin I neyther haue foyle nor trippe but for all your bragges hookes and crookes you haue such
is called the passion the death the crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mistery so is the Sacramēt of fayth which is Baptisme fayth These wordes be so playne and manifest that the expositour being a very Papist yet could not auoyd the matter but wrote thus vpon the sayd wordes Immolatio quae fit a praesbitero improprie appellatur Christi passio velmors vel crucifixio non quod sit illa sed quia illam significat And after he sayth Coeleste Sacramētū quod vere repraesētat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significanti misterio vt sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus id est significat The offering which the priest maketh is called improperly the passion death or crucifying of Christ not that it is that but that it signifieth it And the heauenly Sacrament which truly represēteth Christes flesh is called Christes body but improperly And therfore is sayd after a manner but not in the truth of the thing but in the signifying mistery So that the sence is this it is called the body of Christ that is to say signifieth Now the wordes of S. Augustine being so playne that none can be more and following the other wordes within tenne lines so that you can alleadge no ignorance but you must needes see them it can be none other but a wilfull blindnes that you will not see and also a wilfull concealing and hiding of the truth from other men that they should not see neyther And this one place is sufficient at full to answere what so euer you can bring of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of bread and wine For after consecration the body bloud of Christ be in them but as in figures although in the godly receauors he is really present by his omnipotent power which is as great a miracle in our dayly nurrishing as is wrought before in our regeneration And therfore is Christ no lesse to be honored of them that feede of him in his holy supper then of them that be grafted in him by regeneration And where as I sayd vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures in that place I collected more of S. Augustines wordes in your fauour then indeed S. Augustine sayth bicause you should not say that I nipt him For S. Augustine sayth not that the sacrament consisteth of two natures and therfore both these natures must needes remayne in the Sacrament but he sayth that the Sacrifice consisteth of two thinges which he calleth also natures and therof it followeth that those two thinges must be in the sacrifice which is to be vnderstande in the ministration not in the bread and wine reserued And very true it is as S Augustine sayth that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two thinges of the Sacrament and of the thing therby signified which is Christes body as the person of Christ consisteth of god and man But yet this resemblance is not altogither like as you say truely for so much for the person of Christ consisteth so of his godhead and manhod that they be both in him in reall presence and vnity of person But in the sacrifice it is otherwise where neither is any such vnion betwene the sacrament and the truth of the Sacrament nor any such presence of the body of Christ. For in the bread and wine Christ is but figuratiuely as I sayd before and in the godly receauours spiritually in whome also he tarieth remayneth so long as they remayne the mēbers of his body But if Christes similitudes should be so narrowly pressed as you presse here the similitude of the two natures of Christ in the sacrament collecting that bicause the body and bloud of Christ be truely present in the due administration of the Sacrament therfore they must be there naturally present as the two natures of the humanity and diuinity be in Christ many wicked errours should be established by them As if the similitude of the wicked steward were strayned as you strayne and force this similitude men might gather that it is lawfull for Christen men to begile theire lordes and masters whiles they be in office to helpe them selues when they be out of office bicause the Lord praysed the wicked steward Yet you know the similitude was not taught of our Sauiour Christ for that purpose for God is no fauourer of falsehod and vntruth So you do wrong both to the holy Doctoures and to me to gather of oure similitude any other doctrine than we meane by the sayd similitude Nor any reasonable man can say that I am forced by confessing two natures in Christes person really naturally and substantially to confesse also the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament except he could proue that the holy Doctoures and I following their doctrine do teach and affirme that the natures of bread and wine are ioyned in the Sacrament with the naturall body and bloud of Christ in vnity of person as the natures of God and man be ioyned in our Sauiour Christ which we do not teach bicause we finde no such doctrine taught by Christ by his Apostles nor Euangilistes Therfore take your owne collection to your selfe and make your selfe aunswere to such absurdities and inconuenience as you do inferre by abusing and forcing of the Doctours similitude to an other ende than they did vse it And it is not necessary for our eternall saluation nor yet profitable for our comfort in this life to beleeue that the naturall body and bloud of Christ is really substancially and naturally present in the Sacrament For if it were necessary or comfortable for vs it is without doubt that our sauiour Christ his Apostles and Euangelistes would not haue omitted to teach this doctrine distinctly and playnly Yea our Sauiour would not haue sayd Spiritus est qui viuificat caro non prodest quitquam The spirite giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing But this doctrine which the holy doctors do teach is agreable to holy scripture necessary for all christen persons to beleue for their euerlasting saluation and profitable for their spirituall comfort in this present life that is to say that the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud in the natures and substances of bread and wine is distributed vnto all men both good and euill which receaue it and yet that onely faythfull persons do receaue spiritually by fayth the very body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. So that Christes naturall body is not in the Sacrament really substancially and corporally but onely by representation and signification and in his liuely members by spirituall and effectuall operation But it appeareth that you be foule deceaued in iudgement of the doctrine set out in my booke And if you were not eyther vtterly ignorant in holy scriptures and doctors or not
the two natures in the Sacramēt chiefly agaynst the Eutichians to proue that nature of man to cōtinue in Christ after the adunatiō being no absurdity for two differēt natures to cōstitute one person the same two natures remayning in theyr property and that natures to be aliud aliud which signifieth differēt and yet in that not to be alius alius in person which alius and alius in person the Eutichians abhorred and catholiquely for so much agaynst the Nestorians who by reason of two natures would haue two persons and bicause those Nestorians fansied the person of Christ patible to suffer all apart therfore they denied Christ conceyued God or borne God for the abolition of which part of their heresy and to set forth the vnity of Christes person the blessed virgine was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara gods mother which the Nestorians deluded by an exposition graunting she might so be called bicause her sonne they sayd was afterward God and so she might be called gods mother as an other woman may be called a bishops mother if her sonne be made a bishop afterward although he departed no bishop from her And hereof I write thus much bicause it should appeare that Gelasius by his arguments of the Sacrament and of the two natures in man went not about to proue that the godhead remayned in Christ after his incarnation as the author of this booke would haue it for the Nestorian sayd the godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merite and therfore with them there was no talke of remayning when they estemed Christes nature in his conception singuler and onely by gods power conceyued but onely man And agayne the Eutichian so affirmed the continuance of the diuine nature in Christ after the adunation as Gelasius had no cause to proue that was graunted that is to say the remayne of the diuine nature but on the other side to proue the remayne of the humayne nature in Christ which by the Eutichians was by implication rather denyed Nestorius deuided God and man and graunted alwayes both to be in Christ continually but as two persons and the person of Christ being God dwelling within the person of Christ being man and as Christ man encreased so Christ God dignified him and so diuided one Christ into two persons bicause of the two natures so different which was agaynst the rules of our fayth and destroyed therby the mistery of our redemption And the Eutichians affirming catholiquely to be but one person in Christ did perniciously say there was but one nature in Christ accompting by implication the humayne nature transfused into the diuine nature and so confounded And to shew the narrow passage Uigilius spake of Cirillus a catholike author bicause writing of the vnity of Christes person he expressed his meaning by the word nature signifiing the whole of any one constitution which more properly the word person doth expresse The Eutichians would by that word after gather that he fauored their part so taking the word at a vantage And bicause the same Cyrillus vsed the word subsistence to signifie substance and therfore sayd in Christ there were two subsistences meaning the diuine substance and humayne substāce forasmuch as the word subsistence is vsed to expresse the person that as to say hipostasie There were that of that word frowardly vnderstanded would gather hee should say that there were two persons in Christ which was the Nestorians heresie that he impugned Such captiousnes was there in wordes when arrogant men cared not by what meane to mayntayne their errour These were both pernitious heresies and yet subtill and each had a meruailous pretence of the defence of the glory of God euen as is now pretended agaynst the Sacrament And either part abused many scriptures and had notable apparances for that they sayd so as he that were not well exercised in scriptures and the rules of our fayth might be easely circumuented Nestorius was the greate Archebishop of Constantinople vnto whome Cirill that condemneth his heresy writeth that seing he sclandereth the whole Church with his heresie he must resist him although he be a father bicause Christ sayth he that loueth his father aboue me is not worthy me But Nestorius as appeareth although he vsed it ilfauordly had much learning and cloked his heresy craftely denying the grosse matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christes and other specialities layd to his charge and yet condemning the doctrine of Cyrill and professing his owne fayth in his owne termes could not hide his heresie so but it appeareth to bee and contayne in effect that he was charged with and therfore an admonishing was geuen by a catholike writer Beleue not Nestorius though he say he teach but one Christ. If one should heare aske what is this to the purpose to talke so much of these sectes I Answere this knowledge shall generally serue to note the manner of them that goe about to deceaue the world with false doctrine which is good to learne An other speciall seruice is to declare how the author of this booke eyther doth not know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of or els misreporteth them of purpose And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened shall geue light of the truth of the mistery of the Sacrament who agaynst the Eutichians vseth two arguments of examples one of the two different natures to remayne in one person of man and yet the Eutichians defamed that coniunction with remayne of two different natures and called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double nature and Gelasius to enconter that terme sayth they will with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature reserue not one Christ and whole Christ. And if two different natures that is to say soule and body make but one man why not so in Christ For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man that is to shew Gelasius sayth two diuers qualities in the same man not to deuide the same into two men and so intendeth to shew there ought to be no scruple to graunt two different natures to remayne in their propriety for feare that euery diuers nature should make a diuers person and so in Christ diuide the vnity concluding that the integritie of Christ can not be but both the natures different remayning in their property Carnall imagination troubled the Eutichians to haue one person of two such differente natures remayning in their property which the Nestorians releued with deuise of two persons and the Eutichians by confusion of the humayne nature Then commeth Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ and noteth the person of Christ to be a principall mistery and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mistery which sence his wordes must needes haue bicause he calleth Christ the principall mistery and as in one place he sayth the image and
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
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
body from his spirite affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite and in the communion but his flesh And that Christes spirit renueth our life but increaseth it not and that his flesh increceth our life but geueth it not And agaynst all nature reasō and truth you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christes body and bloud in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all And against scripture and all comformity of nature you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacrament that you leaue no distinction proportion nor fashion of mannes body at all And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother of the true doctrine of Christ that thus vnnaturally speaketh deuydeth and confoundeth Christes body If Salomon were aliue he would surely geue iudgement that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh so vnnaturally and so vnlike his mother and be geuen to the true church of the faithful that neuer digressed from the truth of Gods word nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body but speake according to the same that Christes body although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body occupying one place and being of a certayne height and measure hauing all members distinct and set in good order and proportion And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye is not only the beginning but also the contynuance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life By him we be regenerated by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature as Christ doth in his without mixtion or confusion This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother and like a true and right beleeuing christian man Marye of that doctrine which you teach I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof which in scripture is called Babilō because of commixtion or confusion Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth superstition with religiō godlines with hipocrisie scripture with traditions that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant to confound all the doctrine of Christ yea Christ him selfe shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother and the true naturall mother of Antichrist And for the conclusion of your matter here I doubt not but the indifferent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts sleightes shiftes obliquities manifest vntruthes it may be easely iudged that what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet nothing is lesse intended then that truth should ether haue victory or appeare and be seene at all Winchester And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes which this author is not afraid to vtter a matter wonderfull considering his dignity if he that is named be the author in déede which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth First I will note vnto the reader how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament to be the faith of the papistes which saying what foundacion it hath thou mayest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish defended stoutly the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in England in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gospels professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany where Hosiander is chiefe preacher in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the word truly is there and as Buter saith that is substancially Which Catechisme was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from the beginning alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene Ciprian Chrisostome Hillary Cirill Ambrose and Theophilacte which authors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to idle wittes with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estéemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is published abroad in printe wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse and that in it is dispensed the true body true bloud of Christ which is plainly the same in essence that is to say substāce and the same bloud in essence signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye taken for no papist among vs to much estéemed as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Ciprian Hilary Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basill Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iudgement he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words this is my body rehearsed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what
incarnation also Of which eating and not of Sacramentall eating he spake in the sixt of Iohn My flesh is very meat and my bloud is very drincke He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him And Cyrill I graunt agreed to Nestorius in the substance of the thing that was eaten which is Christes very flesh but in the manner of eating they varyed For Nestorius imagined a carnall eating as the papistes do with mouth and tearing with teeth But Cyrill in the same place sayeth that Christ is eaten onely by a pure faith and not that he is eaten corporally with our mouthes as other meates be Nor that he is eaten in the Sacrament onely And it seemeth you vnderstand not the matter of Nestorius who did not esteeme Christ to be made of two seuerall natures and seuerall persons as you report of him but his errour was that Christ had in hym naturallye but one nature and one person affirming that he was a pure man and not God by nature but that the Godhed by grace inhabited as hee doth in other men And where you say that in baptisme we receiue the Spirit of Christ and in the Sacrament of his body and bloud wee receeue his very fleshe and bloud This your saying is no small derogation to baptisme wherein wee receaue not only the Spirit of Christ but also Christ him selfe whole body and soule manhoode and Godhead vnto euerlasting life as well as in the holy communion For S. Paule sayth Quicunque in Christo baptizati estis Christū induistis as many as be baptized in Christ put Christ vpon them Neuerthelesse this is done in diuers respectes for in baptisme it is done in respect of regeneration and in the holy communion in respecte of nourishment and augmentation But your vnderstanding of the sixt chapiter of Iohn is such as neuer was vttered of any man before your time and as declareth you to be vtterly ignoraunte of Gods misteries For who euer sayd or taught before this time that the Sacrament was the cause why Christ sayd If we eate not the flesh of the sonne of man we haue not life in vs. The spirituall eating of his flesh and drincking of his bloud by faith by digesting his death in our mindes as our onely price raunsome and redemption from eternall damnation is the cause wherefore Christ sayd That if we eate not his flesh and drincke not his bloud we haue not life in vs and if we eate his fleshe and drincke his bloud we haue euerlasting life And if Christ had neuer ordayned the Sacrament yet should we haue eaten his flesh and droncken his bloud and haue had thereby euerlasting life as al the faithfull did before the the Sacrament was ordeyned and doe dayly when they receaue not the Sacrament And so did the holy men that wandered in the wildernesse and in all their life tune very seldome receaued the Sacrament and many holy Martyres either exyled or kept in prison did dayly feede of the foode of Christes body and drancke dayly the bloud that sprange out of his side or els they could not haue had euerlasting life as Christ him selfe sayd in the gospell of S. Iohn and yet they were not suffered with other Christen people to haue the vse of the Sacrament And therefore your argument in this place is but a fallax a non causa vt causa which is another tricke of the deuils sophistry And that in the sixt of Iohn Christ spake neither of corporall nor sacramentall eating of his flesh the time manifestly sheweth For Christ spake of the same present time that was then saying The bread which I will geue is my flesh And He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and Im him and hath euerlasting life At which time the sacramentall bread was not yet Christs flesh For the Sacrament was not then yet ordayned and yet at that time all that beléeued in Christ did eate his flesh and drinke hys bloude or els they could not haue dwelled in Christe nor Christ in them Moreouer you say your selfe that in the sixt of S. Iohns gospell when Christ sayd the bread is my flesh By the word flesh he ment his wholl humanity as is ment in this sentence The word was made flesh which he ment not in the word body when he said of bread this is my body Where by he ment not his wholl humanitye but his flesh onely neither his bloud nor his soule And in the vi of Iohn Christ made not bread his flesh when he said the bread is my flesh but he expounded in those wordes what bread it was that he ment of when he promised them bread that should geue them eternall life He declared in those wordes that himselfe was the bread that should geue life because they should not haue their fantasies of any bread made of corne And so the eating of that heauenly bread could not be vnderstanded of the Sacrament nor of corporall eating with the mouth but of spirituall eating by faith as all the olde authors do most cleerely expound and declare And seeing that there is no corporall eating but chawing with the teeth or swallowing as all men doe know if we eate Christ corporally thē you must confesse that we either swallow vp Christes flesh or chaw teare it with our teeth as pope Nicholas constrained Berengarius to confesse which S. Augustine saith is a wicked hainous thing But in few words to answere to this second euident manifest vntruth as you obiect against me I would wish you as truely to vnderstand these words of the sixt chap. of Iohn as I haue truely translated them Winchester Now where the author to exclude the mistery of corporall manducatiō bringeth forth of S. Augustine such wordes as intreat of the effect and operation of the worthy receauing of the Sacrament The handling is not so sincéere as this matter requireth For as hereafter shal be intreated that is not worthely and well done may because the principall intent fayleth be called not done and so S. Augustine saith Let him not thinke to eate the body of Christ that dwelleth not in Christ not because the body of Christ is not receaued which by S. Augustines minde euill men doe to their condemnation but because the effecte of life fayleth And so the Author by steight to exclude the corporall māducation of Christes most precious body vttereth such wordes as might sound Christ to haue taught the dwelling in Christ to be an eating which dwelling may be without this corporall manducation in him that cannot attayn the vse of it and dwelling in Christ is an effect of the worthy manducation and not the manducation it selfe which Christ doth order to be practised in the most precious Sacrament institute in his supper Here thou Reader mayst sée how this doctrine of Christ as I haue declared it openeth the
comparison They say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantitie We say that Christ is there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitye Winchester In this comparison is both sleight and crafte in the first parte of it which is that they say there is mention of the body of Christ which is proper of the humanity of Christ. In the second parte which is of we say there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body Now the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud and because the diuine nature in Christ continueth the vnity with the body of Christ we must néedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is wholl Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie and therefore such as confesse the true Catholick faith they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body which although it hath all those truthes of forme and quantity yet they say Christes body is not present after the manner of quantitie nor in a visible forme as it was conuersant in this present life but that there is truely in the Sacramēt the very true body of Christ which good men beléeue vpon the credit of Christ that sayd so and knowledge therwith the maner of that presente to be an high mistery and the maner so spirituall as the carnall man cannot by discourse of reason reach it but in his discourse shalt as this author doth think it a vanitie and foolishnes which foolishnes neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisedome of the world And thus haue I opened what they say on the Catholick part Now for the other parte whereof this author is and with his faith we say the words séeme to imploy that Christes humain body is not in the Sacrament in that it is sayd Christ to be there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitie which saying hath no Scripture for it For the Scripture speaketh of Christes body which was betraied for vs to be geuen vs to be eaten Where also Christes diuinity is present as accompanyng his humanity which humanitie is specially spoken of the presence of which humanitie when it is denyed then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinity specially that is to say other wise then it is by his omnipotency presēt euery where And to conclude this peece of comparyson this maner of speach was neuer I thinke red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity And S. Paule speaketh of a forme in the Godhead Qui quam in forma Dei esset Who when he was in the forme of God So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all forme then is he there neither as God nor man which is a straunger teaching then yet hath bene heare or red of but into such absurdities in déed do they fall who intreat irreuerently and vntruly this high mistery This is here worthy a spesyall note how by the maner of the spéech in the latter part of this difference the teaching semeth to be that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament because of the word there which thou reader mayest compare how it agréeth with the rest of this authors doctrine Let vs go to the next Caunterbury SUch is the nature of many that they can finde many knots in a playne rush and doubtes where no doubtes ought to bee found So fynd you sleight and craft where I ment all thinges symply and playnly And to auoyd such sleight and craft as you gather of my words I shall expresse thē plainly thus The Papistes say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantity We say that the body of Christ hath not his proper forme and quantity neither in the sacrament nor in them that receaue the Sacrament but is in the sacrament sacramentally and in the worthy receauers spiritually without the proper forme quantity of his body This was my meaning at the first and no mā that had loked of this place indifferently would haue taken the second part of this comparison to be vnderstanded of Christs diuine nature for the bread and wyne be sacraments of his body and bloud and not of his diuinitie as Theodoretus sayth and therfore his diuine nature is not sacramentally in the sacramēt but his humayne nature onely And what maner of spech had this ben to say of Christes diuine nature that it is in the sacrament without quantity which hath in it no manner of quantitie where so euer it be And where I set foorth these comparysons to shew wherein we vary from the Papists what variance had ben in this comparison if I had vnderstanded the first part of Christs humanitie and the second of his diuinitie The reader by this one place among many other may easyly discerne how captious you be to reprehend what so euer I say and to peruert euery thing into a wrong sense So that in respect of you Smith is a very indifferent taker of my wordes although in deed he farre passeth the bondes of honesty But to come directly to the matter if it be true that you say that in the sacrament Christes body hath all the formes and quantities of a naturall body why say you then that his body is not there present after the manner of quantitie Declare what difference is betweene forme and quantitie the manner of quantitie And if Christes body in the Sacrament haue the same quantitie that is to say the same length breadth and thicknes and the same forme that is to say the same due order and proportion of the mēbers and partes of his body that he had when he was crucified and hath now in heauen as he hath by your saying here in this place then I pray you declare further how the length bredth and thicknes of a man should be conteined in quantitie within the compasse of a peece of bread no lōger nor broader then one or two inches nor much thicker then one leafe of paper How an inch may be as long as an elle and an elle as short as an inch How length and roundnes shall agree in one proportion and a thicke and thin thing be both of one thicknes which you must warrant to be brought to passe if the forme and quantitie of Christes body be conteined vnder the forme and quantity of such bread and wine as we now vse But as Smyth in the last comparison did me good seruice against you so shall you in this comparison do me good seruice against him For among the fiue lyes wherewith he chargeth me in these comparisons he accompteth this for one that I report of the Papists that Christes body in the sacrament hath his proper forme and quantity which you say
These be the wordes of Saynct Cyrill Sainct Ambrose also sayth that we must not seeke Christ vpon earth nor in earth but in heauen where he sitteth at the right hand of hys father And likewise saynct Gregory writeth thus Christ sayth he is not here by the presence of hys flesh and yet he is absent no where by the presence of hys Maiesty What subtilty thinkest thou good reader can the Papistes now imagin to defend their pernitious errour that Christ his humayn nature is bodyly here in earth in the consecrated bread and wine seeing that all the olde Churche of Christ beleued the contrary and all the old authors wrote the contrary For they all affirmed and beleued that Christ being but one person hath neuerthelesse in him two natures or substances that is to sav the nature of his Godhead and the nature of his manhood They saye furthermore that Christ is both gone hence from vs vnto heauen and is also here with vs in earth but not in his humaine nature as the Papistes would haue vs to beleue but the olde authors say that he is in heauen as concerning his manhode and neuertheles both here and there and euery where as concerning his Godhead For although his diuinitie be such that it is infinite without measure compasse or place so that as concerning that nature he is circumscribed with no place but is euery where and filleth all the worlde yet as concerning his humaine nature he hath measure compasse and place so that when he was here vpon earth he was not at the same tyme in heauen and now that he is ascended into heauen as concerning that nature he hath now forsaken the earth and is onely in heauen For one nature that is circūscribed cōpassed measured can not be in diuers places at one time That is the fayth of the old Catholick church as appeareth as well by the authors before rehearsed as by these that hereafter followeth Sainct Augustine speaking that a body must needes be in some place saith that yf it be not within the compasse of a place it is no where And yf it be no where than it is not And Sainct Cirill considering the proper nature of a very body sayd that yf the nature of the Godhead were a body it must needes be in a place and haue quantitie greatnesse and circumscription If than the nature of the Godhead must needes be circumscribed if it were a body much more must the nature of Christes manhood be circumscribed and contayned within the compasse of a certaine place Didimus also in his booke De spiritu sancto which Sainct Hierom did translate proueth that the holy Ghost is very God because he is in many places at one tyme which no creature can be For sayth he all creatures visible and inuisible be circumscribed and inuironed either within one place as corporall and visible thinges be or within the proprietie of their owne substance as aungels and inuisible creatures be so that no Angell sayth he can be at one tyme in two places And forasmuch as the holy ghost is in many men at one tyme therefore sayth he the holy ghost must needes be God The same affirmeth Sainct Basil That the Angell which was with Cornelius was not at the same tyme with Phillip nor the Angell which spake to Zachary in the altare was not the same tyme in his proper place in heauē But the holy Ghost was at one tyme in Abacuck and in Daniell in Babilon and with Ieremy in prison and with Ezechiell in Chober whereby he proueth that the holy ghost is God Wherefore the Papistes which say that the body of Christ is in an infinite number of places at one tyme doo make his body to be God and so confound the two natures of Christ attributing to his humain nature that thing which belōgeth onely to his diuinitie which is a most heinous detestable heresie Agaynst whome wryteth Fulgētius in this wise speaking of the distinction and diuersitie of the two natures in Christ. One and the selfe same Christ sayth he of mankinde was made a man compassed in a place who of his father is God without measure or place One and the selfe same person as concerning his mans substaunce was not in heauen whan he was in earth and for sooke the earth when he ascended into heauen but as concerning his godly substaunce which is aboue all measure he neyther left heauen when he came from heauen nor he left not the earth when he ascended into heauen which may be knowen by the most certain word of Christ himself who to shew the placing of his humanitie said to his disciples I ascend vp to my father and your father to my God and your God Also when he had sayd of Lazarus that he was dead he added saying I am glad for your sakes that you may beleeue for I was not there But to shew the vnmeasurable compasse of his diuinitie he sayd to his disciples behold I am with you alwayes vnto the worldes end Now how did he goe vp into heauen but because he is a very man conteined within a place Or how is he present with faithful people but because he is very God being without measure Of these words of Fulgentius it is declared most certainly that Christ is not here with vs in earth but by his Godhead and that his humanitie is in heauen onely and absent from vs. Yet the same is more plainly shewed if more plainly can be spoken by Vigilius a bishoppe and an holy martyr He writeth thus against the heretick Eutyches which denyed the humanitie of Christ holding opinion that he was only God and not man Whose error Vigilius confuting proueth that Christ had in him two natures ioyned together in one person the nature of his Godhead and the nature of his manhoode Thus he wryteth Christ sayd to his disciples if you loued me you would be glad for I go vnto my father And again he sayd It is expedient for you that I go for if I goe not the comforter shall not come vnto you And yet surely the eternall word of God the vertue of God the wisdome of God was euer with his Father and in his Father yea euen at the same time when he was with vs aud in vs. For whē he did mercifully dwell in this world he left not his habitation in heauen for he is euery where wholl with his Father equall in diuinitie whom no place can containe for the Sonne filleth all thinges and there is no place that lacketh the presence of his diuinitie From whence then and whether did he say he would goe Or how did he say that he went to his Father from whom doubtles he neuer departed But that to goe to his Father and from vs was to take from this world that nature which he receaued of vs. Thou seest therfore that it was the propertie of that nature to
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 a goodly sauiour that can bring to euerlasting life both bread and drinke which neuer had life But as this nature of eternity is not geuen to the sacrament so is it not geuen to them that vnworthely receiue the sacrament which eat and drink their owne damnation Nor it is not geuen to the liuely members of Christ onely when they receaue the sacrament but so long as they spiritually feede vpon Christ eating his flesh and drinking his bloud either in this life or in the life to come For so long haue they Christ naturally dwelling in them they in him And as the Father naturally dwelleth in Christ so by Christ doth he naturally dwell in vs. And this is Hylaries mind to tell how Christ and his father dwel naturally in his faythfull members and what vnity we haue with them that is to say an vnity of nature and not of wil onely and not to tel how christ dwelleth in the sacrament or in them that vnworthely receaue it that he dwelleth in them at that time onely when they receiue the sacrament And yet he sayth that this vnity of faythfull people vnto God is by fayth taught by the sacrament of Baptisme of the Lords table but wrought by Christ by the sacrament and mistery of his incarnation and redemption whereby he humbled himself vnto the lowlines of our feeble nature that he might exalt vs to the dignity of his godly nature and ioyne vs vnto his father in the nature of his eternity Thus is playnly declared Hylaries mind who ment nothing lesse thē as you say to entreat how many diuers wayes we be one in Christ but onely to entreat and proue that we be naturally in Christ and Christ in vs. And this one thing he proueth by our fayth and by the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Lords supper and still he sayth aswell that we be naturally and corporally in him as that he is naturally in vs. And where you speak of the vnity in baptisme and say that Hylarius handleth that matter aboue some capacities howsoeuer Hilary handleth the matter you handle it in such sort as I thinke passeth all mens capacities vnles your selfe make a large commentary therto For what these your wordes meane 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 sayeth in nature one and what that one thing is which they do that be baptised I think no man can tell except you read the riddle your self And now to your issue If you can shew of the words of Hylary in this place that Christ is naturally in the Sacraments of bread and wine or in wicked persons or in godly persōs onely when they receiue the sacramēt then will I confesse the issue to passe vpon your syde that you haue declared this Author truely that he maketh most clearely for you against me And if you can not shew this by Hylaries words then must you hold vp your hand and say Giltie And yet furthermore when Hylary sayth that we be naturally in Christ he meaneth not that our bodyes be contayned within the compasse of his body but that we receaue his naturall eternitie And so likewise when he sayth that Christ dwelleth naturally and carnally in vs he meaneth not that his body is contained corporally within the compase of our mouthes or bodyes which you must proue by his playne wordes if you will iustifie your yssue that he speaketh most clearly for you but he meaneth that Christ communicateth and geueth vnto vs the nature of his eternitie or euerlasting lyfe And he dwelleth in vs by his incarnation as S. Iohn sayth Verbum caro factum est habit auit in nobis the word was made flesh and dwelled in vs. And as he may be sayde to dwell in vs by receauing of our mortall nature so may we be sayd to dwell in him by receauing the nature of his immortalitie And neuer man found faulte as you truely say at this notable place of Hillary nor agayne neuer learned man hitherto expounded him as you do And when I sayd that Christ is in vs naturally by his godhead I forgatte not what I sayd as you say of me for I playnly expounded what I ment by naturally that is to say not by naturall substaunce to make vs godes but by naturall condition geuing vnto vs immortality and euerlasting life which he had of his father and so making vs pertakers of his godly nature and vniting vs to his father And if we atayne to the vnitie of his father why not vnto the vnitie of the godhead not by naturall substaunce but by naturall proprietie As Cirill sayth that we be made the children of God and heauenly men by participatiō of the deuine nature as S. Peter also teacheth And so be we one in the father in the sonne and in the holy ghost And where you say that we receaue Christ in the sacrament of his flesh and bloud if we receaue him worthily here you haue giuen good euidence agaynst your selfe that we receaue him not and that he dwelleth not in vs naturally except we receaue him worthely And therfore where you say that there is none that writeth agaynst the truth in the sacrament but he hath in his writinges somewhat discrepant from truth that might be a certayn marke to iudge his spirite this is so true that your selfe differ not onely from the truth in a nomber of places but also from your owne sayinges And where you bidde me trust him no more that told me that Hilary maketh no difference betwene our vnion in Christ in baptisme and in his holy supper it was very Hilary himselfe of whom I lerned it who sayth that in both the sacramentes the vnion is naturall and not in will onely And if you will say the contrary I must tell you the french aunswer that you would tell me And herein I will not refuse your issue Now come we to Ciril of whome I write as followeth And this answer to Hilarius will serue also vnto Ciril whom they alleadge to speake after the same sort that Hilarius doth that Christ is naturally in vs. The wordes which the recite be these We deny not sayth Cyril agaynst the heretike but we be spiritually ioyned to Christ by fayth and sincere charitie but that we should haue no maner of coniunction in our flesh with Christ that we vtterly deny and think it vtterly discrepant from Godes holy scriptures For who doubteth but Christ is so the vine tree and we so the branches as we get thence our life Heare what S. Paule sayth We be all one body with Christ for though we be many we be in one in him All we participate in one foode Thinketh this heretike that we know not the strength and vertue of the misticall benediction which when it is made in
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
it is not taken for the substance as you would fayne haue it but for the property For the substance of bread still remayning in them that duely receaue the same the property of carnall nourishment is changed into a spirituall nourishment as more largely in myne answer to you in that place shall be declared And where you would somewhat releue your selfe by certayne words of Chrisostome which immediatly follow the sentence by me alleadged which wordes be these that the bread after consecration is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne of God vpon which wordes you would gather your Transubstantiation how effectuall your argument is in this matter may appeare by an other like Steuen Gardiner after he was consecrated was called the byshop of Winchester and not two byshoppes but one bishop ergo Steuen Gardiner was transubstantiate And a counter layd by an Auditour for a thousand poundes is not then called a counter but a thousand poundes ergo it is transubstantiated And the man and wife after mariage be called but one body ergo there is Transubstantiation This must be the fourme of your argument if you will proue Transubstantiation by these wordes of Chrisostome Now come we to S. Ambrose At the same tyme was S. Ambrose who declareth the alteration of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ not to be such that the nature and substance of bread and wine be gone but that thorough grace there is a spirituall mutation by the mighty power of God so that he that worthely eateth of that bread doth spiritually eate Christ and dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him For sayth S. Ambrose speaking of this change of bread into the body of Christ if the word of God be of that force that it can make thinges of nought and those thinges to be which neuer were before much more it can make thinges that were before still to be also to be changed into other thinges And he bringeth for example here of the change of vs in baptisme wherin a man is so changed as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebius that he is made a new creature and yet his substance remayneth the same that was before Winchester Saynt Ambrose doth not as this Author would haue it impugne Transubstantiation but confirmeth it most playnly bicause he teacheth the true presence of Christes body in the sacrament which he sayth is by change and thinges still remayning and that may be verefied in the outward visible matter that is to say the accidents remayning with their proper effects which therfore may worthely be called thinges And here I would aske this Author if his teaching as he pretendeth were the catholike fayth and the bread onely signified Christes body what should nede this force of Gods word that S. Ambrose speaketh of to bring in the creation of the world wherby to induce mans fayth in this mistery to the belefe of it As for the example of Baptisme to show the change in mans soule wherof I haue spoken declaring Emissene serueth for an induction not to leane to our outward sences ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther bycause we see none outward experience of it but els it is not necessary that the resemblance shall answere in equality otherwise then as I sayd afore each part answering his conuenient proportion and as for their comparison of resemblance Baptisme with the sacrament this author in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thinke deny but man by regeneration of his soule in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth that it is not partaker of holines by this consecration but howsoeuer this author in his owne doctrine snarleth him selfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the consecration the body of Christ which is an vndoubted affirmation then to be no bread howsoeuer the accidents of bread do remayne Caunterbury SAynt Ambrose teacheth not the reall and corporall presence of Christs body in the sacrament as I haue proued sufficiently in my former booke the 64. 81. and 82. leaues and in myne answere vnto you in this booke But agaynst Transubstantiation he teacheth playnly that after consecration not onely thinges remayne but also that the thinges changed still remayne And what is this but a flatte condemnation of your imagined Transubstantiation For if the thinges changed in the sacrament do still remayne and the substances of bread and wine be changed then it followeth that theire substances remayne and be not transubstantiated so that your vntrue and crafty shift will not releeue your matter any whit when you say that the accidence of bread is bread wherin all the world knoweth how much you erre from the truth And better it had bene for you to haue kept such sayings secret vnto your selfe which no man can speake without blushing except he be past all shame than to shew your shamefull shiftes open vnto the world that all men may see them And specially when the shewing therof onely discouereth your shame and easeth you nothing at all For the accidences be not changed as you say your selfe but the substances And then if the thinges that be changed remayue the substance must remayne and not be transubstantiated And S. Ambrose bringeth forth to good purpose the creation of the world to shew the wonderfull worke of God aswell in the spirituall regeneration and spirituall feeding and nourishing of the liuely members of Christes body as in the creation and conseruation of the world And therfore Dauid calleth the spirituall renouation of man by the name of creation saying Cor mundum crea in me Deus O God create in me a new hart And as for any further answer here vnto Ambrose nedeth not but bicause you referre you here to Emissene they which be indifferent may read what I haue answered vnto Emissene a little before and so iudge Now let vs examine S. Augustine And S. Augustine about the same tyme wrote thus That which you see in the alter is the bread and the cup which also your eyes do shew you But fayth sheweth further that bread is the body of Christ the cupper his bloud Here he declareth two thinges that in the sacrament remayneth bread and wine which we may discerne with our eyes and that the bread and wine be called the body and bloud of Christ. And the same thing he declareth also as playnly in an other place saying The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thinges of the visible kind of the element and of the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ both of the sacrament and of the thinge signified by the sacrament Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man forasmuch as he is very God and very man For euery thing cōteineth in it the very nature of those thinges wherof it consisteth
Now the sacrifice of the church coÌ„sisteth of two thinges of the sacrament and of the thing thereby signified that is to say the body of Christ. Therfore there is both the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament which is Christes body What can be deuised to be spoken more playnly agaynst the error of the Papistes which say that no bread nor wine remayneth in the sacrament For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures that is to say of his manhod and of his godhead and therfore both those natures remayne in Christ euen so sayth S. Augustine the sacrament consisteth of two natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures must nedes remayne in the sacrament For the more playne vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that there were certayne heretikes as Simon Menander Martion Valentinus Basilides Cerdon Manes Eutiches Manichaeus Apolinaris and Diuers other of like sortes which sayd that Christ was very God but not a very man although in eating drinking sleeping and all other operations of man to mens iudgementes he appeared like vnto a man Other there were as Artemon Theodorus Sabellius Paulus Samasathenus Marcellus Photinus Nestorius and many other of the same sectes which sayd that he was a very naturall man but not very God although in geuing the blind their sight the dumbe their speach the deafe their hearing in healing sodenly with his word all diseases in raysing to life them that were dead and in all other workes of God he shewed himselfe as he had bene God Yet other there were which seeing the scripture so plaine in those two matters confessed that he was both God and man but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation sayd they he was God onely and not man and after his incarnation he ceased from his Godhead and became a man onely and not God vntill his resurrection or ascension and then say they he left his manhod and was onely God agayne as he was before his incarnation So that when he was manne he was not God and when he was God he was not man But agaynst these vayne heresies the Catholike fayth by the expresse word of God holdeth and beleueth that Christ after his incarnation left not his diuine nature ' but remayned still God as he was before being togither at one tyme as he is still both perfect God and perfect man And for a playne declaration hereof the old auncient authors giue two examples one is of man which is made of two partes of a soule and of a body and ech of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that when the soule by the almighty power of god is put in to the body neither the body nor soule perisheth therby but therof is made a perfect man hauing a perfect soule and a perfect body remayning in him both at one tyme. The other example which the olde authors bring in for this purpose is of the holy Snpper of our Lord which consisteth say they of two partes of the sacrament or visible element of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receaue the sacrament the very natures of bread and wine ceasse not to be there but remayne there still and be eaten and drunken corporally as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually so likewise doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne still with his humanity Let now the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation that there remayneth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the Sacrament if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehersed that Christ is not God and man both togither But to proue that this was the mynd of the old authors beside the saying of S. Augustine here recited I shall also reherse diuers other Winchester In the 26. leafe this author bringeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which when this author wrote it is like he neither thought of the third or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare most euidently the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament affirming the same to be the sacrifice of the church wherby appeareth it is no figure onely In the first saying of S. Augustine is written thus how fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ now whatsoeuer fayth sheweth is a truth and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ which speach bread is the body of Christ is as much to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissene wrote by conuersion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ and as S. Augustine in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the flesh of Christ. As for the second saying of S. Augustine how could it with more playne wordes be written then to say that there is both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament which is Christes body calling the same the sacrifice of the church Now if Christes body be there it is truely there and in dede there which is really there as for there in a figure were as much to say as not there in truth and indede but onely signified to be absent which is the nature of a figure in his proper and speciall speach But S. Augustine sayth euen as the author bringeth him forth and yet he gaue his priuy nippe by the way thus It is sayd of S. Augustine there be two thinges in the sacrifice which be conteyned in it wherof it consisteth so as the body of Christ is conteined in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynd According whereunto S. Augustine is alleadged to say in the same booke from whence this author tooke this saying also these wordes following vnder the kindes of bread and wine which we see we honor thinges inuisible that is to say the flesh and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did before the consecration for we must faythfully confesse before the consecration to be bread and wine that nature formed and after consecration the flesh and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath consecrate Thus sayth S. Augustine as he is alleadged out of the booke which in deede I haue not but he hath the like sence in other places and for honoring of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the side and reall presence S. Augustine hath the like in his booke De Catâ—chisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader how this author concludeth himselfe in the fayth of the reall presence of Christes body by his owne collection of S. Augustine mynd which is as he confesseth in his owne wordes noting S. Augustine that as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures
so the Sacrament consisteth of to natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament These be this authors owne wordes who trauayling to confound Transubstantiation confoundeth euidently himselfe by his owne wordes touching the reall present For he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ must remayne in the sacrament and as truely as the natures of the manhod and Godhead were in Christ for therupon he argueth And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures the manhode or the godhead were but figuratiuely in Christ which and he do then may be the better say for the agrement of his doctrine The nature of the body and bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the Sacrament And if he say as he must nedes say that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament and therby call backe all that he hath written agaynst the real presence of Christes body in the sacrament and abandon his deuise of a presence by significatiō which is in truth a playne absēce as himselfe also speaketh openly which open speach can not stand and is improued by this open speach of his owne Likewise where he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the Sacrament the word remayne being of such signification as it betokeneth not onely to be there but to tary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church which mistery of sacrifice is perfited before the perception and so it must be euident how the body of Christ is there that is to say on the alter before we receaue it to which aulter S. Augustine sayth we come to receaue it There was neuer man ouerturned his own assertions more euidently then this author doth herein this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haue written agaynst this Sacrament who haue by he way sayd somewhat for it or they haue brought their treatise to an end It will be sayd here how soeuer this author doth ouerthrow him selfe in the reall presence of Christes very body yet he hath pulled downe Transubstantiation and done as crafty wrastlers do falling themselues on theire backe to throw there fellowe ouer them But it is not like for as long as the true fayth of the reall presence standeth so longe Transubstantiation standeth not by authority of determination but by a necessary consequence of the truth as I sayd before and as Zuinglius defendeth playnly and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered vnto for they speake of the visible nature and element which remayne truely in the propriety of their nature for so much as remayneth so as there is true reall and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine not in fantasy or imagination wherby there should be illution in the sences but so in deede as the experience doth shew and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance should not impayre the truth of that remayneth but that remayneth doth in deede remayne with the same naturall effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one maruaile in this mistery as there were diuerse more in Manna the figure of it And then a miracle in gods working doth not empayre the truth of the worke And therfore I noted before how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truely and yet it was by miracle as S. Gregory writeth And further we may say touching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made of the Sacrament to Christes person or contrariwise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality in consideration of each part by it selfe but onely haue respect to the ende wherfore the resemblance is made In the person of Christ be ioyned two whole perfite natures inseperably vnite which fayth the Nestorians impugned and yet vnite without confusion of them which confussion the Eutichians in consequence of their error affirmed and so arguments be brought of the sacrament wherewith to conuince both as I shall shew answering to Gelasius But in this place S. Augustine vseth the truth most certayne of the two natures in Christes person wherby to declare his beleefe in the Sacrament which beleefe as Hilary before is by this author alleadged to say is of that is inwardly For that is outwardly of the visible creature we see he sayth with our bodely eye and therfore therin is no poynt of fayth that should neede such a declaration as S. Augustine maketh And yet making the comparison he reherseth both the truthes on both sides saying As the person of Christ cōsisteth of God man so the sacrifice of the church cōsisteth of two thinges the visible kind of the element the inuisible flesh bloud finishing the conclusiō of the similitude that therfore There is in the Sacrifice of the church both the Sacramēt and the thing of the Sacramēt Christes body that which is inuisible therfore required declaratiō that is by S. Augustine opened in the cōparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely and therwith that needed no declaration that is to say the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true but not as a thing which was intended to be proued for it neded not any proofe as the other part did And therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblance so as bicause in the nature of Christs humanity there was no substance conuerted in Christ which had bene contrary to the order of that mistery which was to ioyne the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ that therfore in this mistery of the Sacrament in which by the rules of our fayth Christes body is not Impanate the conuersion of the substance of the visible elements should not therfore be If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mistery that is sufficient For els the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasy in the mistery of the Sacrament as there be in Christes person and the flesh of man in Christ by vnion of the diuinity is a diuine spirituall flesh and is called and is a liuely flesh and yet the author of this booke is not afrayd to teach the bread in the Sacrament to haue no participation of holines wherein I agree not with him but reason agaynst him with his owne doctrine and much I could say more but this shall suffice The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be such as no man can wrest or wreth to an other sence and with their force haue made this author to ouerthrow
himselfe in his owne wordes But that S. Augustine sayth touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the Sacrament without wresting or writhing may be agreed in couenient vnderstanding with the doctrine of Transubstantiation and therfore is an authority familiar with those writers that affirme Transubstantiation by expresse wordes out of whose quiuer this author hath pulled out his bolt and as it is out of his bow sent turneth backe and hitteth himselfe on the forehead and yet after his fashion by wrong and vntrue translation he sharpened it somewhat not without some punishment of God euidently by the way by his owne wordes to ouerthrow him selfe In the second columne of the 27. leafe and the first of the 28. leafe this author maketh a processe in declaration of heresies in the person of Christ for conuiction wherof this author sayth the olde fathers vsed arguments of two examples in eyther of which examples were two natures togither the one not perishing ne confounding the other One example is in the body and soule of man An other example of the Sacrament in which be two natures an inward heauenly and an outward earthly as in man there is a body and a soule I leaue out this authors owne iudgement in that place and of thée O reader require thine whether those fathers that did vse both these examples to the confutation of heretikes did not beleeue as apeareth by the processe of their reasoning in this poynt did they not I say beleeue that euen as really and as truely as the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truely is the body of Christ which in the Sacrament is the inward inuisible thing as the soule is in the body present in the Sacrament for els and the body of Christ were not as truely and really present in the Sacrament as the soule is in mans body that argument of the Sacrament had not two thinges present so as the argument of the body and soule had wherby to shew how two thinges may be togither without confusion of eyther ech remayning in his nature for if the teaching of this author in other partes of this booke were true than were the Sacrament like a body lying in a traunce whose soule for the while were in heauen and had no two thinges but one bare thing that is to say bread and bread neuer the holier with signification of an other thing so farre absent as is heauen from earth and therfore to say as I probably thinke this part of this second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of this author when he minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Transubstantiation onely and to striue for bread onely which not withstanding the new enterprise of this author to deny the reall presence is so fierce and vehement as it ouerthroweth his new purpose ere he cōmeth in his order in his booke to entreate of For there can no demonstration be made more euident for the catholike fayth of the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then that the truth of it was so certaynly beleued as they tooke Christes very body as verely in the sacrament euen as the soule is present in the body of man Caunterbury WHen you wrote this it is like that you had not considered my third booke wherin is a playne and direct answer to all that you haue brought in this place or els where concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament And how slender proofes you make in this place to proue the reall presence because of the Sacrifice euery man may iudge being neyther your argument good nor your antecedent true For S. Augustine sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ is the sacrifice of the church and if he had so sayd it inferreth not this conclusion that the body of Christ should be really in the bread and his bloud in the wine And although S. Augustine sayth that bread is Christes body yet if you had well marked the 64.65 66. leaues of my booke you should there haue perceaued how S. Augustine declareth at length in what manner of speach that is to be vnderstand that is to say figuratiuely in which speach the thing that signifieth and the thing that is signified haue both one name as S. Ciprian manifestly teacheth For in playne speach without figure bread is not the body of Christ by your owne confession who do say that the affirmation of one substance is the negation of an other And if the bread were made the body of Christ as you say it is then must you needes cōfesse that the body of Christ is made of bread which before you sayd was so foolish a saying as were not tollerable by a scoffer to be deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And seeing that the bread is not adnihilate and consumed into nothing as the schoole authors teach then must it needes follow that the body of Christ is made of the matter of bread for that it is made of the forme of bread I suppose you will not graunt And as touching the second place of S. Augustine he sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ be really in the Sacrament but that in the Sacrifice of the church that is to say in the holy administration of the Lordes supper is both a Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sacrament the Sacrament being the bread and wine and the thing signified and exhibited being the body and bloud of Christ. But S. Augustine sayth not that the thing signified is in the bread and wine to whome it is not exhibited nor is not in it but as in a figure but that it is there in the true ministration of the Sacrament present to the spirite and fayth of the true beleuing man and exhibited truely and indeede and yet spiritually not corporally And what neede any more euident proofes of S. Augustines mynd in this matter how bread is called Christes body then S. Augustines owne wordes cited in the same place where the other is de consecratione dist 2. Hoc est quod dicimus These be S. Augustines wordes there cited Sicut coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum re uera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significanti misterio sic Sacramentum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh after a manner is called the body of Christ where in very deede it is a sacrament of Christes body that is to say of that body which being visible palpable mortall was put vppon the crosse And as that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes
a fall as you shall neuer be able to stand vpright agayne in this matter And my shaftes be shot so straight agaynst you and with such a force that they perse through shilde haburgen in such sort that all the harnes you haue is not able to withstand them or to make one arrow to start backe although to auoyde the stroke you shift your place seeking some meane to flye the fight For when I make mine argument of Transubstantiation you turne the matter to the reall presence like vnto a surgeon that hath no knowledge but when the head is wounded or sore he layth a playster to the heele Or as the prouerbe sayth Interrogatus de alijs respondet de caepis when you be asked of garlicke you answer of onions And this is one prety sleight of sophistry or of a subtill warrier when he seeth him selfe ouermatched and not able to resist then by some policy quite to put of or at the least to delay the conflict and so do you commonly in this booke of Transubstantiation For when you be sore pressed therin than you turne the matter to the reall presence But I shall so straytly pursue you that you shall not so escape For where you say that the fathers which vsed the examples of the Sacrament and of the body and bloud of Christ to shew the vnity of two natures in Christ did beleue that as really and as truely the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the Sacrament the fathers neither sayd nor beleued as you here report but they taught that both the Sacrament and the thing therby represented which is Christes body remayne in their proper substaunce and nature the signe being here and the thing signified being in heauen and yet of these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church But it is not required that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the signe and figure as the soule is in the body bicause there is no such vnion of person nor it is not required in the soule and body that they should be euer togither for Christes body and soule remayned both without eyther corruption or Transubstantiation when the soule was gone downe into hell and the body rested in the sepulcher And yet was he than a perfect man although his soule was not than really present with the body And it is not so great a meruayle that his body should be in heauen and the sacrament of it here as it is that his body should be here and his soule in hell And if the Sacrament were a man and the body of Christ the soule of it as you dreame in your traunse then were the Sacrament not in a traunse but dead for the tyme whilest it were here and the soule in heauen And like scoffing you might make of the Sacrament of Baptisme as you doe in the Sacrament of Christes body that it lyeth here in a traunse when Christ being the life therof is in heauen And where you thinke that my second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of me when I minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Trāsubstantiation onely you haue no probatiō of your thought but still you remayne in your dreames traunses and vayne phantasies which you haue vsed throughout your booke so that what so euer is in the bread and wine there is in you no Transubstantiation nor alteration in this thing at all And what auayleth it you so often to affirme this vntruth that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament as the soule of man is present in the body except you be like to them that tell a lye so often that with often repeating they think men beleue it and sometyme by often telling they beleue it them selues But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soule of man to proue therby the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament but to proue the two natures of the godhead and the manhoode in the person of Christ. Lette vs now discusse the minde of Chrisostome in this matter whome I bring thus in my booke S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth against the pestilēt errour of Apolinaris which affirmed that the Godhead and manhod in Christ were so mixed and confounded togither that they both made but one nature Agaynst whome S. Iohn Chrisostome writeth thus When thou speakest of God thou must consider a thing that in nature is single without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with such like And when thou speakest of man thou meanest a nature that is weake subiect to hunger thirst weeping feare sweating and such like passions which can not be in the diuine nature And when thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures togither in one persone who is both passible and impassible Passible as concerning his flesh and impassible in his deite And after he concludeth saying Wherfore Christ is both God and man God by his impassible nature and man bicause he suffered He himselfe being one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned togither which be not of one substance but ech of them hath his properties distinct from the other And therfore remayneth there two natures distinct and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord although the nature of the bread remayne still in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of Gods sonne so likewise here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of S. Chrisostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecration the nature of bread remayneth still although it haue an higher name and be called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eate the supernaturall bread of the body of Christ who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sitteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Winchester S. Chrisostomes wordes in deede if this author had had them eyther truely translated vnto him or had taken the paynes to haue truly translated them himselfe which as Peter Martyr sayth be not in print but were found in Florence a copy wherof remayneth in the archdeacon or Archbishop of Caunterburies handes or els if this author had reported the wordes as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyrs booke wherin some poynt the translator in English semeth to haue attayned by gesse the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr vttereth it himselfe if eyther of this had bene done the matter should haue seemed for so much the more playne But
similitude of the body and bloud of Christ so by and by he calleth the Sacrament the image of Christ. And here the wordes image and similitude expresse the manner of presence of the truth of the thinges represented to be vnderstanded onely by fayth as inuisibly present And S. Ambrose by this word image signifieth the exhibition of truth to man in this life And to shew the Sacrament to be such an image as contayneth the very truth of the thing wherof it is the image Gelasius declareth in framing his argument in these wordes As bread and wine go into the diuine substance the holy ghost bringing it to passe and yet remayne in the property of their nature so that principall mistery those natures remayning wherof it is declare vnto vs true and whole Christ to continue In these wordes of Gelasius where hee sayth the bread and wine goe into the diuine substaunce is playnly declared the presence of the diuine substaunce and this diuine substaunce can signifie none other substaunce but of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche heauenly nature and earthly nature of the bread and wine consisteth this Sacrament the Image of the principall mistery of Christes person And therefore as in the Image bee two diuers natures and different remayning in their property So likewise in the person of Christ whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argument should remayne two natures And here were a great daunger if we should say that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacrament were there present but in a figure for it should then imply that in Christes person the principall mistery it were also but in a figure And therefore as in the mistery of Christes person ordayned to redeeme vs beyng the principall mistery there is no figure but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures whereof Christ is So in the Sacrament being a mistery ordered to feede vs and the image of that principall mistery there is not an onely figure but truth of the presence of the natures earthly and celestiall I speake of the truth of the presence and meane such an integrity of the natures present as by the rules of our fayth is consonant and agreable to that mistery that is to say in the person of Christ perfect God and perfect man perfect God to be incarnate and perfect man to be deitate as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it In the Sacrament the visible matter of the earthly creature in his propriety of nature for the vse of signification is necessarily required and also according to the truth of Christ his wordes his very body and bloud to be inuisibly with integrity present which Gelasius calleth the diuine substance And I thinke it worthy to be noted that Gelasius speaking of the bread and wine reciteth not precisely the substance to remayne but sayth the substance or nature which nature he calleth after the propriety and the disiunctiue may be verified in the last And it is not necessary the examples to be in all partes equall as Rusticus Diaconus handleth it very learnedly ConiraAcephalos And Gelasius in opening the mistery of the Sacrament speaketh of transition of the bread and wine into the godly substance which word transition is meete to expresse Transubstantiation and therfore S. Thomas expressed Transubstantiation with the same word transire writing Dogma datur Christianis quod in carnem transit panis venū in sanguinem But in the mistery of Christes person there is no trāsition of the Deitie into the humanitie or humanitie into the Deitie but onely Assumptiō of the humanity with the adunation of those two perfect natures so different one person one Christ who is God incarnate and man Deitate as Gregory Nazianzene sayth without mutation cōuersion transition transelementation or transubstātiation which wordes be proper and speciall to expresse how Eucharistia is constitute of two different natures an heauenly and earthly nature a mystery institute after the exāple of the principall mystery wherwith to féede vs with the substaūce of the same glorious body that hath redéemed vs. And bicause in the constitution of this mystery of the Sacrament there is a transition of the earthly creature into the diuine substaunce as Gelasius and S. Thomas terme it and mutation as Cypriā and Ambrose teach it which Theophilactus expresseth by the word transelementation Emissen by the word conuersion and all their wordes reduced into their owne proper sence expressed in one word of transubstantiation it can not be conuenient where the maner of constitution of the two mysteries be so different there to require a lyke remainyng of the two natures wherof the mysteries be In the mystery of Christes person bycause there was not of any of the two different natures either mutation transition conuersion or transelementation but onely assumption of the humanitie and adunation in the virgins wombe we can not say the Godhead to haue suffered in that mystery which were an absurditie but to haue wrought the assumption and adunation of mans nature with it nor mans nature by that assumption and adunation diminished and therfore professe truly Christ to be whole God and whole man and God in that mystery to be made man and man God where as in the Sacrament bicause of trāsition mutation and conuersion of their earthly creatures wrought by the holy ghost which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conuersion mutation and transition we knowledge no assumptiō of those creatures or adunation with the heauenly nature and therfore say not as we do in the principall mystery that ech nature is wholly the other and as we professe God incarnate so the body of Christ breaded and as man is Deitate so the bread is corporate which we should say if the rules of our faith could permit the constitution of ech mystery to be taught a lyke whiche the truth of Gods word doth not suffer Wherfore although Gelasius and other argue from the Sacrament to declare the mystery of Christes person yet we may not presse the Argument to destroy or confounde the propertie of ech mystery and so violate the rules of our fayth and in the authors not presse the wordes otherwise then they may agrée with the Catholique teachyng as those did in the wordes of Cyrill when he spake of nature and subsistence wherof I made mētion before to be remembred here in Gelasius that we presse not the word substaunce and nature in him but as may agree with the transition he speaketh of by which word other expresse transubstantiation And agaynst the Eutichians for to improue their confusion it suffiseth to shew two different natures to be in the Sacrament and to remaine in their proprietie and the diuine nature not to confound the earthly nature nor as it were to swalow it which was the dreame of the Eutichiās And we must forbeare to presse all partes of the example in the other Argument from the person of man beyng
tell an vntruth But to say my mynde frankely what I thinke of your declaration of these two heresies I thinke a great part thereof you dreamed in your sleape or imagined being in some traunce or rapt with some Sophisticall vision and part of your dreame agreeth neither with approued Authours and histories nor with it selfe For first as touchyng the Eutichians where you say that Gelasius directeth his Argumētes of the two natures in man of the two natures in the Sacramēt chiefly agaynst the Eutichians to proue the nature of man to remaine in Christ after the adunation whosoeuer readeth Gelasius shall finde otherwise that he directed his Arguments indifferently as well agaynst Nestorius as agaynst Eutiches and no more agaynst the one then agaynst the other Nor no more did the Eutichians abhorre alius and alius although some gathered so of their wordes then did the Nestorians which wordes signifie diuersitie of person as aliud and aliud signifie diuersitie of nature So as the body soule in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diuersitie of natures yet be they not alius and alius bycause that both together make but one person By meanes of which difference betwene alius and alius we say Alius pater alius filius alius spiritus sanctus and not Aliud pater aliud filius aliud spiritus sanctus for asmuch as they be three in persons and but one in nature and substaunce And bycause Christ is two in nature that is to say of his deitie and humanitie and but one in person therefore we say Aliud aliud est diuinitas humanitas but not Alius sed vnus est Christus And although Nestorius graunted two natures in Christ yet not as you say frō his natiuitie nor by adunation but by cohabitation or inhabitatiō so that he made but one Christ although some otherwise take him and not alium alium after which sorte the Godhead is also in other godly men whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly nature although by their naturall generatiō they be but mē without the diuine nature vnited in person but after obteined by adoption grace As by your example a man is made Bishop which by naturall generation is borne but a man And that this was Nestorius opinion that Christ from his Natiuitie was but mā onely had his godhead after by adoptiō or accession is euident of your own wordes when you say that the Nestoriās denied Christ cōceiued God or borne God that the Godhead was an accessiō to Christ afterward by merite and that he was cōceiued but onely man although shortly after you go from the same saying that both the Godhead manhode were alwayes in Christ such cōstācie is in your dreamed phātasies And where you haue written thus much as you say because it should appeare that Gelasius by his Argumentes of the Sacrament and of the two natures of man went abont to proue that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation you might haue bestowed your tyme better than to haue lost somuch labour to impugne the truth For although neither Nestorius nor Eutiches denyed the Godhead of Christ to remaine yet Gelasius went not about onely to confute thē but also to set out playnly the true catholicke faith that Christ being incarnated was perfect God and perfect man and how that might be both the sayd natures and substaunces remainyng with all their naturall proprieties and conditions without transubstantiation abolition or confusion of any of the two natures And this he declareth aswell by the example of the Sacrament as of the body and soule of man Wherfore as true as it is that the body and soule of man and Godhead and manhode of Christ remaine in their proper substaunces natures and properties without transubstantiation or perishyng of any of them so must it be in the Sacrament And in the sayd heresies as you say was some appearāce of the truth euery one hauyng Scripture which in sounde of wordes seemed to approue their errours whereby they deceiued many But as for your fayned doctrine of Transubstātiation it hath no pretēce nor appearance of truth by Gods word for you haue not one Scripture that maketh mētion therof where as I hane many playne manifest Scriptures that speaketh in playne termes that bread is eaten and wine is dronken And this Author Gelasius with diuers other learned men aswel Greekes as Latins of the old Catholicke Churche affirme in no doubtfull wordes that the bread and wine be not gone but remaine still From which Scriptures and Doctours who soeuer dissenteth declareth him selfe at the least to be ignoraūt wherby yet he may excuse him selfe of a greater blot infamy And this matter being so cleare neither your fine disguising nor your painted colours nor your gay Rhetorike nor witty inuentions can so hyde and couer the truth that it shal not appeare but the more you labour to striue agaynst the streame the more faynt shall you waxe and at lēgth the truth hath such a violence that you shall be borne cleane down with the streame therof In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyrill togethers alludyng as it seemeth to this contention betwene you and me which comparison if it be throughly considered hath no small resemblance although there be no litle diuersitie also Nestorius say you was a great archebishop and so say I was Ciril also Nestorius say you as apeareth had much learnyng but cloked his heresie craftily But the Histories of his tyme who should know him best describe him in this sorte that he was a man of no great learnyng but of an excellent naturall witte and eloquence and full of craft and subtiltie by meanes wherof he was so proude and glorious that he contemned all men in respect of him selfe and disdained the old writers thinkyng him selfe more wise then they all Now let the indifferent Reader Iudge whom he thinketh in this your illusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius And all this that you haue brought in here of these two heresies although it be to no purpose in the principall matter yet it serueth me to this purpose that men may cōiecture whose nature and witte is most like vnto the description of Nestorius also how loth you be to come to the matter to make a direct aunswere to Gelasius wordes who sayth in playne termes that substaūce or nature of bread wine remaineth Euē as glad you be to come to this as a Beare is to come to the stake seeking to runne out at this corner or that corner if it were possible But all will not helpe for you be so fast tyed in chaynes that will you nill you at length you must come to the stake although you be neuer so loth And Gelasius byteth so sore hath catched so hard hold of you that you cā neuer escape although you attempt all
maner of wayes by tooth and by nayle to shake him of First you would shake him of by this pretēce that he vseth his two Argumentes of the two examples of man and the Sacrament agaynst the Eutichians onely But Gelasius will not so easely leaue his hold For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutichians declaring by these two examples how two differēt natures may remaine in Christ and that the integritie of Christ can not be except both the different natures remaine in their properties which cōdemneth both the foresayd heresies that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ the Eutichians his diuinitie and the Nestorians his humanitie And yet if he had vsed these examples agaynst the Eutichians onely they byte you as sore as if they were vsed agaynst them both For if he conclude by these two examples agaynst the Eutichians as you say hee doth that the integritie of Christ can not be but both natures different that is to say his manhode and Godhead must remaine in their propertie then must it nedes be so in the examples also And then as Christ had in him two natures with their naturall properties neither perishing but both remainyng and as man hath in him two natures the soule and the body both remainyng still so must in the Sacrament also the nature of bread and wine remaine without Transubstantiation or corruption of any of the natures accordyng to the sayd wordes of Gelasius Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be And Gelasius bringeth not this Image and similitude to that purpose that you would draw it that is to say to expresse the maner of Christs presēce in the Sacramēt but to expresse the maner of two natures in Christ that they both so remaine that neither is corrupted or transubstantiated no more then the bread and wine be in the Sacrament And by this all men may see that Gelasius hath fastened his teeth so surely that you can not so lightly cast him of with a shake of your chayne And if he ment to expresse the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament as you fayne he doth that the maner is onely by fayth wherof he speaketh not one word yet are you nothyng at libertie thereby but held much more faster thē you were before For Gelasius speaketh of the action of the mystery Christes flesh and bloud be present in the action of the mystery onely by fayth therfore can they not be present in the bread or wine reserued which haue no fayth at all And presence by fayth onely requireth no reall materiall and and corporall presence For by fayth is Christ present in Baptisme and by fayth Abraham saw him the holy Fathers did eate his flesh and drincke his bloud before he was borne And Christ humbling him selfe to take vpon him our mortall nature hath exalted vs to the nature of his deitie making vs to reigne with him in his immortall glory as it were Gods And this sayth Gelasius God worketh in vs by his Sacramentes per quae diuinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini that is to say by the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be associate vnto the diuine nature and yet ceasseth not the substaunce or nature of bread and wine to be So that the Sacrament not beyng altered in substaunce we be altered and go into the diuine nature or substaunce as Gelasius termeth it beyng made partakers of Gods eternitie And therfore when he speaketh of the goyng of the Sacraments into the diuine substaunce he meaneth not that the substaunces of the Sacraments go into the substaunce of God which no creature can do but that in the action of that mystery to them that worthely receaue the Sacramentes to them they be turned into diuine substaunce through the working of the holy Ghost who maketh the godly receauers to be the partakers of the diuine nature and substaunce And that this was the intent meanyng of Gelasius appeareth by two notable sentences of him wherof one is this Surely sayth he the Image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrate in the action of the mysterie The other is that by the Sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature he sayth not that the Sacramentes be but that we be made partakers of the nature of Christes Godhead And if he should meane as you haue most vntruely altered both his wordes sence at your pleasure not that the godly receiuers but that the substaunce of bread and wine should go into the diuine substaunce then were not they chaunged into his humanitie but into his deitie and so were the bread and wine deified or at the least made partakers of the diuine nature and immortalitie But for asmuch as Gelasius sayth that the two natures in Christ remaine in like case as the natures of the sacraments remayne for he maketh his argument altogither of the remayning of the natures by the verbe permanere and the participle permanens then as you say that the integrity of Christ can not be except both his natures different remayne in their properties so can not the integritie of the sacrament be except the two natures of bread and wine remayne in their properties For els seeing that the remayning of the natures is in the Sacrament as it is in Christ as Gelasius sayth then if in the Sacraments remayne but the accidents and apearance of bread and wine and not the substances of them how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine proue the two substances and natures of Christ to remayne Might it not rather be gathered that onely the appearance of Christes humanity remayneth in accidents and not the substance of it selfe as Martion sayth as you say it is in the sacrament or els that Christes humanity is absorpted vp by his diuinity and confounded therwith as the Eutichians say that the bread and wine is by the body and bloud of Christ But the catholique fayth hath taught from the beginning according to holy scripture that as the image or sacrament be two diuers natures and different remayning in their properties that is to say bread and wine so likewise in the person of Christ remayne two natures his diuinity and his humanity And I pray you what danger is it to say that Christes body is in the sacramentall bread but as in a figure should that emply that his body is in his person but as in a figure That should be euen as good an argument as this Christ was in the brasen serpent but in a figure ergo he is now in heauen but in a figure For the forme of argumentation is all one in the one and the other And if Christ be in vs by vertue and efficacie although in the sacraments representing
the same as Gelasius sayth he be but sacramentally figuratiuely and significatiuely what perill is it to vs And what auayleth it vs his being in the sacrament and not in vs. And the two natures in the Sacrament which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ be bread and wine which as they remayne and that truely in their natures and substances so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine Sacraments of the terrestriall nature of Christ that is to say of his body and bloud but not of his celestiall and diuine nature as you imagine And they be called Sacraments bicause they be figures which if they were no figures they were no Sacraments But it is not required that the thing represented by the figure should be really and corporally present in the figure when the figures ordeyned to represent a thing corporally absēt the figure were in vayne as Lactansius sayth if the thing were present And at the least wise in this place Gelasius vseth the natures and substances of bread and wine which be Sacraments of Christes flesh and bloud to be images and similitudes in this poynt not of his flesh and bloud but of his diuine and humayne nature that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament remayne still in theire proper kindes without violation adnihilation confusion commixtion or Transubstantiation so is it in the two natures of Christes manhode and his godhead So that Gelasius vseth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ not for the consecration of the sacrament as you would peruert his meaning And bicause you would haue all your thinges strange as it were one that had come out of a strange cuntry where he had learned a strange fashion of speach neuer heard of before or rather deuised it himselfe you call the colours of bread and wine the matter of bread and wine bicause colours onely be visible after your teaching And then must the naturall property of colours be to signify our feeding spirituall by the body and bloud of Christ that as they feede vs spiritually so do the colours corporally And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis ad oppositum antecedentis as colours feede not our bodyes so Christ feedeth not our soules This is the conclusion of your goodly new deuised diuinity And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence bicause you were loth to commit but one horrible errour in one sentence that Gelasius calleth Christes body and bloud his diuine substance This is a goodly hearing for the Eutichians who say that in Christ is no moe natures but his diuine substance which by your interpretation must be true For if his godhead be a diuine substance and his body and bloud also a diuine substance why should Eutiches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than diuine substaunce And so shall we bring to passe that either Christ hath but one substaūce or two diuine substaunces although not of like sorte and so not one humaine substaunce And is it like that Gelasius who so long contēded agaynst Eutiches for two distinct substaūces in Christ humaine and diuine would in the conclusion of his disputation so much yeld vnto the hereticke to graunt that Christes humaine substaunce should be a diuine substaunce And it is worthy to be noted and double noted how you wrāgle with the wordes of Gelasius wrast them cleane out of tune For where Gelasius sayth that there remaineth the substaunce or nature of bread and wyne to declare thereby the remainyng of two natures in Christ you say that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last and not in the first that is to say that the nature of bread and wine remaineth And nature say you is there taken for the proprieties which you call accidentes And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher that should so ambiguously speake of two thyngs when he meaneth but of one For when he sayth that the substaunce or nature remayneth you say he meaneth that onely the nature remaineth And were this tollerable in a learned man when he meaneth the nature to remaine not the substaunce to expresse it by these termes The substaunce or nature remaineth And if Gelasius meane that the substaunce of bread and wine remaineth not but the natures and then if by nature he vnderstode the accidentes as you vntruely surmise of him and make them the Image and similitude to proue Christes two natures thē they proue no more but that the accidentes of Christes natures remayne and not the substaunce whiche saying whether it be a fauouryng of the Eutichians Nestorians Ualentiniās Martionistes Apolinaristes and other of that sort let the learned be iudge And although it be not necessary the exāples to be in all partes equall as you alledge of Rusticus Diaconus yet they must needes be like in that point wherfore they were takē to be examples for els they were none examples And therefore seyng that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought for examples of Christes two natures for this intēt to proue that the two natures of Christ remaine in their substaunce it must needes be so in the bread and wine or els they serued nothyng to that purpose And the transition that Gelasius ment of is in the persons that receaue the Sacramentes whiche be transformed into the diuine nature as Gelasius sayth by efficacie vertue represented by the Sacraments but the transition is not in the bread and wyne as you and your Thomas imagine of transition whiche remaine in the Sacrament without substāciall mutatiō conuersiō transitiō transelementatiō or trāsubstantiatiō For if in the mystery of the Sacrament were transition mutation conuersion and transelementation of the substaunce of bread and wine how could that mystery be an example of the principall mystery of Christes incarnation to proue thereby that there is no transition mutation conuersion or transelementation of the two substaunces of Christ in his incarnation Doth not the remainyng of substaunce in the Sacrament proue the remainyng of substaunce in the Incarnation For how can the not remainyng of substaunce be an example image and similitude to proue the remainyng of the substaunce But here appeareth what it is to wrastle agaynst the truth to defend an euell cause what absurdities wit eloquence be driuen vnto when they striue agaynst God and his word And where you think your selfe ouer sore pressed with this argument and similitude of bread and wine to the two natures in Christ I must needes presse the argument and wordes so farre as pertayneth to the remayning of the natures and substance for to that end was the image and similitude brought in by Gelasius And then by argument from the cause wherfore the resemblance was made if the substance and nature of the bread and wine remayne not in the Sacrament it followeth that the two natures and substance of
Christ remayne not in his person which is no sound teaching wherfore to make the argument agree with the catholike teaching we must needes say that as in the person of Christ remayne the two natures and substance of his godhead and manhod so in the sacrament remayne the natures and substances of bread and wine that the comparisons may agree with themselues and with the catholike fayth Like as it is also in the other example of the body and soule which two natures must needes remayne in the person of man without transubstantiation of any nature if they shall resemble the remayning of the two natures in Christ. And how do the two natures in the Sacrament remayne in their property I pray you declare if the nature of bread and wine be gon And how doth not the diuine nature swallow vp the earthly nature if the nature of bread and wine be so turned into the diuine nature that it remayneth not but is clearly extinct If you may purge your selfe in handling of this author by confession of your ignorance you must obtayne it by great fauor of them that will so accept it For els in this one author is affirmed by you many great errors with wilfull deprauation of the authors mynd to geue weapons to them that be enemies to the truth and to the subuersion of the catholike fayth And no les haue you done in Theodoretus next folowing bicause you would handle them both indifferently and do no more Iniury to the one than to the other And as for Ciprian Ambrose Theophilact and Emissene I haue answered to them before It is tyme now to heare Theodoret. Theodoretus also affirmeth the same both in his first and in his second dialoge In the first he sayth thus He that called his naturall body wheate and bread and also called himselfe a vine the selfe same called bread and wine his body and bloud and yet changed not their natures And in his second dialogue he sayth more playnly For sayth he as the bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substance forme and figure which they had before euen so the body of Christ after his ascention was changed into the godly substance Now let the Papistes choose which of these two they will graunt for one of them they must needes graunt eyther that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne still in the Sacrament after the consecration and than must they recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation or els that they be of the errour of Nestorius and other which did say that the nature of the Godhead or of the manhod remayned not in Christ after his incarnation or ascension For all these olde authors agree that it is in the one as it is in the other Winchester And if that I haue here sayd be well considered there may appeare the great ignoraunce of this author in the alleadging of Theodoret the applying of him and the speaking of Nestorius in the end For as the Eutichians reasoning as S. Augustin sayth to confound the Nestorians fell into an absurdity in the confusion of their two natures in Christ so Theodoretus reasoning agaynst the Eutichians fell in a vehement suspition to be a Nestorian like as S. Augustine reasoning agaynst the Maniches for defence of free will seemed to speake that the Pelagians would alow and reasoning agaynst Pelagians seemed to say that the Manichees would alow such a daunger it is to reduce extremities to the meane wherein S. Augustine was better purged then Theodoret was although Theodoret was recōciled But for example of that I haue sayd this argumēt of Theodoretus agaynst the Eutichiās to auoyd cōfusiō of natures in Christ sheweth how in the Sacramēt where the truth of the mistery of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in similitude learned the presence of the body of Christ there in the Sacrament doth not alter the nature that is to say the property of the visible creatures This saying was that the Nestorians would draw for there purpose to proue distinct persons agaynst whome Cirill trauayled to shew that in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ that was geuen to be eaten was geuen not as the flesh of a common man but as the flesh of God wherby appeared the vnity of the godhead to the manhod in Christ in one person and yet no confusion as Theodoretus doth by his argument declare But whether the Printers negligence or this authors ouersight hath confounded or confused this matter in the vttering of it I can not tell For the author of this booke concludeth solemnly thus by induction of the premises that euen so the body of Christ was after the ascention changed into the godly substance I wene the Printer left out a not and should haue sayd not changed into the godly substance for so the sence should be as Peter Martyr reporteth Theodorete And yet the triumphe this author maketh agaynst them he calleth for his pleasure Papistes with his forked dilemma maketh me doubt whether he wist what he sayd or no bicause he bringeth in Nestorius so out of purpose saying the Papistes must eyther graunt the substance of bread and wine to remayne or els to be of Nestorius heresie that the nature of Godhed remayned not This author of the booke for the name of Nestorius should haue put Eutiches and then sayd for conclusion The nature of manhod remayned not in Christ. And although in Theodoret the substance of bread is spoken of to remayne yet bicause he doth after expound himselfe to speake of that is seene and felt he seemeth to speake of Substance after the common capacity and not as it is truely in learning vnderstanded an inward inuisible and not palpable nature but onely perceaued by vnderstanding so as this outward nature that Theodorete speaketh of may according to his wordes truly remayne notwithstanding Transubstantiation This author declareth playnly his ignoraunce not to perceaue whither the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth which is properly agaynst the Eutichians rather then the Nestorians For and no propriety of bread remayne it proueth not the Godhead in Christ not to remayne but the humanity onely to be as it were swallowed vp of the diuinity which the Eutichians entended and specially after Christes resurrection agaynst whome the argumēt by Theodorete is specially brought how so euer this author confoundeth the Nestorians and Eutiches names and taketh one for an other which in so high a matter is no small fault and yet no great fault among so many other houger and greater as be in this booke committed Caunterbury IF that which you haue sayd to Gelasius be well considered and conferred with this in Theodorete it seemeth by your processe in both that you know not what confusion of natures is And then your ignorance therin must needes declare that you be vtterly ignorant of all their whole discours which tendeth onely to proue
nature of bread as he tooke the nature of man and so ioyned it to his substance And than as we haue God verely incarnate for our redemption so should we haue him Impanate Thou maist consider good reader that the rest of their reasons be very weake and feeble when these be the chiefe and strongest Truth it is in deede that Christ should haue bene impanate if he had ioyned the bread vnto his substance in vnity of person that is to say if he had ioyned the bread vnto him in such sort that he had made the bread one person with himselfe But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally there followeth no Impanation therof no more than the holy Ghost is Inaquate that is to say made water being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme Nor he was not made a doue when he tooke vpon him the forme of a doue to signifie that he whome S. Ihon did baptise was very Christ. But rather of the errour of the Papistes them selues as one errour draweth an other after it should follow the great absurdite which they speake vppon that is to say that Christ should be Impanate and Inuinate For if Christ doe vse the bread in such wise that he doth not adnihilate and make nothing of it as the Papistes say but maketh of it his owne body than is the bread ioyned to his body in a greater vnity than is his humanity to his Godhead For his Godhead is adioyned vnto his humanity in vnity of person and not of nature But our Sauiour Christ by their saying adioyneth bread vnto his body in vntie both of nature and person So that the bread and the body of Christ be but one thing both in nature and person And so is there a more entier vnion betwene Christ and bread than betwene his Godhead and manhod or betwen his soule and his body And thus these arguments of the Papistes returne like riuited nayles vpon their owne heades Winchester The solution to the second reason is almost as fondly handled alluding from Impanation to Inaquation although it was neuer sayd in scripture This water is the holy ghost but in baptisme to be water and the holy Ghost also And of the doue is not sayd This is the holy Ghost but the holy Ghost descended as in the resemblance of a done The substance of bread is not adnihilate bicause Gods worke is not adnihilation who geueth all being and adnihilation is a defection of the creature from God and yet Christes body is not augmented by the substance of bread in which body it endeth by conuersion as in the better without adnihilation which is a changing by miracle And when this Author knoweth this or should haue knowen it or hath forgotten it he writeth like one that were ignorant and had read nothing in the matter as it were to make himselfe popular to ioyne himselfe in ignorāce with the rude vnlearned people Caunterbury AS for my solution to the second reasō it is able to stand agaynst your confutation therof and to ouerthrow it quite For no more is Christ in the bread and wine in the Lordes supper then the holy Ghost is in the water of baptisme And therfore if the holy Ghost be not inaquate no more is Christ impanate And when the scripture sayth Upon whome soeuer thou shalt see the Ghost coming downe And also when S. Iohn sayd I saw the holy Ghost come downe like a doue did he see any thing but the doue And yet that which he sawe the scripture there as well by the voyce of God as by the wordes of S. Ihon calleth the holy Ghost Wherfore the scripture calleth the doue the holy Ghost For the speach was as much to say as this which I see come downe is the holy Ghost and yet was that the doue which he saw And that the doue which he saw was the holy ghost was as true a speach as we looking vpon the bread which we see do say This is the body of Christ. And yet as that speach meaneth not that the holy Ghost is made a doue so this speach meaneth not that the body of Christ is impanate No more then these wordes of Christ spoken vnto his mother Mary and to S. Ihon loe thy sonne And loe thy mother meane not that Ihon was made Christ nor that Mary his mother was made Ihons naturall mother But of your saying it followeth that the bread is humanate or incarnate For if these wordes of Christ This is my body meane as you say that bread is made Christes flesh then as Verbum caro factum est The word was made flesh concludeth that Christ was incarnate So Panis caro factus est The bread is made flesh concludeth that the bread is incarnate seing as you say it is not adnihilate But of adnihilation you write so strangely that it seemeth you haue written what you dreamed in your slepe rather then what you learned of any author catholike or infidele For who euer heard that adnihilation could be wrought but by the onely power of God For the gentill philosophers write according to the nature that Sicut exnihilo nihil sit Ita nihil in nihilum redigitur Asnothing can be made of nought so nothing can be tourned into nought So that as it is the worke of God onely to make of nought so it can be but onely his worke also to turne thinges into nought And what man beeing neuer so rude or popular hauing any discretion at all would define adnihilation as you do that a defection of a creature from God should be adnihilatiō and tourning into nothing For so should all the angels that fell from God be adnihilate and so should likewise all apostatase and all other that by sinne relinquishe the army of God and follow his aduersary the deuill and all Papistes that abandoning Christ as Iudas did runne to Antechrist to whome it were better to be adnihilate or neuer to be borne then eternally to remayne in gods indignation Now followeth the last reason Yet a third reason they haue which they gather out of the sixt of Ihon where Christ sayth I am liuely bread which came from heauen If any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer And the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world Then reason they after this fashion If the bread which Christ gaue be his flesh than it can not also be materiall bread and so it must needes follow that the materiall bread is gone and that none other substance remayneth but the flesh of Christ onely To this is soone made answer that Christ in that place of Ihon spake not of the materiall and sacramentall bread nor of the sacramentall eating for that was spoken two or three yeares before the sacrament was first ordayned but he spake of spirituall bread many times repeating I am
the bread of life which came from heauen and of spirituall eating by fayth after which sorte he was at the same present tyme eaten of as many as beleued on him although the sacrament was not at that tyme made and instituted And therfore he sayd Your fathers did eate Manna in the desert and dyed but he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Therfore this place of S. Ihon can in no wise be vnderstande of the sacramentall bread which neither came from heauen neither giueth life to all that eate Nor of such bread Christ could haue then presently sayd This is my flesh except they will say that Christ did than consecrate so many yeares before the institution of his holy Supper Winchester A third reason this author frameth himselfe wherby to take occasion to affirme how the vi chapiter of S. Ihon should not appertayne to the Sacramentall manducation the contrary wherof appeareth aswell by the wordes of Christ in that vi chapiter saying I will geue not I doe giue which promise was fulfilled in the supper as also by the catholique writers and specially by Cirill and therfore I will not further striue with this author in that matter but see how he can assoyle the authorities wherunto he entreth with great confidence Caunterbury THe third reason I framed not my selfe as you say I did but had it ready framed out of your owne shoppe in your booke of the Diuels sophistry And as for the vi chapiter of Ihon I haue sufficiently shewed my mind therin in my answere to Doctor Smithes preface which shall suffice also for aunswere to you in this place And as for Cirill is clearly agaynst you who declareth that when Christ sayd I will geue my flesh for the life of the world he fulfilled not that promise in his supper but in the crosse For if Christ had geuen to vs life in his supper what should he haue needed after to dye for the same purpose The wordes of Cirill be these vpon the wordes of Christ Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Morior inquit pro omnibus vt permeip sum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur euim mors morte mea Which wordes meane thus much in English I will dye for all that by my death I may geue life to all and that my flesh may be the redemption of all for death shall dye by my death Thus expoundeth Cirill the wordes of Christ that when he sayd I will geue he did not fulfill that promise in his spuper but in the crosse giuing vs life by his death not by eating and drinking of him in his supper as you most ignorantly say And yet all men may iudge how much I beare with you when I call it but ignorance Now followeth myne answere to the authors wrested by the papistes Now that I haue made a full direct and playne answer to the vayne reasons and cauilations of the Papists order requireth to make likewise answer vnto their sophisticall allegations and wresting of authors vnto their phantasticall purposes There be chiefely three places which at the first shew seeme much to make for their intent but when they shall be throughly wayed they make nothing for them at all The first is a place of Ciprian in his sermon of the Lords supper where he sayth as is alledged in the Detection of the deuils Sophistry This bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples changed in Nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotency of gods word made flesh Here the Papists sticke tooth and nayle to these wordes Changed in nature Ergo say they the nature of the bread is changed Here is one chiefe poynt of the diuels sophistry vsed who in the allegation of Scripture vseth euer eyther to adde therto or to take away from it or to alter the sence therof And so haue they in this author left out those wordes which would open playnly all the whole matter For next the wordes which be here before of them recited do follow these wordes As in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity was hid euen so did the diuinity ineffably put it selfe into the visible sacrament Which wordes of Ciprian do manifestly shew that the sacrament doth still remayne with the diuinity and that sacramentally the diuinity is poured into the bread and wine the same bread wine still remayning like as the same diuinity by vnity of person was in the humanity of Christ the same humanity still remayning with the diuinite And yet the bread is changed not in shape nor substance but in nature as Ciprian truly sayth not meaning that the naturall substance of bread is cleane gone but that by Gods word there is added therto an other higher propertie nature and condition farre passing the nature and condition of common bread that is to say that the bread doth shew vnto vs as the same Ciprian sayth that we be partaker of the spirite of God and most purely ioyned vnto Christ and spiritually fead with his flesh and bloud so that now the sayde misticall bread is both a corporall food for the body and a spirituall foode for the soule And likewise is the nature of the water changed in baptisme for as much as beside his common nature which is to wash and make cleane the body it declareth vnto vs that our soules be also washed and made cleane by the holy ghost And thus is answered the chiefe authoritie of the doctours which the Papists take for the principall defence of their errour But for further declaration of S. Ciprians mind herein reade the place of him before recited fol. 320. Winchester First in Ciprian who speaketh playnly in the matter this author findeth a fault that he is not wholy alleadged wherupon this author brought in the sentence following not necessary to be rehersed for the matter of Transubstantiation and handsome to be rehersed for the ouerthrowe of the rest of this authors new catholique fayth and whither that now shall be added was materiall in the matter of Transubstantiation I require the Iudgement of thee O reader The first wordes of Ciprian be these This bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples changed in nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotencye of gods word made flesh These be Ciprians wordes and then follow these As in the persone of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden euen so the diuinite ineffably infused it selfe into the visible Sacrament Thus sayth Ciprian as I can English him to expresse the word Infudit by Latin English not liking the English word shed bicause in our English tongue it resembleth spilling euacuation of the whole and much lesse I can agree to vse the word powring although Iufundo in Latine may in the vse of earthly thinges signifie so bicause powring noteth a successiue working
say they doth not Chrisostomus the great clerke say most playnly that we see neither bread nor wine but that as waxe in the fier they be consumed to nothing so that no substance remayneth But if they had rehersed no more but the very next sentence that followeth in Chrisostome which craftely and maliciously they leaue out the meaning of S. Ihon Chrisostome would easely haue appeared and yet will make them blush if they be not vtterly past shame For after the foresayd wordes of Chrisostome immediately follow these wordes Wherfore sayth he when ye come to these misteries do not thinke that you receaue by a man the body of God but that with tongues you receaue fier by the angelles Seraphin And straight after it followeth thus Thinke that the bloud of Saluation floweth out of the pure and godly side of Christ and so comming to it receaue it with pure lippes Wherfore bretheren I pray you and beseech you let vs not be from the church nor let vs not be occupied there with vayne communication but let vs stand fearefull and trembling casting downe our eies lifting vp our mindes mourning priuily without speach and reioysing in our hartes These wordes of Chrisostom do follow immediately after the other words which the Papistes before rehersed Therfore if the Papistes will gather of the wordes by them recited that there is neither bread nor wine in the sacrament I may aswell gather of the wordes that follow that there is neither priest nor Christes body For as in the former sentence Chrisostome sayth that we may not thinke what we see bread wine so in the second sentence he sayth that we may not thinke that we receaue the body of Christ of the priestes handes Wherfore if vpon the second sentence as the Papists them selues will say it cannot be truly gathered that in the holy communion there is not the body of Christ ministred by the priest then must they confesse also that it cannot be well and truely gathered vpon the first sentence that there is no bread nor wine But there be all these thinges togither in the holy communion Christ himselfe spiritually eaten and drunken and nourishing the right beleuers the bread and wine as a sacrament declaring the same and the priest as a minister therof Wherfore S. Ihon Chrisostome ment not absolutely to deny that there is bread and wine or to deny vtterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there but he vseth a speach which is no pure Negatiue but a Negatiue by comparison Which fashion of speach is commonly vsed not onely in the Scripture and among all good authors but also in all manner of languages For when two thinges be compared togither in the extolling of the more excellent or abasing of the more vile is many tymes vsed a Negatiue by comparison which neuerthelesse is no pure Negatiue but onely in the respect of the more excellent or the more base As by example When the people reiecting the prophet Samuell desired to haue a king almighty God sayd to Samuell They haue not reiected thee but me Not meaning by this negatiue absolutely that they had not reiected Samuell in whose place they desired to haue a king but by that one negatiue by comparison he vnderstood two affirmatiues that is to say that they had reiected Samuell and not him alone but also that they had chiefely reiected God And when the Prophet Dauid sayd in the persone of Christ I am a worme and not a man by this negatiue he denyed not vtterly that Christ was a man but the more vehemently to expresse the great humiliation of Christ he sayd that he was not abased onely to the nature of man but was brought so low that he might rather be called a worme then a man This maner of speach was familiar and vsuall to S. Paule as when he sayd It is not I that do it but it is the sinne that dwelleth in me And in an other place he sayth Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach the gospell And agayne he sayth My speach and preaching was not in wordes of mans perswasion but in manifest declaration of the spirite and power And he sayth also Neither he that grafteth nor he that watereth is any thing but God that giueth the increase And he sayth moreouer It is not I that liue but Christ liueth within me And God forbid that I should reioyce in any thing but in the crosse of our Lord Iesu Christ. And further We do not wrastle agaynst flesh and bloud but agaynst the spirites of darkenes In all these sentences and many other like although they be negatiues neuertheles S. Paule ment not clearly to deny that he did that euill wherof he spake or vtterly to say that he was not sent to baptise who in deede did baptise at certayne times and was sent to do all thinges that pertayned to saluation or that in his office of setting forth of Gods word he vsed no witty perswasions which in deede he vsed most discretely or that the grafter and waterer be nothing which be Gods creatures made to his similitude and without whose worke there should be no increase or to say that he was not aliue who both liued and ranne from countrey to countrey to set forth Gods glory or clearly to affirme that he gloried and reioysed in no other thing than in Christes crosse who reioyced with all men that were in ioy and sorowed with all that were in sorrow or to deny vtterly that we wrastle agaynst flesh and bloud which cease not dayly to wrastle and warre agaynst our enemies the world the flesh and the diuill In all these sentences S. Paule as I sayd ment not clearly to deny these thinges which vndoubtedly were all true but he ment that in comparison of other greater thinges these smaller were not much to be esteemed but that the greater thinges were the chief thinges to be considered As that sinne committed by his infirmitie was rather to be imputed to originall sinne or corruption of nature which lay lurking within him than to his owne will and consent And that although he was sent to bapise yet he was chiefly sent to preach Gods word And that although he vsed wise and discret perswasions therin yet the successe therof came principally of the power of God and of the working of the holy spirite And that although the grafter and waterer of the gardeyn be some thinges and do not a little in their offices yet it is God chiefly that giueth the increase And that although he liued in this world yet his chiefe life concerning God was by Christ whome he had liuing within him And that although he gloried in many other thinges ye in his owne infirmities yet his greatest ioy was in the redemption by the crosse of Christ. And that although our spirite dayly fighteth agaynst our flesh yet our chief and principall fight is agaynst our
thereunto in the same place And where you haue set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall man after your owne imagination you haue so well deuised the matter that you haue made ii extremities without any meane For the true faythfull man would answere not as you haue deuised but he would say according to the old catholick fayth and teaching of the Apostles Euangelists Martyrs and confessours of Christes Churche that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts the earthly and the heauenly The earthly is the bread and wine the other is Christ himselfe The earthly is without vs the heauenlye is within vs The earthlye is eaten with our mouthes and carnally feedeth our bodies the heauenly is eaten with our inward man and spiritually feedeth the same The earthly feedeth vs but for a tyme the heauenly feedeth vs for euer Thus would the true faythfull man answere without leaning vnto any extremity either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accideÌ„ces of bread but professing beleuing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heauen and yet spiritually to dwell in his faythfull people and they in him vnto the worldes ende This is the true catholicke fayth of Christ taught from the first beginning and neuer corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers And where you say that one thing is but one substaunce sauing onelye in the person of Christ your teaching is vntrue not onely in the person of Christ but also in euery man who is made of ij substaunces the body and soule And if you had beene learned in philosophy you would haue founde your saying false also in euery corporall thing which consisteth of ij substaunces of the matter and of the forme And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament So vntrue it is that you moste vainely boast here that your doctrine hath bene taught in all ages and bene the catholicke faith which was neuer the catholique but onely the Papisticall fayth as I haue euidentlye proued by holy scripture and the old catholick authors wherein truely and directly you haue not aunswered to one Winchester In whose particular words although there may be sometime cauillations yet I will note to the reader foure marks and tokens imprinted rather in those olde authors deeds then wordes which be certayne testimonies to the truth of their fayth of the reall presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguing vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacrament wherein I note not the particuler sentences which sometime be daungerous speches but their whole doinges As Irene who was in the beginning of the church argueth agaynst the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh whome Irene reproueth by the féeding of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified fleshe of Christ in the Sacrament which flesh and â—t be there but in a figure then it should haue proued the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratiuely And if the Catholicke fayth had not bene then certainely taught and constantly beleued without varience Christes very flesh to be indeede eaten in that mistery it would haue beene aunswered of the heretickes if had bene but a figure but that appeareth not and the other appeareth which is a testimony to the truth of matter indéed Hylary reasonyng of the naturall coniunction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to come to passe by the receiuyng truely the very flesh of our Lord in our Lordes meate and thereupon argueth agaynst the Arrians which Arrians if it had not bene so really in déede would haue aunswered but all was spiritually so as there was no such naturall and corporall Communion in déede as Hylary supposed but as this author teacheth a figure and it had bene the Catholicke doctrine so that argument of Hylary had bene of no force Saint Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to conuince the Appolinaristes and Eutichians which were none argument if Christes very body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the Godhead is in the person of Christ beyng the effect of the argument this that as the presence of Christes body in this mistery doth not alter the propertie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie which agaynst those heretickes serued for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous arguyng to be embraced of the Nestorians who would hereby haue furthered their heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they would haue sayd As the earthly and heauenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanitie and Godhead not vnited in Christ which is false and in the comparynges we may not looke that all should aunswere in equalitie but onely for the point that it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanitie by his Godhead and yet we may not say that as in the Sacrament be but onely accidents of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidentes of the humanitie For that mistery requireth the whole truth of maÌ„s nature and therfore Christ tooke vpon him the whole man body and soule The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidentes onely beyng the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ. And this I write to preuent such cauillations as some would search for But to returne to our matter all these argumentes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very body as the celestiall part of the Sacrament beyng the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remayneth in the former proprietie with the very presence of the celestiall thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke Caunterbury AS for your foure markes tokens if you marke them well you shall perceaue most manifestly your ignorauÌ„ce and errour how they note and appoint as it were with their fingers your doctrine to be erronious as well of Transubstantiation as of the reall presence And to begyn with your first marke Irenee in deede proued the resurrection of our bodyes vnto eternall lyfe bycause our bodyes be nourished with the euerlastyng foode of Christes body And therfore as that foode is euerlastyng so it beyng ioyned vnto his eternall deitie giueth to our bodies euerlastyng lyfe And if the beyng of Christes body in any creature should geue the same lyfe then it might peraduenture be thought of some fooles that if it were in the bread it should giue life to the bread But
neither reason learnyng nor fayth beareth that Christes body beyng onely in bread should gyue life vnto a man So that if it were an Article of our faith to beleue that Christ is present in the formes of bread and wine it were an vnprofitable Article seyng that his being in the bread should profit no man Irenee therefore meaneth not of the beyng of Christ in the bread and wyne but of the eatyng of him And yet he meaneth not of corporall eating for so Christ sayth him selfe that his flesh auayleth nothing but spirituall eatyng by fayth Nor he speaketh not of spirituall eatyng in receauyng of the Sacrament onely for then our lyfe should not be eternall nor endure no longer then we be eating of the sacrament for our spirituall life cōtinueth no lōger thē our spirituall feedyng And then could none haue lyfe but that receaue the Sacramēt and all should haue perished that dyed before Christes Supper and institutiō of the Sacrament or that dye vnder age before they receiue the Sacrament But the true meaning of Irenee Hilary Cyprian Cyrill and other that treated of this matter was this that as Christ was truely made man and crucified for vs and shed his bloud vpon the Crosse for our redemption now reigneth for euer in heauen so as many as haue a true fayth and belefe in him chawyng their cuddes and perfectly remembryng the same death and passion which is the spirituall eatyng of his flesh and drinkyng of his bloud they shall reigne in euerlastyng lyfe with him For they spiritually and truely by faith eate his flesh and drinke his bloud whether they were before the institution of the Sacrament or after And the beyng or not beyng of Christes body and bloud really and corporally in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine neither maketh nor marreth nor is to no purpose in this matter But for confirmation of this our fayth in Christes death and passion for a perpetuall memory of the same hath Christ ordeined this holy Sacrament not to be kept but to be ministred among vs to our singular comfort that as outwardly and corporally we eate the very bread and drinke the very wine and call them the body and bloud of Christ so inwardly and spiritually we eate drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally he is in heauen and shall be vntill the last Iudgement when he shall come to Iudge both the quicke and the dead And in the Sacrament that is to say in the due ministration of the Sacrament Christ is not onely figuratiuely but effectually vnto euerlastyng lyfe And this teachyng impugneth the heresies of the Ualentinians Arrians and other heretickes and so doth not your fayned doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine and that vngodly and wicked men eate and drinke the same which shall be cast away from the eternall lyfe and perish for euer And for further aunswere to Hilary I referre the Reader to myne other aunswere made to him before And for S. Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete if there be no bread and wine in the Sacrament their Argumentes serue for the heretickes purpose and cleane directly agaynst them selues For their entent agaynst the heretickes is to proue that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soule and a perfect body and to be perfect God and perfect man As to the full perfection of the Sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine and the perfect body and bloud of Christ. So that now turnyng the Argument if there be no perfect bread and wine as the Papistes falsely surmise then may the heretickes cōclude agaynst the Catholicke fayth and conuince Chrisostome Gelasius Theodorete with their own weapon that is to say with their own similitude that as in the Sacramēt lacketh the earthly part so doth in Christ lacke his humanitie And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine and yet is none in deede so shall they argue by this similitude that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and bloud and yet was there none in very deede And thus by your deuilish Trāsubstantiation of bread and wine do you trāsubstantiate also the body and bloud of Christ not conuincyng but confirmyng most haynous heresies And this is the conclusion of your vngodly fayned doctrine of transubstantiation And where you would gather the same cōclusion if Christes flesh and bloud be not really present it seemeth that you vnderstand not the purpose and intent of these Authors For they bring not this similitude of the Sacrament for the reall presence but for the reall beyng That as the Sacrament consisteth in two partes one earthly an other heauenly the earthly part beyng the bread and wine and the heauenly the body and bloud of Christ and these partes be all truely and really in deede without colour or simulation that is to say very true bread and wine in deede the very true body and bloud of Christ in deede euē likewise in Christ be two natures his humanitie and earthly substaunce and his diuinitie and heauēly substaunce and both these be true natures and substaunces without colour or dissemblyng And thus is this similitude of the Sacrament brought in for the truth of the natures not for the presence of the natures For Christ was perfect God and perfect man whē his soule went downe to hell and his body lay in the graue bycause the body and soule were both still vnited vnto his diuinitie and yet it was not required that his soule should be present with the body in the sepulture no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the Sacrament but as the soule was then in hell so is his body now in heauen And as it is not required that where so euer Christes diuinitie is there should be really and corporally his manhode so it is not required that where the bread and wyne be there should be corporally his flesh and bloud But as you frame the Argument agaynst the heretickes it serueth so litle agaynst them that they may with the same frame and engine ouerthrow the whole Catholicke Church For thus you frame the Argument As the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth not alter the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie Marke well now good Reader what foloweth hereof As the presence of Christes body in this mysterie doth not alter say you the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie But the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures as the Papistes say that the substaunces of bread and wyne be extinguished and there remayneth no substaūce but of the body of Christ Ergo likewise in the
at the holy communion by remembrance of the death resurrection and ascention of his sonne Iesu Christ and by confessing and setting forth of the same Heare by the vngodly handeling of this godly councell at his first beginning it may appeare to euery man how sincerely this Papist entendeth to proceede in the rest of this matter And with like sinceritie he vntruly belieth the sayd counsell saying that it doth playnly set forth the holy sacrifice of the Masse wich doth not so much as once name the Masse but speaketh of the sacrifice of the church which the sayd councell declareth to be the profession of christen people in setting forth the benefite of Christ who onely made the true sacrifice pro piciatory for remission of sinne And whosoeuer else taketh vpon him to make any such sacrifice maketh himselfe Antichrist And than he belyeth me in two thinges as he vseth commonly throughout his whole booke The one is that I deny the sacrifice of the Masse which in my booke haue most playnly set out the sacrifice of christen people in the holy communion or masse if D. Smith will needes so terme it and yet I haue denyed that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for sinne or that the priest alone maketh any sacrifice there For it is the sacrifice of all christen people to remember Christes death to laude and thanke him for it and to publish it and shew it abroad vnto other to his honor and glory The controuersy is not whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not for herein both D. Smith and I agree with the foresayd councell at Ephesus but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not and whether onely the priest make the sayd sacrifice these be the poyntes wherin we vary And I say so far as the councell sayth that there is a sacrifice but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sinne or that the priest alone doth offer it neyther I nor the counsell do so say but D. Smith hath added that of his owne vayne head The other thing wherin D. Smith belyeth me is this He sayth that I deny that we receaue in the sacrament that flesh which is adioyned to Gods owne sonne I meruaile not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had when he red ouer my booke It is like that he hath some priuy spectacles within his head wherwith when soeuer he loketh he seeth but what he list For in my booke I haue written in moe then an hundred places that we receaue the selfe same body of Christ that was borne of the virgine Mary that was crucified and buried that rose agayne ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty And the contention is onely in the manner and forme how we receaue it For I say as all the olde holy Fathers and Martirs vsed to say that we receaue Christ spiritually by fayth with our myndes eating his flesh and drincking his bloud so that we receaue Christes owne very naturall body but not naturally nor corporally But this lying papist sayth that we eate his naturall body corporally with our mouthes which neyther the counsell Ephesine nor any other auncient councell or doctor euer sayd or thought And the controuersy in the councell Ephesine was not of the vniting of Christes flesh to the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament but of the vniting of his flesh to his diuinity at his incarnation in vnity of person Which thing Nestorius the heretike denyed confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were but not that he was very God in nature which heresy that holy counsell confuting affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so ioyned in person to the dyuine nature that it was made the proper flesh of the sonne of God and flesh that gaue life but that the sayd flesh was present in the sacramēt corporally and eaten with our mouthes no mention is made therof in that councell And here I require D. Smith as proctor for the Papists eyther to bring forth some auncient councell or doctor that sayth as he sayth that Christs own naturall body is eaten corporally with our mouthes vnderstanding the very body in deed and not the signes of the body as Chrisostome doth or els let him confesse that my saying is true and recant his false doctrine the third tyme as he hath done twise already THan forth goeth this Papist with his preface and sayth that these wordes This is my body that shall be giuen to death for you no man can truely vnderstand of bread And his profe therof is this bicause that bread was not crucified for vs. First here he maketh a lye of Christ. For Christ said not as this papist alleadgeth This is my body which shal be giuen to death for you but onely he sayth This is my body which is giuen for you which wordes some vnderstand not of the giuing of the body of Christ to death but of the breaking and giuing of bread to his apostles as S. Paule sayd The bread which we breake c. But let it be that he spake of the geuing of his body to death and said of the bread This is my body which shal be geuen to death for you by what reason can you gather hereof that the bread was crucified for vs If I looke vpon the image of kinge Dauid and say This is he that killed Goliath doth this speach mean that the image of King Dauid killed Goliath Or if I hold in my hand my booke of S. Iohns gospell and say This is the gospell that S. Iohn wrote at Pathmos which fashion of speach is commonly vsed doth it folow hereof that my booke was written at Pathmos Or that S. Iohn wrote my booke which was but newly printed at Paris by Robert Stephanus Or if I say of my booke of S. Paules epistles This is Paule that was the great persecuter of Christ Doth this manner of speach signify that my booke doth persecute Christ Or if I shew a booke of the new testament saying This is the new testament which brought life vnto the world by what forme of argument can you induce hereof that my booke that I bought but yesterday brought life vnto the world No man that vseth thus to speake doth meane of the bookes but of the very thinges themselues that in the bookes be taught and contayned And after the same wise if Christ called bread his body saying This is my body which shall be giuen to death for you yet he ment not that the bread should be giuen to death for vs but his body which by the bread was signified If this excellent clarke and doctor vnderstand not these maner of speaches that be so playne then hath he doth lost his sences and forgotten his gramer which teacheth to referre the relatiue to the next antecedent But of these figuratiue speaches I haue spokē at large in my third booke First in the