reader the sayinges of these authors and see whether they say that one nature in Christ may be both in heauen and in earth both here with vs and absent from vs at one tyme and whether they resolue this matter of Christs being in heauen and in earth as Smith doth to be vnderstand of his māhoode in diuersitie of these respectes visible and inuisible And when thou hast well considered the authors sayinges then geue credite to Smith as thou shalt see cause But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hote that the Bishop of Winchester durste not once touch it and Smith as soone as he had touched it felt it so scawlding hote that he durst not abyde it but shranke away by and by for feare of burning his fingers Now here what followeth further in my booke But now seeing that it is so euident a matter both by the expresse words of Scripture and also by all the old authors of the same that our Sauiour Christ as concerning his bodely presence is ascended into heauen and is not here in earth And seeing that this hath been the true confession of the Catholicke faith euer since Christes ascention it is now to be considered what mooued the Papistes to make a new and contrary faith and what Scriptures haue they for their purpose What moued them I know not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condition of the sea of Rome which is of al other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for Scripture they alleadge none but onely one and that not truely vnderstanded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to iarre and sound contrary to all other Scriptures pertaining to the matter Christ toke bread say they blessed brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body These words they euer still repeate and beate vpon that Christ sayd this is my body And this saying they make their shooteanker to proue therby as well the reall and naturall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these words of Christ say they be most plain and most true Then for as much as he said This is my body it must needes be true that that thing which the Priest holdeth is his hands is Christs body And if it be Christes body then can it not be bread Whereof they gather by their reasoning that there is Christes body really present and noe bread Now forasmuch as all their proofe hangeth onely vpon these wordes this is my body the true sence and meaning of these wordes must be examined But say they what neede they any examination what wordes can be more plain then to say This is my body Truth it is in deed that the wordes be as plain as may be spoaken but that the sence is not so plain it is manifest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For when Christ gaue bread to his disciples and said This is my body there is no man of any discretiō that vnderstandeth the english tongue but he may well know by the order of the speache that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the old authors also do affirme although some of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the wordes seeme and purport but there must needes be some figure or mistery in this speech more then appeareth in the playne wordes For by this manner of speeche plainly vnderstand without any figure as the wordes lye can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread which all Christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherefore in these wordes must needes be sought out another sence meaning then the words of themselues do beare And although the true sense and vnderstanding of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the matter so playne that no scrouple or doubt shall remayne here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whiche processe shal be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speches And although it be manifest inough by the playn wordes of the gospel and proued before in the processe of Transubstantiation that Christ spake of bread when he sayd This is my body likewise that it was very wyne which he called his bloud yet least the Papistes should say that we sucke this out of our own fyngers the same shall be proued by testimony of the old authors to be the true and old fayth of the catholicke Church Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any auncient author to the contrary First Ireneus writing against the Valentinians in his fourth booke sayeth that Christ confessed bread which is a creature to be his body and the cuppe to be his bloud And in the same booke he writeth thus also The bread wherin the thanks be geuen is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same booke he saith that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice was his bloud And in the fift booke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his body a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plain that Christ taking very materiall bread a creature of God and of such sort as other bread is which we doe vse called that his body when he said this is my body and the wine also which doth feede and nourish vs he called his bloud Tertullian likewise in his booke written against the Iewes saith that Christ called bread his body And in his booke against Martian he oftentimes repeateth the selfe same wordes And S. Cipryan in the first booke of his epistles saith the same thing that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he called his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes and made into mine And in his second booke he saith these wordes Water is not the bloud of Christ but wine And againe in the same epistle he saith that it was wine which Christ called hys bloud and that if wine be not in the chalice then we drinke not of the fruit of the vine And in the same Epistle he saith that meale alone or water clone is not the body of Christ except they be both ioyned together to make therof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speaking of a lofe which is round in fashion and cannot see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierome wryting ad Hedibiam saith
nature quantity without substance hath neither filling nor being And although I do not say that by the doctrine of Transubstantiation there remayneth nothing so that all that you speake to answere that matter is to no purpose but res vacua yet by the doctrine of Transubstantiation ioyned vnto nature there should remayne vtterly nothing in deede for substance remayneth none by your doctrine of Transubstantiation and without substance can be no accidents by the rules of nature Therfore comparing your doctrine and nature together eyther you must recant your doctrine of Transubstantiatiō or confesse that nothing remayneth or at the least graunt that your teaching repugneth to the order of nature which suffiseth for me in this place where my purpose is onely to shew how the doctrine of Transubstantiatiō is agaynst nature and reason Now where you so often speake of the visible forme of bread remayning by this word forme you swetely deceaue your selfe thinking that it doth much auaunce your fayth of Transubstantiation vnderstanding by that word the accidences similitudes and likenes without substance remayning misunderstanding both holy scripture and the auncient doctors S. Paule speaking of Christes incarnation sayth that he being in forme of God did humble him selfe taking vpon him the forme of man By which wordes S. Paule ment not that Christ was like vnto god and not God indede nor yet that he was like vnto man and not very man in dede but that he was and is very God and very man hauing .ii. substances one of his Godhead and the other of his manhod vnited together in one person And the aunciēt doctors writing of this sacrament when they speake of the formes of bread and wine do vse this vocable forme as S. Paule vseth it to signify very bread and very wine or the substances of bread and wine and not the similitude or likenes of bread and wine without the substances as you fantasy and imagine And you after this sort wrasting holy scriptures and doctors for maintenaunce of your error of Transubstantiation do lead your selfe craftely into an other heinous errour if this your proposition be true that the graunt of one substance is a deniall of any other which is to deny Christ eyther to be very God or man For by your sentence if he in substance be God then can he not haue the substance of man for the graunt of one substance is a deniall of any other as ye say And like as ye do erre in misunderstanding of the Scripture and Doctours so do you erre in reason and iudgement of thinges your owne eyes nose mouth and fingers bearing witnes agaynst you of your wilfull error and folly For what man is liuing which hath his right wittes that can beleeue as you teach that the proper obiect of euery sence remayneth that is to say colour taste sauoure c and yet the former substance of bread and wine is gone And here to further your belefe of Transubstantiation you do exaggerat your accustomed absurdity of Impanation of Christes body as if euery man that beleueth not your errour of Transubstantiation must of necessity fall into the errour of Impanation or as if I defended the sayd Impanatiō But whether I defended any such fonde opinion or no or whether I haue herein sufficiently answered the Papistes I referre to the iudgement of all wise and learned men that be any thing indifferent which haue redde my booke And as concerning naturall reason where you say it will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well inough if the fayth of the true presence of Christes very body be true For aunswere hereto I say that if your phantasticall belefe of the reall presence of Christes naturall body in the sacrament were as true as the gospell as none opinion can be more erronious and fond yet would both fayth and reason iudge that there were still bread Fayth bicause holy scripture manifestly sayth so Reason bicause it is so not onely to all our sences but also in all the effects and opperations of bread And reason can not discerne but that Christes body may be as well present with the substance of bread as with the accidents and that rather also forasmuch as you confesse your selfe that after the rules of nature quantity filleth the place rather then substaunce And so may reason iudge the body of Christ to be the body of Christ and yet the bread to be the bread still and wine to be wine and no bread nor none other confusion of natures to be there agaynst reason And as touching naturall operation in the handling therof you shew your ignoraunce in naturall philosophy which teacheth that in mutation from one quality to an other is required one substance to receaue both the qualities For white of it selfe can not be made blacke nor colde hotte but one substance may be now hote now colde now blacke now white As cold water may be made hote although colde in it selfe can not be hote Therfore you can not blame me to thinke in this a great inconuenience and absurdity in nature that swetenes of it selfe should change into sowernes when the substance of wine is gone and no substance remayning to receaue this mutation this matter being so cleane contrary to the precepts and rules of naturall philosophy And I meruayle that you can not see how much Ulpian whome you alleadge maketh agaynst your selfe and with my saying that both in wine and viniger remayneth substance which is changed from swete to sower so that the sweete of it selfe is not made sower but that substaunce which before was sweete is after sower And therfore what great skill you haue in citing of Ulpian to proue that the accidents of wine without substance do sower and waxe viniger let the wise reader iudge But Ulpian semeth to me to haue an other sense then all men can perceaue but I will not discusse the minde of Ulpian because I am no lawyer least you should cast the prouerbe in my teeth Ne sutor vltra crepidam But to what purpose you should bring in the diuersity of iudgements in naturall operations and the extreme fondnes of philosophers some in mouing some in staying I can not deuise except it be the permission of God that as some of the philosophers by their fond opinions in nature made themselues laughing stocks to all men of reason so should ye Papists do And yet so much more is the Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation to be laughed to scorne of all men as it passeth the fondnes of all the philosophers and that so farre that the fondest of the philosophers would haue laughed at it and haue clapped it out of their scholes with one consent as an opinion more mete for frantike and mad men then for men of naturall reason And as fond opinions as some philosophers had yet was there none that so farre erred in reason to say that accidences might stand without any substance but all with
sunne and the moone of a man and a beast of fish and flesh betwene the body of one beast and an other one herbe and an other one tree an other betwene a man and a woman Yea betwene our body and Christes and generally betwene any one corporall thing and an other For is not the distinction of all bodely substances knowen by their accidents without the which a mans body can not be knowen to be a mans body And as substances can not be substances without accidents so the nature of accidentes can not be without substāces whose being deffinitiō is to be in substāces But as you speake of substances and accidentes agaynst scripture sense reason experience and all learning so doe you also speake manifestly agaynst your selfe For you say that euery thing that is must haue a substance wherein it is stayde and that euery naturall visible thing is of two partes of substance and accidentes and yet by your Transubstantiation you leaue no substance at all to stay the accidentes of the bread and wine And moreouer this is a meruaylous teaching of you to say that the accidents of bread be one parte of breade and be called the outward kinde of bread the sensible parte of bread the nature and matter of bread and very bread Was there euer any such learning taught before this day that accidentes should be called partes of substances the nature of substances and the matter of substances and the very substāces themselues If euer any man so wrotte tell who it is or els knowledge the truth that all these matters be inuented by your owne imagination wherof the rude man may right well say Here is sophistry in deede and playne iuggling But you conuey not your iuggling so craftely but that you be taken as the Grekes terme it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen with the māner Now as concerning your expert lapidarie if his sences be deceaued how shall he iudge a true stone from a counterfaite Doth he not diligently looke vpon it with his sight to discerne truely of it For tell me I pray you how a man without sences shall iudge a true diamond Put out his eyes and is not a white saphire a diamond and a glas all one in his iudgemēt Mary if he be a man of cleare sight of true knowledge and experience in the iudgement of stones and be therewithall a man of good fayth and honesty as you tell the tale they that be ignorant will be ashamed to controll his iudgement But if he be blinde or be a man neither of fayth nor honesty but his experience hath ben euer exercised to deceaue all that trust him and to sell them white saphirs for diamondes then no man that wise is will take a glas or saphire at his handes of trust although he say it be a true diamond Euen so likewise the Papistes being so accustomed with these marchandises of glistering glasses and counterfayte drugges to deceaue the world what wise men will trust them with their fayned Transubstantiation being so manifestly agaynst the playne wordes of scripture agaynst all reason sence and auncient writers And although you haue taken neuer so great labor and paynes in this place to answere myne argumentes wherin you do nothing els but shew your ignorance in philosophy and logike yet all is in vayne except you could proue Transubstantiation to be a matter of our fayth which being not proued all that you haue spoken here serueth to no purpose nor concludeth nothing For you are not so ignorant in sophistry but you know well though that of a false Antecedent can no Consequent directly follow And as concerning these wordes of Christ This is my body by your owne teaching in these wordes he called bread his body which can be no formall and proper speach but spoken by a figure as the order of the text playnly declareth and all the old authors do testify And where you say that although the substance of bread and wine be gone yet the sences haue their proper obiect still remayning as they had before that is to say the colours greatnes thicknes weight sauour and tast expresse thē I pray you playnly what thing it is that is coloured great thinne or thicke heauy or light sauoury or tasted For seing you confesse that these do remayn you must confesse also that there remayneth bread For that greatnes thicknes thinnes colours and weight be not in the body of Christ nor in the ayre which can not be wayed and in some thing they must nedes be for by your owne saying euery thing hath a substance to stay it therfore they must nedes be in the substance of bread and wine And to say that the accidents of bread be the natures matters and substances therof is nothing els but to declare to the world that you make wordes to signify at your pleasure But other shift haue you none to defend your Transubstantiation but to deuise such monstrous kindes of speaches as neuer was heard of before For you say that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine remayne not but be changed into the body and bloud of Christ the olde writers say directly contrary that the nature matter and substance remayne Christ sayth Theodoret called bread and wine his body and bloud and yet changed not their natures And agayne he sayth The bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substance forme and figure which they had before And Origene sayth that the matter of bread auayleth nothing but as concerning the materiall part therof it goeth downe into the bealy and is auoyded downward And Gelasius sayth that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be Now seeing that your doctrine who teach that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine be changed and remayne not is as cleane contrary to these olde writers with many other as black is contrary to white and light to darknes You haue no remedy to defend your errour and wilfull opinion but to imagine such portentuous and wonderfull kindes of speaches to be spoken by these authors as neuer were vttered before by no man that is to say that the outward aparance and accidences of any thing should be called the nature matter and substance therof But such monsters had you rather bring forth then you would in one iote relent in your errour once by you vttered and vndertaken by you defended And yet bring you nothing for the profe of your saying but that if the authors wordes should be vnderstand as they be spoken this should follow thereof that bread and wine should be seene and felt which as no man doubteth of but all men take it for a most certayne truth so you take it for a greate inconuenience and absurdity So farre be you forced in this matter to vary in speach and iudgement from the sentence and opinion of all men And
remayne still in the nature and also how besides the outward receauing of bread and wine Christ is inwardly by fayth receaued in our heartes all this I say he doth so playnly set out that more playnnesse can not be reasonably desired in this matter For he sayth that the conuersion of the visible creatures of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ is like vnto our conuersion in baptisme where outwardly nothing is chaunged but remayneth the same that was before but all the alteration is inwardly and spiritually If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vpon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme when thou wast farre from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast deade yet sodenly thou beganst an other life in Christ wast made new by holsome misteries wast turned into the body of the church not by seeing but by beleuing and of the child of damnation by a secret purenes thou wast made the chosen sonne of God Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body Thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the increase of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was man made the sonne of Christ and Christ fourmed in the mind of man Therfore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receaue a new dignite not feeling any change in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not sene with thine eyes but are beleued in thy mind so likewise when thou doest go vp to the reuerend altar to feede vpon spirituall meate in thy fayth looke vpon the body and bloud of him that is thy God honor him touch him with thy mind take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drincke him with the draught of thy inward man Hitherto haue I rehersed the sayinges of Eusebius which be so playne that no man can wish more playnly to be declared that this mutation of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ is a sacramentall mutation and that outwardly nothing is changed But as outwardly we eate the bread and drincke the wine with our mouthes so inwardly by fayth we spiritually eate the very flesh and drincke the very bloud of Christ. Winchester As touching Emissene by whose wordes is expressely testified the truth of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and also the sence of the doctrine of Transubstantiation this author maketh himselfe bold ouer him and so bold that he dare corrupt him which Emissene writeth not that man is turned into the body of the church And here I make an issue with this author that Emissene hath not that word of turning in that place and man to be turned into the body of the church is no conuenient speach to signifie a change in him that is regenerat by baptisme He in dede that is thrust out of the chauncell for his misdemeanour in seruise tyme may be sayd turned into the body of the church But Emissene speaketh not so here but bicause the same Emissene declaring the mistery of the Sacramēt sayth the visible creatures be turned into the substance of the body of Christ this author thought it would sound gayly well to the confusion of that true doctrine of turning to speake in Baptisme of the turning of a man into the body of the church And it may be commonly obserued in this author when he alleadgeth any authority of others he bringeth forth the same in such forme of wordes as he would haue them and not as they be for the most part or very often and once of purpose were ouer often in so high a matter as this is And yet in this Emissens authority after all the payne taken to reforge him Emissens doctrine playnly confoundeth this Authors teaching This author maketh a note that there is in man baptised nothing changed outwardly and therfore in the Sacrament neyther and it must be graunted For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outward change For the substance of the bread and wine is an inward nature and so is substance of one defined And to speake of the thing changed then as in man the change is in the soule which is the substance of man So for the thing changed in the visible creatures should be also changed and is changed the substance of the bread and wine to answere therein to the other And we must consider how this comparison of the two changes is made as it were by proportion wherein ech change hath his speciall end and terme whereunto and therfore according to the terme and end hath his worke of change speciall and seuerall both by gods worke Thus I meane The visible creatures hath there ende and terme wherunto the change is made the very body and bloud of Christ which body being a true body we must say is a corporall substance The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration incorporall to be regenerate the sonne of God And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this that each changers is of like truth and then it followeth that if the change of mans soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure the change likewise in the sacrament is also true and not in a figure And if mans soule by the change in Baptisme be in deede that is to say really made the sonne of God then is the substance of the bread which is as it were the soule of the bread I am bolde here in speach to vse the word soule to expresse proportion of the comparison but euen so is the inward nature of the bread which is substance turned and changed in to the body of Christ being the terme and ende of that change And here I say so not to declare the manner but the truth of the ende that is to say as really and in deede the change is in the substance of bread as in the soule of man both these changes be meruaylous and both be in the truth of there change wherunto they be changed of like truth and realty to be done indeede they resemble one an other in the secrecie of the mistery and the ignorance of our senses for in neither is any outward change at all and therfore there was neuer man tripped himselfe more handsomly to take a fall then this author doeth in this place not onely in corrupting euidently and notably the words of Emissene without purpose wherby neuerthelesse he shewed his good will but also by setting forth such matter as ouerturneth all his teaching at once For now the author must
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
is it to offer Christes body and bloud at Masse to purchase thereby euerlastyng lyfe if it be not the Masse to be a Sacrifice to pacifie Gods wrath for sinne and to obtaine his mercy Smith fol. 24. 148. and .164 Priestes doe offer for our saluation to get Heauen to auoyde Hell fol. eodem ¶ Matters wherein the Byshop varied from him selfe THe body of Christ in the Sacramēt is not made of bread but is made present of bread pag. 79. lin 6. c. and pag. 202. lin 40. c. Of bread is made the body of Christ pag. 344. lin 8. The Catholicke fayth hath frō the beginnyng confessed truely Christes intent to make bread his body pag. 26. lin 40. Christ gaue that he made of bread pag. 257. lin 50. And of many breads is made one body of Christ pag. 144. lin 23. And fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ that is to say made the body of Christ pag. 295. lin 30. Christ spake playnly This is my body makyng demonstration of the bread when he sayd This is my body in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. I will passe ouer the phantasies of them who wrote the principall chief text This is my body from consecration of the Sacrament to the demonstration of Christes body c in the deuilish deuils Sophistry fol. 70. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 42. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine pag. 251. lin 8. Illis verbis hoc est Corpus meum substantia corporis significatur nec de pane quic quam intelligitur quum corpus de substantia sua nō aliena predicetur fol. 24. fa. 2. Mar Ant. Constant. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the litterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. What can be more euidently spoken of the presence of Christes naturall body and bloud in the most blessed Sacrament of the aultar than is in these wordes This is my body in the deuils Sophistry fol. 5. Where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quātitie pag. 71. lin 47. And he is present in the Sacrament as he is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. c. We beleue simply the substaunce of Christes body to be in the Sacrament without drawyng away of accidentes or adding pag. 353. lin 1. Christ is not present in the Sacrament after the maner of quantitie but vnder the forme and quantitie of bread and wine pag. 71. lin 50. pag. 90. lin 43. In such as receiue the Sacrament worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally and naturally and carnally pag. 166. lin 19. and pag. 173. lin 54. and pag. 191. lin 47. The maner of Christes beyng in the Sacrament is not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall pag. 159. lin 17. and pag. 197. lin 32. We receiue Christ in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receiue him worthely pag. 167. lin 9. and pag. 174. lin 1. When an vnrepentaunt sinner receiueth the Sacrament hee hath not Christes body within him pag. 225. lin 43. He that eateth verely the flesh of Christ is by nature in Christ Christ is naturally in him pag. 17. lin 38. c. An euill man in the Sacrament receiueth indeede Christes very body pag. eadem lin 7. Euill men eate verely the flesh of Christ pag. 225. lin 47. Christ geueth vs to be eaten the same flesh that hee tooke of the virgin pag. 241. lin 27. We receiue not in the Sacrament Christes body that was Crucified pag. 243. lin 16. Saint Augustines rule De doctrina Christiana pertaineth not to Christes Supper pag. 117. lin 21. The sixt of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made to the eatyng of a token of Christes flesh pag. 4. lin 40. S. Augustin meaneth of the sacrament pag. 119. lin 24. The sixt of Iohn must needes be vnderstand of corporall and sacramētall eatyng pag. 17. lin 48. Reason in place of seruice as beyng inferiour to fayth will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough pag. 265. lin 1. And as reason receiued into faithes seruice doth not striue with Transubstantiation but agreeth well with it so mans sences be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation as a matter whereof they can no skill for the sences can no skill of substaunces pag. 271. lin 24. c. Thine eyes say there is but bread and wyne Thy tast sayth the same Thy feelyng and smellyng agree fully with them Hereunto is added the carnall mans vnderstandyng which bycause it taketh the begynning of the senses proceedeth in reasonyng sensually in the deuils sophistry fol. 6. The Church hath not forborne to preache the truth to the confusion of mans senses and vnderstandyng fol. 15. It is called bread bycause of the outward visible matter pag. When it is called bread it is meant Christ the spirituall bread pag. 284. lin 25. The fraction is in the outward signe not in the body of Christ pag. 144. lin 39. and pag. 348. lin 21. And in the deuils sophistry fol. 17. That which is broken is the body of Christ pag. 348. lin 18. The inward nature of the bread is the substaunce pag. 286. lin 23. Substaunce signifieth the outward nature pag. 359. lin 22. The substaunces of bread and wine be visible creatures pag. 285. lin 48. and pag. 286. lin 44. Accidents be the visible natures and visible elementes pag. 363. lin 39. Christ is our satisfaction holy and fully and hath payde our whole debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his wrath agaynst vs pag. 81. lin 39. The act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must needes be propitiatory and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect pag. 437. lin 13. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wyne pag. 251. lin 8. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the literal sense hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. And it is a singular miracle of Christ vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their propre sense ibidem lin 21. The sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was neuer reiterate pag. 368. lin 46. Priestes do sacrifice Christ pag. 381. lin 42. c. And the Catholicke doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to bee the same in essence that was offered on the Crosse pag. 436. lin 11. The Nestorians graunted both the Godhead manhode alwayes to be in Christ continually pag. 309. lin 18. The Nestorians denyed Christ conceyued God or borne God but that he was afterward God as a mā that is not borne a Byshop is after made a Byshop So the Nestorians sayd that the Godhead was
name all men may iudge that your doing herein is not for reuerence to be vsed vnto me but that by suppressing of my name you may the more vnreuerently and vnseemely vse your scoffing taunting rayling and defaming of the author in generall and yet shall euery man vnderstand that your speach is directed to me in especiall as wel as if you had appointed me with your finger And your reuerent vsing of your selfe before the kings highnes commissioners of late doth plainly declare what reuerent respect you haue to them that be in dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth Winchester THis author denieth the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament This author denieth Transubstantiation This author denieth euill men to eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne and tend to destroy that faith which this author fermeth the Popish to erre in calling now all popish that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth wherof shall hereafter be opened Now because faith affirmeth some certaintie if we aske this author what is his saith which he calleth true and catholike it is onely this as we may learne by his booke that in our Lordes supper be consecrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens only to signifie Christes body and bloud he calleth them holy tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he sayth neuerthelesse they be not bare tokens and yet coÌ„cludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but only as a thyng is present in that which signifieth it which is the nature of a bare token saying in an other place there is nothing to be worshipped for there is nothyng present but in figure in a signe which who so euer saith calleth the thyng in deede absent And yet the author sayth Christ is in the man that worthely receiueth spiritually present who eateth of Christes flesh and his bloud reigning in heauen whether the good beleuing man ascendeth by his faith And as our body is nourished with the bread and wyne receyued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fed with the body and bloud of Christ. And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the true catholike fayth Caunterbury I Desire the Reader to iudge my faith not by this short enuious and vntrue collection and reporte but by mine owne booke as it is at length set out in the first part from the 8. vnto the 16. chapter And as concerning holynes of bread and wine wherunto I may adde the water into baptisme how can a dombe or an insensible and liuelesse creature receiue into it selfe any foode and feede thereupon No more is it possible that a spiritlesse creature should receiue any spirituall sanctification or holynes And yet do I not vtterly depriue the outward sacrameÌ„ts of the name of holy thinges because of the holy vse wherunto they serue not because of any holynesse that lyeth hid in the insensible creature Which although they haue no holynes in them yet they be signes and tokens of the meruailous workes and holy effects which god worketh in vs by his omnipotent power And they be no vayne or bare tokens as you would perswade for a bare token is that which betokeneth only and geneth nothing as a painted fire which geueth neither light nor heate but in the due ministration of the Sacramentes God is present working with his worde and Sacramentes And although to speake properly in the bread and wine be nothing in dede to be worshipped yet in them that duely receiue the sacramentes is Christ himself inhabiting and is of all creatures to be worshipped And therfore you gather of my sayings vniustly that Christ is in deede absent for I say according to Gods worde and the doctrine of the olde writers that Christ is present in his sacramentes as they teach also that he is present in his worde when he worketh mightely by the same in the hartes of the hearers By which maner of speach it is not ment that Christ is corporally present in the voyce or sound of the speaker which sound perisheth as soone as the wordes be spoken but this speach meaneth that he worketh with his word vsing the voyce of the speaker as his instrument to worke by as he vseth also his sacramentes wherby he worketh therfore is said to be present in them Winchester Now a catholike faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receiued and beleued agreable and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writinges geuen knowledge therof which be the tokens and markes of a true catholike faith whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth catholike First there is no scripture that in letter maynteineth the doctrine of this authors booke for Christ sayth not that the bread doth oâ—â—ly signifie his body absent nor S Paul saith not so in any place ne any other Canonicall Scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence and vnderstanding of Christes wordes there hath not bene in any age any one approued and knowen learned man that hath so declared and expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signifie Christes body and the wyne his bloud as thinges absent Caunterbury THe first part of your description of a catholike faith is crafty and full of subtletie for what you meane by all you do not expresse The secoÌ„d part is very true and agreeth fully with my doctrine in euery thing as wel in the matter of transubstantiation of the presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the eating and drinking of him as in the sacrifice propitiatory For as I haue taught in these 4. matters of controuersie so learned I the same of the holy scripture so is it testified by all olde writers learned men of all ages so was it vniuersally taught and preached receiued beleued vntill the sea of Rome the chiefe aduersary vnto Christ corrupted all together and by hypocrisie and simulation in the stede of Christ erected Autichrist who being the sonne of perdition hath extolled and aduanced himselfe and sitteth in the temple of God as he were God himselfe losing and bynding at his pleasure in heauen hell and earth condemning absoluing canonising damning as to his iudgement he thinketh good But as concerning your doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body in the bread and bloud in the wyne that ill men do eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that Christ is many tymes offred there is no scripture that in letter mainteyneth any of them as you require in a catholike faith but the scripture in the letter doth mainteine this my doctrine plainly that the bread remaineth Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio
seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request it is not like that he would write against the receiued doctrine of the church in those daies And if he had it is without all doubt that some learned man either in his tyme or fithens would haue written against him or at the least not haue commended him so much as they haue done Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish recantation as I haue declared in my first booke the 17. chapter And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple boasting himselfe as god hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres And as touching Martin Luther it semeth you be sore pressed that be faine to pray aide of him whom you haue hitherto euer detested The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift or to run for succour vnto a beast which he most hateth And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse more seuerely and earnestly then doth Martin Luther But it appeareth by your conclusion that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike that you haue forgotten your logike For this is your argumeÌ„t Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not Berengarius attempted the same and failed in his purpose Wickliffe enterprised the same whose teaching god prospered not therefore god hath not prospered fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching I will make the like reason The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of god to bring them from their abhominable superstitions and idolatry Ioell Amâ—s and Mitheas attempted the same whose doctrine preuailed not god prospered not their teaching among those people but they were condemned with their doctrine therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching If you will aunswer as you must nedes do that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not was by reason of the aboundant superstition idolatry that blinded their eies you haue fully answered your own argument and haue plainly declared the cause why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares the church of Rome which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry therfore might not abide to heare of the truth And the true doctrine of the sacrament which I haue set out plainly in my booke was neuer condemned by no councell nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second with his monkes and friers to condemne the truth and confirme these your heresies And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prosperous successe in this matter the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while persecute the truth And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife For he perceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those dayes to idolatry hypocrisie and superstition through traditions of Phariseis and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine religion which was approued by God least in so doing they should not onely resist the Apostles but God himselfe which counsail if you had marked followed you would not haue done so vnsoberly in many things as you haue done And as for the prosperitie of them that haue professed Christ his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes as S. Iohn Baptist prospered with Herode and our sauiour Christ with Pilate Annas and Caiphas Now which of these prospered best say you Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same Winchester But all this set apart and putting aside all testimonies of the olde church and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to search out an vnderstanding and in doyng therof to forget what hath bene taught hitherto How shall this author establish vpon scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is there in scripture that enâ—ountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body wherby to alter the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper verily and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God exclodeth that repugnance which mans reason would déeme of Christes departyng from this world and placing his humanitie in the glory of his Father Caunterbury THe Scripture is playne and you confesse also that it was bread that Christ spake of when he sayd This is my body And what nede we any other scripture to encounter with these words seyng that all men know that bread is not Christes body the one hauing sense and reason the other none at all Wherfore in that speach must nedes be sought an other sence meanyng then the wordes of themselues do geue which is as all olde writers do teach and the circumstances of the text declare that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christes body And yet as he geueth the bread to be eaten with our mouthes so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith And therfore I say that Christ geueth himselfe truely to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with fayth not with mouth And yet you would beare me in hand that I say that thing which I say not that is to say that Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body And because you be not able to confute that I say you would make me to say that you can confute As for the great power and omnipotency of God it is no place here to dispute what God can do but what he doth I know that he can do what he will both in heauen and in earth no man is able to resist his wil. But the question here is of his will not of his power And yet if you caÌ„ ioyne together these two that one nature singuler shal be here and not here both at one time and that it shal be gone hence when it is here you haue some stroÌ„g syment and be a cunning Geometrician but yet you shall neuer be good Logician that woulde
gloriari nisi in cruce God forbid that I should reioyce but in the crosse onely Why did he not rather say Absit mihi gloriari nisi in caena Domini God forbid that I should reioice but in the Lords supper wherat as you say the promise of life was fulfilled This is godly doctrine for such men to make as being ignorant in Gods word wander in fantasies of their own deuises and putantes se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt But the true faithfull beleeuing man professeth that Christ by his death ouercame him that was the Author of death and hath reconcyled vs to hys Father making vs his children and heires of his kingdome that as many as beleue in him should not perish but haue life euerlasting Thus saith the true christian man putting his hope of life and eternall saluation neither in Christes supper although the same be to him a great confirmation of his faith nor in any thing els but with S. Paul faith Mihi absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri Iesus Christi God saue me that I reioyce in nothing but in the crosse of our Lord Iesu Christ. And when this true beleeuing man commeth to the Lordes Supper according to Christes commaundement receaueth the bread broaken in remembrance that Christes body was broaken for him vpon the crosse and drinketh the wine in remembrance of the effusion of Christes bloud for his sinnes and vnfaynedly beleeueth the same to him the words of our Sauyour Christ be effectuous and operatory Take eate this is my body which is geuen for thee And drinke of this for this is my bloud which is shed for thee to the remission of thy sinnes And as S. Paul saith the bread vnto him is the communion of Christes body and the wine the communiō of his bloud For the effect of his godly eating as you truely herein gather of S. Paules wordes is the communication of Christes body and bloud but to the faithfull receauer and not to the dumme creatures of bread and wine vnder whose formes the catholick faith teacheth not the body and bloud of Christ inuisibly to be hidden And as to the godly eater who duely esteemeth Christes body and hath it in such price and estimation as he ought to haue the effect is the communication of Christes body so to the wicked eater the effect is damnation and euerlasting woe And now I am glad that here your selfe haue found out a warrante for the apparrell of bread and wine that they shall not goe altogether naked be nude and bare tokens but haue promyses of effectuall significatiō which now you haue spyed out both in the wordes of Christ and S. Paule Now for the ambiguity of Christes speeches it is not alwayes true that such speaches of Christ as might haue ambiguity the Euangelistes either plainly or by circumstāces open them For Christ speaking so many things in parables similies allegories metaphores and other tropes and figures although sometime Christ himselfe and sometime the Euangelistes open the meaning yet for the most parte the meaning is left to the iudgement of the hearers without any declaration As when Christ sayd gird your loines and take light candles in your handes And when he sayde No man that setteth his hand to the plough and looketh behind him is meet for the kingdome of God And when he sayd Except the grayne of wheate falling vpon the ground dye it remayneth sole And as S. Mathew sayeth Christ spake not to the people without parables that the Scriptures might be fulfilled which prophecyed of Christ that he should open his mouth in parables And although some of his parables Christ opened to the people some to his Apostles onely yet some he opened to neither of both as can appeare but lefte them to be considered by the discretion of the hearers And when Christ called Herod a Foxe Iudas a Deuill himself a Dore a way a Uine a well Neither he nor the Euangelistes expounded these wordes nor gaue warning to the hearers that he spake in figures For euery man that had any manner of sence or reason might wel perceaue that these sentences could not be true in playn forme of wordes as they were spoaken For who is so ignorant but he knoweth that a mā is not a Foxe a Deuil A Dore a Way a Uine a Well And so likewise when Christ brake the bread and commaunded his disciples to eate it and sayd This is my body and of the wine he said Deuide it among you drinke it this is my bloud No man that was there present was so fond but he knew well that the bread was not Christes body nor the wine his bloud And therfore they might well know that Christ called the bread his body and the wine his bloud for some figure similitude and property of the bread and wine vnto his flesh and bloud For as bread and wine be foodes to nourish our bodies so is the flesh and bloud of our Sauyour Christ being annexed vnto his Deity the euerlasting food of our soules And although the Euangelistes in that place doe not fully expresse the words in this sence yet adioyning the sixt chapter of Iohn speaking of the spirituall manduratiō of Christ to the circumstances of the text in the three Euangelistes reciting Christs last Supper the wholl matter is fully gathered as olde authors of the Church haue declared For doe not the circūstances of the texte both before and after the eating and drinking declare that there is very bread and wine Is not that which is broken and eaten bread And that which is deuided dronken And the fruit of the vine is it not very wine And doth not the nature of Sacramentes require that the sensible elements should remain in their proper nature to signifie an higher mistery and secret working of God inwardly as the sensible elementes be ministred outwardly And is not the visible and corporall feeding vpō bread and wine a conuenient and apte figure and similitude to put vs in remembraunce and to admonish vs how we be fedde inuisibly and spiritually by the flesh and bloud of Christ God and man And is not the Sacrament taken away when the element is taken away Or can the accidents of the element be the Sacrament of substanciall feeding Or did euer any olde author say that the accidentes were the Sacramentall signes without the substances But for the conclusion of your matter here I would wish that you would once truely vnderstand me For I doe not say that Christes body bloud be geuen to vs in signification and not in deed But I doe as plainly speake as I can that Christes body and bloud be geuen to vs in deede yet not corporally and carnally but spiritually and effectually as you confesse your selfe within twelue lines after Winchester The Author vttereth a great many wordes from the eyght to the seuententh chapiter
say Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine and for an aduersatiue therto I say that we which follow the Scriptures and aūcient writers say that he is receaued in the harte and entreth in by faith euery indifferent Reader vnderstandeth this aduersatiue vpon our side that we say Christ is not receaued in the mouth but in the hart specially seeing that in my fourth booke the second and third chapters I make purposely a processe therof to proue that Christ is not eaten with mouthes and teeth And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute vnto me in this comparison to make the comparison more full and plain let this be the comparison They say that Christ is receiued with the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine we say that he is not receaued with the mouth but with harte and entreth in by faith And now I trust there is no sleight in this comparison nor both the partes may not be vnderstand on both sides as you say they might before And as for S. Augustine serueth nothing for your purpose to proue that Christes body is eaten with the mouth For he speaketh not one word in the place by you alleadged neither of our mouthes nor of Christes body But it seemeth you haue so feruent desire to be doing in this matter that you be like to certain men which haue such a fond delight in shooting that so they be doyng they passe not how farre they shoote from the marke For in this place of S. Augustine against the Donatists he shooteth not at this butte whether Christes very naturall body be receaued with our mouthes but whether the Sacramentes in generall be receaued both of good and euill And there he declareth that it is all one water whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned in it All one Table of the Lord and one cup whether Peter suppe thereat or Iudas All one oyle whether Dauid or Saule were annointed therewith Wherfore he concludeth thus Memento ergo Sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum quo illa vel omnino non sint vel minus sancta sint sed ipsis malis hominibus vt haec habeant ad testimonium damnationis non ad adiutorium sanitatis Remēber therfore saith S. Augustine that the manners of euill men hinder not the Sacramentes of God that either they vtterly be not or be lesse holy but they hinder the euill men them selues so that they haue the Sacramentes to witnesse of their damnatiō not to helpe of their saluation And all the processe spoaken there by S. Augustine is spoaken chiefly of Baptisme against the Donatistes which sayd that the Baptisme was naught if either the minister or the receauer were naught Against whom S. Augustine concludeth that the Sacramentes of themselues be holy and be all one whether the minister or receauer be good or bad But this place of S. Augustine prooueth as wel your purpose that Christes body is receaued by the mouth as it prooueth that Poules steeple is higher then the crosse in Cheape For he speaketh not one worde of any of them al. And therefore in this place where you pretēd to shoote at the butte you shoote quite at rouers and cleane from the marke And yet if Iudas receaued Christ with the bread as you say and the deuil entred with the bread as S. Iohn saith then was the deuil and Christ in Iudas both at once And thē how they agreed I meruaile For S. Paul saith that Christ and Beliall cannot agree O what a wit had he neede to haue that will wittingly maintayn an open error directly against God his word and all holy auncient writers Now followeth the fourth comparison in my booke They say that Christ is really in the Sacramentall bread being reserued a wholl yeare or so long as the forme of bread remayneth But after the receauing thereof he flyeth vp say they from the Receauer vnto heauen as soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. Winchester This comparison is like the other before whereof the first parte is garnished and embossed with vntruth and the second parte is that the Church hath euer taught most truely and that all must beleeue and therefore that peece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the manner onely bring spoaken as though it differed from the continuall open teaching of the Church which is not so Wherefore in the manner of it in vtterance signifieth an vntruth which in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoubtedly Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the Sacrament so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. In this first parte there is a fault in the matter of the spéech for explication whereof I will examine it particularly This Author saith they say that Christ is really in the Sacramental bread being reserued an wholl yeare c. The Church geuing faith to Christes word when he said This is my body c. teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread vnto which wordes when doe put the word really it serueth onely to expresse that truth in open wordes which was before to be vnderstanded in sence For in Christ who was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and who did exhibite and gaue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promysed in his Sacramentes of the olde law We must vnderstand his wordes in the institution of his Sacramentes without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing of them and therefore when be ordered his most precious body and bloud to be eaten and druken of vs vnder the formes of bread and wine we professe and beléeue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the Sacrament for a celestiall foode to comforte and strengthen vs in this miserable life And for certainty of the truth of his worke therein we professe he geueth vs his body really that is to say in déed his body the thing it selfe which is the heauenly parte of the Sacrament called Eucharistia hauing the visible forme of bread and wine and contayning inuisibly the very body and bloud of our Sauyour Christ which was not wonte to be reserued otherwise but to be ready for such as in daunger of death call for it and the same so long as it may be vsed is still the same Sacrament which onely tyme altereth not Whereof Cirill wrote to this sence many hundred yeares past and Hesychius also and what ought to be done when by negligence of the mynister it were reserued ouerlong Mary where it liketh the Author of these differences to say the church teacheth Christ to flée vp from the
these wordes Let vs marke that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his disciples was the body of our Sauiour Christ as he sayd vnto them Take and eate this is my body And S. Augustine also sayth that although we may set forth Christ by mouth by writing and by the sacrament of his body and bloud yet we call neither our toung nor words nor inke letters nor paper the body and bloud of christ but that we call the body and bloud of Christ which is taken of the fruite of the earth and consecrated by misticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meat his body and drynke his bloud Moreouer Cyrill vpon S. Iohn saith that Christ gaue to his disciples peces of bread saying Take eate this is my body Likewise Theoderetus saith When Christ gaue the holy misteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wine and water he called his bloud By all these foresayd authours and places whith many mo it is playnly proued that when our sauiour Christ gaue bread vnto his Disciples saying Take and eate this is my body And likewise when he gaue them the cuppe saying Diuide this among you and drinke you all of this for this is my bloud he called then the very materiall bread his body and the very wine his bloud That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth among vs and that groweth out of the earth and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower and mixed with water and so baken aud made into bread of such sort as other our bread is that hath neither sence nor reason and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies such bread Christ called his body when he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togither and thereof is made drinke whiche nourishe the body such wine he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by the holy scripture as by all auncient authours of Christes Church both Greekes and Latines that is to say that whē our Sauiour Christ gaue bread and wine to his disciples spake these words This is my body This is my bloud it is very bread wine which he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shew some authority for their opinion either of scripture or of some aunciant author And let them not constrayne all men to follow their fond deuises only because they say It is so without any other groūd or authoritie but their owne bare wordes For in such wise credite is to be geuen to Gods word only and not to the word of any man As many of them as I haue red the byshop of Winchester onely excepted do say that Christ called not bread his body nor wine his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud And yet in expoūding these wordes they vary among them selues which is a token that they be vncertaine of their own doctrine For some of them say that by this pronoune demonstratiue this Christe vnderstoode not the bread and wine but his body and bloud And other some say that by the pronoune this he ment neither the bread nor wine not his body nor bloud but that he ment a particuler thyng vncertain which they call Indiuiduum vagum or Indiuiduum in genere I trowe some Mathematicall quiditee they can not tell what But let all these Papistes togyther shew any one authoritie eyther of scripture or of auncient author either Greke or Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall gyue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely theyr own bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the trueth confirmed by so many authorities bothe of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloude Winchester After this the author occupieth a great number of leaues that is to say from the lvii leafe vnto the lxxiiii to proue Christs words This is my body to be a figuratiue spech Sleight and shift is vsed in the matter without any offectuall consecution to him that is learned First the author sayth Christ called bread his body Confessed bread his body To this is aunswered Christes calling is a making as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non sunt tanque ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his calling as Chrisostome and the greke commentaries say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth trnslated by Iustus Ionas in Germany and after by this author in english Tertullian saith Christ made bread his body it is all one spech in Christ being god declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the word call or make for in his mouth to call is to make Cypryan saith according hereunto how 's bread is by Gods omnipotency made fleshe whereupon also this spech bread is flesh is as much to say as made flesh not that bread beyng bread is flesh but that was bread is flesh by Gods omnipotency and so this author entreating this matter as he doth hath partly opened the fayth of transubstantiaon For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is nowe Christes body because bread is made Christes body and because Christ called bread his body which was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wine the spech is very proper to say water is made wine For after like manner of spech we say Christ iustifieth a wicked man Christ saueth sinners the phisitiō hath made the sicke man whole suche dyet will make an whole man sicke Al these speches be proper and playn so as the construction be not made captious and Sophisticall to ioin that was to that now is forgetting the meane worke When Christ said This is my body there is necessitie that the demonstration this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the spech of God the father vpō Christ in Baptisme This is my son And here whē this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the fainyng of the papists I shal ioyn this Issue in this place that he vnderstandeth not what he saith and if his knowledge be no better then is vttered herein the penne to be in this point clerly cōdēned of ignoraunce Caunterbury HEre is an other sleight such as the like hath not lightly bene sene For where I wrote that when Christ sayd This is my body it was bread that he called his body you turne the matter to make a descant vpon these 2. wordes calling and making that the nundes of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these 2. wordes that in
Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall giue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely their owne bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now it shall not be much amisse to examine here the wise deuise of M. Smith what he can say to this matter that the opinion of diuers Doctours may be knowen as well of Doctour Smith as of Doctour Gardyner It is very false sayth Smith to me that you do say that as these wordes This is my body do lye there cā be gathered of them none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread For there can no such thing be gathered of those wordes but onely that Christ gaue his disciples his very body to eat into which he had turned the bread when he spake those wordes First Smith vseth here a great and manifest falsehead in reciting of my sentence leauing out those wordes which should declare the truth of my saying For I say that by this maner of speache playnly vnderstand without any figure there can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body In which my sentence he leaueth out these wordes by this maner of spech playnly vnderstand without any figure which wordes be so materiall that in them resteth the pith and triall of the whole sentence When Christ tooke the v. loaues and ij fishes and looking vp into heauen blessed them and brake them and gaue them vnto his disciples that they should distribute them vnto the people if he had then said Eate this is meate which shall satisfie your hunger by this maner of speach playnly vnderstand without any figure could any other sence haue been gathered but that the bread and fishes which he gaue them was meate And if at the same tyme he had blessed wine and commaunding them to drinke therof had sayd This is drinke which shall quench your thirst what could haue been gathered of those wordes playnly vnderstand without any figure but that he called wine drinke So lykewise when he blessed bread and wine and gaue them to his disciples saying Eate thys is my body Drinke this is my bloud what can be gathered of this maner of speach playnly vnderstād without any figure but that he called the bread his body wine his bloud For Christ spake not one word there of any changyng or turning of the substaūce of the bread no more then he did when he gaue the loaues fishes And therfore the maner of speach is all one and the changing of the substaūces can no more be proued by the phrase and fashion of speach to be in the one then in the other whatsoeuer you Papistes dreame of your owne heades without Scripture that the substaunce of the bread is turned into the substaunce of Christes body But Smith bringeth here newes vsing such strange and noueltie of speache as other Papistes vse not which he doth either of ignoraunce of his Grammar or els that he dissenteth farre from other Papistes in iudgement For he sayth that Christ had turned the bread when he spake these wordes This is my body And if Smith remember his Accidence the preterpluperfect tence signifieth the tyme that is more than perfectly past so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spake those wordes then was the turning done before and already past when he spake those wordes which the other Papistes say was done after or in the pronunciation of the wordes And therfore they vse to speake after this sort that when he had spoken the wordes the bread was turned and not that he had turned the bread when he spake the wordes An other noueltie of speach Smith vseth in the same place saying that Christ called his body bread bycause he turned bread into it it semeth and appeareth still to be it it hath the qualitie and quantitie of bread and bycause it is the foode of the soule as corporall meate is of the body These be Smithes wordes which if he vnderstād of the outward forme of bread it is a noueltie to say that it is the foode of the soule and if he meane of the very body of Christ it is a more strange noueltie to say that it hath the quantitie and qualitie of bread For there was neuer man I trow that vsed that maner of speach to say that the body of Christ hath the quātitie and qualitie of bread although the Papistes vse this spech that the body of Christ is conteined vnder the forme that is to say vnder the quātities and qualities of bread Now when Smith should come to make a direct answere vnto the authorities of the old writers which I haue brought forth to proue that Christ called bread his body when he sayd This is my body Smith answereth no more but this the Doctors which you my Lord alledge here for you proue not your purpose Forsoth a substantiall answer and well proued that the Doctours by me alledged proue not my purpose for Smith sayth so I looked here that Smith should haue brought forth a great number of authors to approue his saying and to reproue mine specially seing that I offered fayre play to him and to all the Papists ioyned with him in one trowpe For after that I had alledged for the proofe of my purpose a great many places of old authors both Greekes and Latines I prouoked the Papistes to say what they could to the contrary Let all the Papistes together sayd I shew any one authoritie for them either of Scripture or auncient Author eyther Greeke or Latin and for my part I shall giue them place And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie then is it reason that they giue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of Scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now I referre to thy iudgement indifferent reader whether I offered the Papistes reason or no and whether they ought not if they had any thing to shew to haue brought it forth here And for as much as they haue brought nothing being thus prouoked with all their counsayle whether thou oughtest not to iudge that they haue nothing in deede to shew which if they had without doubt we should haue hard of it in this place But we heare nothing at all but these their bare wordes not one of all these Doctors sayth as ye do my Lord Which I put in thy discretion indifferent Reader to vew the Doctours wordes by me alleaged and so to iudge But they say not
that there is onely bread in the Sacrament sayth Smith and not Christes body what then What is that to purpose here in this place I pray you For I goe not about in this place to proue that onely bread is in the sacrament and not Christes body but in this place I proue onely that it was very bread which Christ called his body and very wine which he called his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud Which Smith with all his rablement of the Papistes deny and yet all the old Authors affirme it with Doctor Steuen Gardiner late Bishope of Winchester also who sayth that Christ made demonstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body And as all the old Authors be able to counteruayle the Papistes so is the late Bishope able to matche Smith in this mater so that we haue at the least a Rowland for an Oliuer But shortly to comprehend the aunswere of Smith where I haue proued my sayinges a dosen leaues together by the authoritie of Scripture and old catholike writers is this a sufficient aunswer onely to say without any proofe that al my trauayl is lost and that all that I haue alleadged is nothing to the purpose Iudge indifferently gentle Reader whether I might not by the same reason cast away all Smithes whole booke and reiect it quite cleane with one word saying All his labore is lost and to no purpose Thus Smith and Gardiner being aunswered I will returne agayne to my booke where it followeth thus Now this being fully proued it must needes folow consequently that this manner of speaking is a figuratiue speach For in playne and proper speach it is not true to say that bread is Christes body or wine his bloud For Christes body hath a soule lyfe sence and reason but bread hath neither soule lyfe sence nor reason Lykewise in playne speche it is not true that we eate Christes body and drinke his bloud For eating drinking in their proper and vsuall signification is with the tongue teeth and lyppes to swallow diuide and chawe in peeces which thinge to do to the flesh and bloud of Christ is horrible to be heard of any Christian. So that these speaches To eate Christes body and drinke his bloud to call bread his body and wine his bloud be speches not taken in the proper signification of euery worde but by translation of these wordes eating and drinking from the signification of a corporall thing to signifie a spirituall thing and by calling a thing that signifieth by the name of the thing which is signified thereby Which is no rare nor straunge thing but an vsuall manner and phrase in common speech And yet least this faulte should be imputed vnto vs that we do fayne thinges of our owne heades without auctoritie as the papistes be accustomed to do here shall be cited sufficient authoritye as well of Scriptures as of olde auncient authors to approue the same First when our Sauiour Christ in the sixt of Iohn sayd that he was the bread of lyfe which who so euer did eate should not dye but liue for euer and that the bread which he would geue vs was his flesh and therefore who so euer should eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should haue euerlasting lyfe and they that should not eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should not haue euerlasting lyfe When Christ had spoken these wordes with many moe of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud both the Iewes and many also of his disciples were offended with his wordes and sayd This is an hard saying For howe can hee geue vs his flesh to be eaten Christ perceiuing their murmuring hartes because they knew none other eating of his flesh but by chawing and swallowing to declare that they should not eate his body after that sort nor that he ment of any such carnall eating he sayd thus vnto them What yf you see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before It is the spirite that geueth life the flesh auaileth nothing the words which I spake vnto you be spirite and lyfe These wordes our Sauiour Christ spake to lift vp their mindes from earth to heauen and from carnall to spirituall eating that they should not phantasy that they should with their teeth eate him present here in earth for his flesh so eaten sayth he should nothing profite them And yet so they should not eate him for he would take his body away from them and ascend with it into heauen and there by fayth and not with teeth they should spiritually eate him sitting at the right hand of his father And therefore sayth he The wordes which I do speake be spirite and lyfe That is to say are not to be vnderstand that we shall eate Christ with our teeth grossely and carnally but that we shall spiritually and gostly with our fayth eate him being carnally absent from vs in heauen And in such wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eate him many yeares before he was incarnated and borne as Saint Paule sayth that all they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doo and drinke the same spirituall drinke that is to say Christ. For they spiritually by their fayth were fed and nourished with Christes body and bloud and had eternall lyfe by him before he was borne as we haue now that come after his ascention Thus haue you heard the declaration of Christ himselfe and of Saint Paul that the eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud is not taken in the common signification with mouth and teeth to eate and chaw a thing being present but by a liuely fayth in hart and minde to chaw and digest a thing being absent either ascended hence into heauen or els not yet borne vpō earth Winchester In the lx leaf the auctor entreateth whether it be a plaine spéech of Christ to say eate and drincke speaking of his body and bloud I answer the spéech of it selfe is propre commaunding them present to eate and drincke that is proponed for them and yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like cōmon effect worke in eating and drinking that heauenly meate drincke as it doth in earthly and carnall meates In this mistery man doth as Christ ordeined that is to say receyue with his mouth that is ordered to be receiued with his mouth graunting it neuerthelesse of that dignitie and estimation that Christes wordes affirms and whether he so doth or no Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it selfe alone whereof no good man iudgeth carnally or grosely ne discusseth the vnfaythfull question how which he can not conceiue but leaueth the déepenes thereof and doth as he is bidden This misterie receiueth no mans thoughtes Christes institution hath a propertie in it which can not be discussed by mans sensuall reason Christes wordes be spirite and life which this auctor wresteth with
his body which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body Wherfore it followeth by Tertullians confession whē Christ made the bread his body that Christ ended the figure and made it the trueth making now his body that was before the figure of his body For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still then did he not make it his body as Tertullian himselfe saith he did And Tertullian therfore being red thus as apeareth to me most probable that that is to say in Tertullian should be onely referred to the explicacion of the first this as when Tertullian had alleged Christes wordes saying this is my body and putteth to of his owne that is to say the figure of my body these wordes that is to say should serue to declare the demonstration this in this wise that is to say this which the Prophet called the figure of the body is now my body And so Tertulian sayd before the Chryst had made bread his body which bread was a figure of his body with the Prophet and now endeth in the very trueth being made his body by conuersion as Cyprian sheweth of the nature of bread into his body Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certayn vnfayned truth of that is signified seing Christes body was figured by bread in the prophet Hieremy it appereth Christ had a true body And that the bread was of Christ aproued for a figure he made now his very body And this may be sayd euidently to Tertullian who reasoning agaynst heretikes vseth the commoditie of arguing and giueth no doctrine of the sacrament to further this authors purpose And what aduantage should the heretiques haue of Tertulian if he should meane that these words This is my body had onely this sence this is the figure of my body hauing himselfe sayd before that Christ made bread his body If so playne speach to make bread his body conteyneth no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body Why should not they say that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure and so no certayntie of any trew body in Christ by Tertullianes wordes This place of Tertullian is no secret poynt of learning and hath bene of Decolampadius and other alleadged and by ether Catholique men aunswered vnto it wherof this author may not think now as vpon a wrangling argument to satisfie a coniecture deuised therby to confirme a new teaching Finally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure which this author must proue or els he doth nothing Caunterbury ON what a wrangling and wrasting is here made What crookes be cast what leaping about is here to auoyde a foyle And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall reade the place of Tertullain to iudge whether you haue truely expounded him or in the wrastling with him be quite ouerthrowen and haue a flat fall vpon your backe For Tertullian sayth not that the bread was a figure of Christs body only in the prophet as you expound Tertullian but sayth that bred and wine were figures in the old testament and so taken in the prophets and now be figures agayne in the new testament so vsed of Christ himself in his last supper And where Tertullian sayth that Christ made bread his body he expoundeth him self how Christ made bread his body adding by and by these wordes That is to say a figure of his body But if thou caust forbear good reader when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtill lawyer I pray thee laugh not for it is no matter to be laughed at but to be sorowed that the most auncient authors of Christes church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes O Lord what shall these men answer to thee at the last day whan no cauilations shall haue place These be Tertullians words Iesus taking bread and distributing it amōg his disciples made it his body saying This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Heare Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the Prophet but the saying of Christ this is my body And where Tertullian hath but once the word This you say the first this And so you make a wise speach to say the first where is but one And Tertullian speaketh of this in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body and you referre them to the Prophets wordes which be not there but the spoken of long after And if you had not forgotten your gramer and all kind of speach or els hurled away altogether purposely to serue your owne wilfull deuise you would haue referred the demonstration of his antecedent before and not to a thing that in order commeth long after And bread in the prophet was but a figuratiue speach but in Christes wordes was not onely a figuratiue speach but also a figuratiue thing that is to say very materiall bread which by a figuratiue speach Christ ordeyned to be a figure and a sacrament of his body For as the Prophet by this word bread figured Christes body so did Christ himsef institute very materiall bread to be a figure of his body in the sacrament But you referre this to the bread in the Prophet which Christ spake as Tertullian sayth of the bread in the gospell And Christes wordes must needes be vnderstanded of the bread which he gaue to his Apostles in the time of the gospell after he had ended the supper of the law And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his very body which was no materiall bread but this word bread then did Christ make this word bread his body and conuerted this word bread in to the substaunce of his body This is the conclusion of your subtell sophistication of Tertullians wordes Now as concerning Saynt Ciprian whome you here alledge he spake of a sacramentall and not of a corporall and carnall conuersion as shall be playnly declared when I come to the place of Ciprian and partely I haue declared alredy in myne other booke And Tertullian proued not in that place the veritie of Christes body by the figure of the Prophet but by the figure which Christ ordeyned of his body in his last supper For he went not about to proue that Christ should haue a body but that he had then a true body because he ordeined a figure therof which could haue had no figure as Tertullian sayth if it had ben but a phantasticall body and no true body in deed Wherfore this which you say in aunswering to the playn wordes of Tertullian may be sayd of them that care not what they say but it can not be sayd euidently that is spoken so sophistically But if so playne speech of Tertullian say you that Christ made bread his body conteyne no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body why should not the body of Christ euer be taken for a figure and
represented vnto vs his testament confirmed by his bloud And if the Papistes will say as they say in deed that by this cup is neither mēt the cup nor the wine cōtayned in the cup but that thereby is mēt Christs bloud contayned in the cup yet must they nedes graunt that there is a figure For Christes bloud is not in proper speach the new testament but it is the thing that confirmed the new Testament And yet by this strange interpretation the Papistes make a very strange speach more strange then any figuratiue speach is For this they make the sentence this bloud is a new Testament in my bloud Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason that the foolishnes therof is euident to euery man Winchester As for the vse of figuratiue speaches to be accustomed in scripture is not denyed But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to Decolampadius of the sacrament geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speaches in gods ordinances and commaūdementes and otherwise For if in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinaunces and commaundementes figures may be often receiued truth shal by allegories be shortly subuerted and all our religion reduced to significations There is no speach so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speach but such as expresseth the common playne vnderstanding and then the common vse of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speach As these speaches drink vp this cup or eate this dish is in deed a figuratiue speach but by custome make so common that it is reputed the playne speach bicause if hath but one onely vnderstanding commonly receyued And when Christ sayd This cup is the new testament the proper speach therof in letter hath an absurditie in reason and fayth also But whan Christ sayd this is my body although the truth of the lytterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason yet hath it no absurditie in humilitie of fayth nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture And seing it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their proper sence there can no reasoning be made of other figuratiue speaches to make this to be their fellow and like vnto them No man denieth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper but such as be equall with playne proper speach or be expounded by other Euangelestes in playne speach Canterburie I See well you would take a dong forke to fight with rather then you would lack a weapon For how highly you haue estemed Melancthō in tymes past it is not vnknowne But whatsoeuer Melancthon sayeth or how soeuer you vnderstand Melancthon where is so conuenient a place to vse figuratiue speeches as when figures and Sacraments be instituted And S. Augustine giueth a playne rule how we may know when Gods commādemēts be giuen in figuratiue speches yet shal neither the truth be subuerted nor our religion reduced to significations And how can it be but that in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinances commaundements figures must needes be often receaued contrary to Melancthons saying if it be true that you say that there is no spech so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speech But now be all speches figuratiue when it pleaseth you What need I then to trauaile any more to proue that Christ in his supper vsed figuratiue speches seyng that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying And these wordes This is my body spoken of the bread and This is my bloud spoken of the cuppe expresse no playne comon vnderstanding wherby the common vse of these figures should be equall with plain proper speches or cause them to be taken as common proper speches for you say your felf that these speches in letter haue an absurdity in reason And as they haue absurdity in reason so haue they absurdity in fayth For neither is there any reason fayth myracle nor truth to say that materiall bread is Christes body For then it must be true that his body is material bread a conuersa ad conuertentem for of the materiall bread spake Christ those words by your confession And why haue not these words of Christ This is my body an absurdity both in fayth and reason aswell as these words This cup is the new Testament seyng that these wordes were spoken by Christ as well as the other and the credite of him is all one whatsoeuer he sayth But if you will needes vnderstand these wordes of Christ This is my body as the playn wordes signify in their proper sence as in the end you seeme to do repugning therein to your owne former saying you shall see how farre you go not onely from reason but also from the true profession of the christian fayth Christ spake of bread say you This is my body appoynting by this word this the bread whereof followeth as I sayd before If bread be his body that his body is bread And if his body be bread it is a creature without sence and reason hauing neither life nor soule which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken Heare now what followeth further in my booke Now forasmuch as it is playnly declared manifestly proued that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that these sentences be figuratiue speches and that Christ as concerning his humanity bodily presence is ascended into heauen with his whole flesh and bloud and is not here vpon earth and that the substance of bread and wine do remayne still and be receaued in the sacrament and that although they remayne yet they haue changed their names so that the bread is called Christs body and the wine his bloud and that the cause why their names be changed is this that we should list vp our harts minds frō the things which we se vnto the things which we beleue be aboue in heauē wherof the bread wine haue the names although they be not the vey same things in deed these things well considered and wayed all the authorities and arguments which the Papists fayn to serue for their purpose be clean wiped away For whether the authors which they alleadge say that we do eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud or that the bread and wine is conuerted into the substance of his flesh and bloud or that we be turned into his flesh or that in the Lordes supper we do receiue his very flesh and bloud or that in the bread and wine is receiued that which did hang vpon the crosse or that Christ hath left his flesh with vs or that Christ is in vs and we in him or that he is whole here and whole in heauen or that the same thing is in the Chalice which flowed out of his side or that the same thing is receiued with out mouth which is
bread and no bread called bread and no bread this is playne iugling where it hapneth Wherin this rude man for want of true vnderstanding of the wordes and perfect consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondly who if he should therupon require the scholler to shew him some difference of the very substance betwene bread cheese and ale what could the lerned scholler answere here but euen frankly declare his ignoraunce and say I know none which is as much to say as I know there is a difference but I wot not what it is Wherunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholler Then art thou with all thy lerning as very a foole as I to speake of a difference and can not tell what it is Now if the scholler should vtter euen the extremity of his learning in proper termes and say I know bread is no cheese and chese is no ale and of their accidentall partes I can indede shew differences but of the very substance none The rude man if his nature were not ouer dull would laugh roundly to heare a scholler vtter for a poynt of learning that bread is no cheese and cheese is no ale which who so knoweth not is a very foole and merely to knit vp the matter would kepe the accidents of his bread chese and all for him selfe and geue the substance to the scholler if he can deuide it as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture And this I write after this grosse sort to shew that this matter of substance is not commonly vnderstanded as sences exercised in learning perceaue it and how mans outward sences can not as this author would haue it be iudges of the inward nature of substance which reason perswadeth to be vsing the seruice of the sences for induction of the knowledge in which iudgement vpon their report hapneth many tymes much deceite Titus Liuius speaketh of a greate number of diuers dishes of meate made in a solemne supper wherat the gestes woundred to see such a variety at that tyme of the yeare and when they demaunded of it answere was made the substance was but one all hogges flesh so as the alteration in the accidentes deceaued their iudgements That stone which among many thought to haue some skill hath been taken for a precious diamond hath after by cunning lapidaries been iudged to be but a white saphire and contrariwise So easily may our iudgement vpon the report of our sences fall in errour not that the sences be properly deceaued but rather the man that is grossely sensuall and iudgeth fondly by them For the very substance is not the proper obiect of any of the fiue wittes but of their report considered in reason denied and sometyme gessed at wherof ensueth greate errour and quid pro quo among the poticaries and learned also in thinges strange whereof they haue but accidentall markes Wherefore vpon consideration of the premises it may easily appeare how the question of this author why the sences be not beleued in knowledge of substance as in knowledge of accidents may be resonably answered And then if the iudgement of reason in the estimation of Gods naturall workes and denying this or that substance when by accidents it should seeme otherwise reason doth stay sensuallity and when men of experience knowledge and credite haue determined such a certayne stone to be a very true diamond other ignorant will be ashamed to say the contrary And if a man fearing himselfe deceaued to haue bought one kinde of drugges for an other and yet mistrusting wisely his owne iudgement hauing caused it to be vewed by men of knowledge good fayth and honesty if they affirme it to be the very thing this man will then condemne his owne imagination and vpon credite call it so and take it so to be wherfore if in these thinges I say reason doth in a man stay sensuality and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the iudgement of rude vnderstanding and finally if credite among men be so much regarded how much more conuenient is it that fayth in Godds word wherin can be no deceite as there is in men should alter and change mans iudgement in reason and bring it into the obedience of fayth Of that is bread after the iudgement of our reason after the report of our sences Christ determineth vnto vs the substance of that to be his body saying This is my body why shall not now a true christen man answere euer according to his fayth to say and professe the same to be the substance of Christes body vpon credite of Christes wordes as well as the carnall man will vpon report of his sences conclude in reason there to be the substance of bread wherby is not taken away the credite of our sences as this author supposeth which haue their obiects still true as they had before For the collour greatnes sauour and tast all remayne truely with the experiences of them as before Upon whose report reason neuertheles now reduced to the obsequie of fayth forbeareth reuerently to conclude agaynst the truth of fayth but according to fayth confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christes body and the accidents to remayne in their very true nature bicause fayth teacheth not the contrary and that it agreeth with the rule of fayth so to be and therfore remayneth a very true greatnes thicknes and wayght which may be called in common speach substance signifying the outward nature And in that sense Theodoret reasoning with an heretique semeth to call it bicause hauing spoken of substance remayning he declareth what he meaneth by it adding it may be seene and felt as before which is not the nature of substance properly but by like common speach that remayneth may be called matter as Origen called it wherein also remayne the true sauour and tast with true propriety to corrupt or putrifie and also nourish God so ordering the vse of the creature of bread and likewise wine in this mistery as the inward nature of them which indeede is the substance but onely comprehended in reason and vnderstanding is conuerted into the most precious substance of Christes body and bloud which is indeede a substance there present by gods omnipotency onely to be comprehended by fayth so farre as may be vnderstanded of mannes weakenes and imbecilitie And where this author putteth a danger if sences be not trusted there is a gappe open to the Ualentinians and Marcionistes and therfore bringeth in the feeling of S. Thomas hereunto I say that the truth of that feeling dependeth vpon a true beliefe according to the scriptures that Christ was very man for els the body glorified of Christ as S. Gregory noteth was not of the owne glorified nature then eyther visible or palpable but therin Christ condescended to mannes infirmity and as he was truth it selfe left that a true testimony to such as humbly were disposed by grace to receaue it not to conuince heretiques who can
as touching the belefe of S. Thomas although he beleued certaynly that Christ was a man yet he beleued not that Christ was risen and appeared to the Apostles but thought rather that the Apostles were deceaued by some vision or spirit which appeared to them in likenes of Christ which he thought was not he indede And so thought the Apostles themselues vntill Christ sayd Videte manus meas pedes quia ego ipse sum Palpate videte quia spiritus carnem ossa non habent sicut me videtis habere See my handes and my feete for I am euen he Grope and see for a spirite hath no flesh and bones as you see that I haue And so thought also S. Thomas vntill such tyme as he put his handes into Christes side and felt his woundes and by his sense of feeling perceaued that it was Christes very body and no spirite nor phantasy as before he beleued And so in S. Thomas the truth of feeling depended not vpon the true belefe of Christes resurrection but the feeling of his senses brought him from misbelefe vnto the right and true fayth of that matter And as for S. Gregory he speaketh no such thinges as you report that the glorified body of Christ was of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable but he sayth cleane contrary that Christ shewed his glorified body to S. Thomas palpable to declare that it was of the same nature that it was of before his resurrection whereby it is playne after S. Gregories minde that if it were not palpable it were not of the same nature And S. Gregory sayth further in the same homely Egit miro modo superna clementia vt discipulus ille dubitans dum in magistro suo vulnera palparet carnis in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis Plus enim nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem quam fides credentium discipulcrum profuit quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita in fide solidatur The supernall clemency wrought meruaylously that the disciple which doubted by groping the woundes of flesh in his master should heale in vs the woundes of infidelity For the lacke of fayth in Thomas profited more to our fayth then did the fayth of the disciples that beleued For when he is brought to fayth by groping our minde is stablished in fayth without all doubting And why should S. Gregory write thus if our sences auayled nothing vnto our fayth nor could nothing iudge of substances And do not all the olde catholike authors proue the true humanity of Christ by his visible conuersation with vs here in earth that he was heard preach seene eating and drincking labouring and sweatting Do they not also proue his resurrection by seing hearing and groping of him which if it were no proofe those arguments were made in vayne agaynst such Heretikes that denied his true incarnation And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments to the maintenance of those olde condemned heresies by your subtill sophistications The touching and feeling of Christes handes feete and wounds was a proofe of his resurrection not as you say to them that beleued but as S Gregory sayth to them that doubted And if all thinges that Christ did and spake to our outward senses proue not that he was a naturall man as you say with Martion Menander Ualentinus Apolinaris withother like sort thē I would know how you should confute the sayd heresies Marty will you say peraduenture by the scripture which sayth playnly Verbum caro factumest But if they would say agayne that he was called a man and flesh bicause he tooke vpon him the forme of a man and flesh and would say that S. Paule so declareth it saying Forinam serui accipiens and would then say further that forme is the accidence of a thing and yet hath the name of substance but is not the substance indeede what would you then say vnto them if you deny that the formes and accidences be called substances then go you from your owne saying And if you graunt it then will they auoyde all the scriptures that you can bring to proue Christ a man by this cauilation that the apparances formes and accidences of a man may be called a man aswell as you say that the formes and accidences of bread be called bread And so prepare you certayne propositions and groundes for heretikes to build their errours vpon which after when you would you shall neuer be able to ouerthrowe And where you say that Thomas touched truely Christes body glorified how could that be whē touching as you say is not of y◠substance but of the accidents only and also Christes body glorified as you say is neyther visible nor palpable And where as indeede you make Christs actes illusiōs and yet in wordes you pretend the contrary call you not this illusiō of our sēses whē a thing apeareth to our sēces which is not the same thing indeede When Iupiter Mercury as the comedy telleth apeared to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitrio Sosia was not Alcumena deceaued therby And Poticaries that sell Ieniper buries for pepper being no pepper indeede deceaue they not the biers by illusion of their sences Why then is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeede Finally where as I required earnestly all the Papistes to lay their heades togither and to shew one article of our fayth so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thing to be and yet our fayth shall teach vs the contrary therunto where I say I required this so earnestly of you and with such circumstances and you haue yet shewed none I may boldly conclude that you can shew none For sure I am if you could being so earnestly prouoked therunto you would not haue fayled to shew it in this place As for the article of our resurrection and of the feeding of angels serue nothing for this purpose For my saying is of the dayly experience of our senses and when they affirme a thing to be but the resurrection of our flesh and the feeding of angels be neither in dayly experience of our senses nor our senses affirme them not so to be Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my booke the authorities of ancient writers in this wise Now for as much as it is declared how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is agaynst the word of God agaynst nature agaynst reason and agaynst all our senses we shall shew furthermore that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the olde authors of Christes church beginning at those authors which were nearest vnto Christes time and therfore might best know the truth herein First Iustinus a great learned man and an holy martyr the oldest author
that this day is knowne to write any treaty vpon the sacraments and wrote not much after one hundred yeares after Christes Ascention He writeth in his second Apology that the bread water and wine in this Sacrament are not to be taken as other common meates and drinckes be but they be meates ordeined purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia and be called also the body and bloud of Christ. And that it is lawfull for none to eate or drincke of them but that professe Christ and liue according to the same And yet the same meate and drincke sayth he is changed into our flesh and bloud and nourisheth our bodies By which saying it is euident that Iustinus thought that the bread and wine remayned still for els it could not haue bene turned into our flesh and bloud to nourish our bodies Winchester I will spend no mo wordes herein but hauing auoyded this authors reasoning against Transubstantiation Now let vs examine his authorities First he beginneth with Iustine the Martyr Whose wordes be not truly by this author here reported which be these truely translate out of the Greke When the priest hath ended his thankes geuing and prayers and all the people hath sayd Amen they whom we call Deacons geue to euery one then present a parte of the bread and of the wine and water consecrated and cary part to those that be absent and this is that foode which is among vs called Eucharistia wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker except he be perswaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs and be baptized in the water of regeneration in remission of sinnes and ordreth his life after the manner which Christ hath taught For we do not take these for common bread or drincke but like as Iesus Christ our sauiour incarnate by the word of God had flesh and bloud for our saluation euen so we be taught the foode wherwith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration when it is consecrate by the prayer of his word to be the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus incarnate For the Apostles in those their workes which be called gospels teach that Iesus did so commaund them and after he had taken the bread and ended his thankes geuing sayd Do this in my remembrance This is my body And likewise taking the cup after he had geuen thankes sayd This is my bloud and did giue them to his Apostles onely And here I make an issue with this author that he wittingly corrupteth Iustine in the allegation of him who writeth not in such forme of wordes as this author alleageth out of his second Apology nor hath any such speach The bread water and wine in this sacrament are meates ordeined purposely to giue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia nor hath not these wordes They be called the body and bloud of Christ but hath in playne wordes that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods word to be the flesh and bloud of Christ as Christ in his incarnation tooke flesh and bloud nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstanding how the same meate and drincke is changed into our flesh and bloud For the wordes in Iustine speaking of alteration of the foode haue an vnderstanding of the foode as it is before the consecration shewing how Christ vsed those creatures in this mistery which by alteration nourish our flesh and bloud For the body of Christ which is the very celestiall substance of the host consecrate is not changed but without all alteration spiritually nourisheth the bodies and soules of them that worthely receaue the same to immortality wherby appeareth this authors conclusion that bread and wine remayne still which is tourned into our flesh and bloud is not deduced vpon Iustines wordes truely vnderstanded but is a glose inuented by this author and a peruerting of Iustines wordes and their true meaning Wherupon I may say and conclude euen as this author erreth in his reasoning of mother wit agaynst Transubstantiation euen so erreth he in the first allegation of his authorities by playne misreporting let it be further named or thought one as the thing deserueth Caunterbury IN this holy Martire Iustinus I do not goe about to be a translator of him nor I bynde not my selfe precisely to follow the forme of his wordes which no translatour is bound vnto but I set forth onely his sence and meaning For where Iustine hath a good long processe in this matter I take no more but that is directly to the purpose of Transubstantiation which is the matter being here in question And the long wordes of Iustine I knit vp togither in as fewe wordes as I can rendring the sense truly and not varying farre from the wordes And this haue I done not willingly to corrupt Iustine as you maliciously depraue and therupon wil I ioyne with you in your issue but I do it to recite to the reader Iustines mind shortly and playnly where as you professing to obserue scrupulously the wordes obserue in dede neither the wordes nor the sentence of Iustine But this is your fashion when you lacke good matter to answere then to finde something to fill vp your booke you turne the matter into trifling and cauilation in wordes You say that Iustine hath not this speach the bread water and wine in this Sacrameut are meates ordeined purposely to giue thankes to God and yet by your owne translation he hath the same thing in effect and yet in deede the wordes be neither as you nor as I say and as they be in greeke they cannot be expressed in English but by a paraphrasis The wordes be these in greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in our tongue as nere as may be englished signify thus The bread and wine and water of thankes giuing or as Ireneus sayth In which thankes be giuen And neither hath Iustine this word Sacrameut as I say nor this word Consecrated as you say May not all men therfore euidently see that your chief study is to make cauilations daylying in wordes◠And all the rest of my sayinges which you deny to be in Iustine be there very playnly in sense as I will be iudged by the indifferent reader And what neede I willingly to corrupt Iustine when his wordes after your allegation serue more for my purpose agaynst your fayned transubstantiation then as I alleadge them my selfe For if the Deacons giue to euery one present a part of the bread wine and water consecrated and send parte to them that be absent as you reporte Iustines wordes do not then bread wine and water remayne after consecration seing that they be distributed to diuers men in partes For I thincke you will not say that the body of Christ is deuided into partes so that one man receaueth an hand and an other a legge And Iustine sayth further that the same foode of bread wine and water called
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
of the fyrst booke declaryng spirituall hunger and thirst and the releuing of the same by spyrituall feeding in Christe and of Christe as we constantly beleue in him to the confirmation of whiche beliefe the author would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ to be adminicles as it were that we by them be preached vnto as in water breade and wyne and by them all our sinnes as it were spoken vnto or properly touched which matter in the grosse although there be some wordes by the way not tollerable yet if those wordes set apart the same were in the summe graunted to be good teachyng and holsome exhortation it contayneth so no more but good matter not well applyed For the Catholicke churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacramēt would therewith vse that declaratiō of hunger of Christ and that spirituall refreshing in Christ with theffect of Christes passion and death and the same to be the onely meane of mans regeneratio and feeding also with the differēces of that feeding from bodilye feeding for continuing thys earthly lyfe But thys toucheth not the principal poynt that should be intreated Whether Christ so ordered to feede such as be regenerate in him to geue to them in the Sacramēt the same his body that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fed by fayth and by merites of Christes passion being the mean of the gift of that fayth and other giftes also and by the suffering of the body of Christ and shedding of his most precious bloud on the altar of the Crosse which worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs by wordes aud Sacramentes and the same doctrine receaued of vs by fayth and theffect of it also And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this author But the Catholicke teaching by the scriptures goeth further cōfessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him not onely by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud deliuered in this Sacrament by hym in deede to vs which the faythfull by his institution and commaūdement receaue with their faith and with their mouth also and with those special deinties be fed specially at Christs table And so God doth not onely preach in his Sacraments but also worketh in them and with them and in sensible thinges geueth celestiall giftes after the doctrine of eche Sacramēt as in baptisme the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the altar the very body and bloud of Christ accordinge to the playne sence of his wordes whiche he spake This is my body c. And this is the Catholicke fayth agaynst which how the Author will fortifye that he woulde haue called Catholick and confute that he improueth I intend hereafter more particularly to touche in discussion of that is sayd Caunterbury I Mystrust not the indifferency of the reader so much but he can well perceiue how simple slender a rehearsall you haue made here of my eight annotations and how little matter you haue here to say agaynst them and how little your sayinges require any aunswere And because this may the more euidently appeare to the reader I shall rehearse my wordes heare agayne Although in this treatie of the Sacrament of the body bloud of our sauiour Christ I haue already sufficiētly declared the institution meaning of the same according to the very wordes of the Gospell and of saint Paule yet it shall not be in vayne somwhat more at large to declare the same according to the minde as well of holy scripture as of olde auncient authours and that so sincerely plainly without doubts ambiguities or vain questions that the very simple and vnlearned people may easily vnderstand the same and be edified thereby And this by Gods grace is myne only intent and desire that the flocke of Christ dispersed in this Realme among whome I am appointed a speciall pastour may no longer lacke the commodite and fruite whiche springeth of this heauenly knowledge For the more clerely it is vnderstood the more swetnes fruite comfort and edification it bringeth to the godly receauers therof And to the clere vnderstandyng of this Sacrament diuers thinges must be cōsidered First that as all men of them selues be sinners and through sinne be in gods wrath banished farre away from him condemned to hell and euerlasting dānation and none is clerely innocent but Christ alone so euery soule inspired by god is desirous to be deliuered from sinne and hell and to obteine at Gods handes mercy fauour righteousnes and euerlasting saluation And this earnest and great desire is called in scripture The hūger and thirst of the soule with which kinde of hunger Dauid was taken when he sayde As an hart longeth for springes of water so doth my soule long for thee O God My soule thyrsteth after God who is the well of lyfe My soule thyrsteth for thee my flesh wisheth for thee And this hunger the seely poore sinfull soule is driuen vnto by meanes of the law which sheweth vnto her the horriblenes of sinne the terror of Gods indignation and the horror of death and euerlasting damnation And when she seeth nothing but damnation for her offences by iustice and accusation of the law and this damnation is euer before her eies then in this great distresse the soule being pressed with heuinesse and sorrow seeketh for some comfort and desireth some remedy for her miserable and sorowfull estate And this felyng of her damnable condition and greedy desire of refreshing is the spirituall hunger of the soule And who so euer hath this godly hunger is blessed of God and shall haue meate and drinke inough as Christ himselfe sayd Blessed be they that hunger thyrst for righteousnes for they shal be filled ful And on the other side they that see not their owne sinfull and dānable estate but thinke themselues holy inough and in good case and condition inough as they haue no spirituall hunger so shall they not be fed of God with any spirituall foode For as almighty God feedeth them that be hungry so doth he send away empty all that be not hungry But this hunger and thyrst is not easily perceiued of the carnall man For when he heareth the holy ghost speake of meate and drinke his mynde is by and by in the kytchen and buttery and he thinketh vpō his dishes and pottes his mouth and his belly But the Scripture in sundry places vseth speciall wordes whereby to draw our grosse mindes from the phantasying of our teeth and belly and from this carnall and fleshly imaginatiō For the Apostles and Disciples of Christ when they were yet carnall knew not what was ment by this kinde of hunger and meate and therfore when they desired him to eate to withdraw their minds from carnall meat he sayd vnto them I haue other meate to eate which you know not And why
receauer vnto heauen so sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke this maner of speach implieth as though Christ leaft the seat of his maiestie in heauen to be present in the Sacrament which is most vntrue The Church acknowledgeth beleeueth and teacheth truly that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory frō whence he shall come to iudge the worlde and also teacheth Christs very body and bloud and Christ him selfe God and man to be present in the Sacrament not by shifting of place but by the determination of his will declared in Scriptures and beléeued of the Catholick church which articles be to reason impossible but possible to God omnipotent So as being taught of his will we should humbly submitte all our sēses and reason to the faith of his will and worke declared in his Scriptures In the beléefe of which misteries is great benefit and consolation and in the vnreuerēt search and curious discussion of thē presumptuous boldnes wicked temerity I know by faith Christ to be present but the particularity how he is present more then I am assured he is truely present and therfore in substance present I cannot tell but present he is and truely is and verely is and so in déede that is to say really is and vnfaynedly is and therfore in substance is and as we tearme it substancially is present For all these aduerbes really substancially with the rest be contayned in the one word is spoakē out of his mouth that speaketh as he meaneth truely and certainly as Christ did saying This is my body that shall be betrayed for you who then carryed him selfe in his hands after a certain manner as S. Augustine sayth which neuer man besides him could doe who in that his last Supper gaue him selfe to be eaten without consuming The wayes and meanes wherof no man can tell but humble spirites as they be taught must constātly beléeue it without thinking or talking of flying of stying of Christ again vnto heauē where Christ is in the glory of his Father continually and is neuerthelesse because he will so be present in the Sacrament wholl God and man dwelleth corporally in him that receaueth him worthely Wherfore Reader when thou shalt agayn well consider this comparison thou shalt finde true how the first parte is disguysed with vntrue report of the common teaching of the Church how so euer some glose or some priuat teacher might speak of it And the second part such as hath béen euer so taught One thing I think good to admonish the reader that what soeuer I affirme or precisely deny I meane within the compasse of my knowledge which I speak not because I am in any suspicion or doubt of that I affirme or deny but to auoyd the temerity of denying as neuer or affirming as euer which be extremityes And I mean also of publicke doctrine by consent receaued so taught and beléeued and not that ony one man might blindly write as vttering his fancy as this autor doth for his pleasure There followeth in the Author thus Caunterbury BEcause this comparison as you say is like the other therfore it is fully answered before in the other comparisons And here yet agayn it is to be noted that in all these 4. comparisons you approue and allow for truth the second parte of the comparison which we say And where you say that Christ vndoubtedly remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the sacrament so long as that man remaineth a member of Christ. How agreeth this with the common saying of all the Papistes that Christ is conteyned vnder the formes of bread and wine and remayneth there no longer then the formes of bread and wine remain Wherefore in this point all the wholl route of the Papistes will condemne for vntruth that which you so constantly affirme to be vndoubtedly true And when the Papistes teache that the body of Christ is really in the sacramēt vnder the forme of bread they speak not this geueng faith to Christ his words as you say they doe for Christ neuer spake any such words and as for this saying of Christ this is my body it is a figuratiue speach called Metonymia when one thing is called by the name of another which it signifieth and it hath no such sence as you pretend for these is a great diuersity betweene these two sayinges This is my body and the body of Christ is really in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread But the Papists haue set Christes wordes vpon the tenters and stretched them out so farre that they make his wordes to signifie as pleaseth them not as he meant And this is a marueilous doctrine of you to say that Christ was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and did exhibite and geue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promised in the Sacramentes of the olde law For he is the body of all the figures as well of the new law as of the olde and did exhibite and geue his promises in the Sacramentes of the olde law as he doth now in the Sacraments of the new law And we must vnderstand and the wordes spoaken in the institution of the Sacramentes in both the lawes Figuratiuely as concerning the Sacramentes and without figure as concerning the thinges by them promised signified and exhibited As in circumcision was geeuen the same thing to them that is geuen to vs in baptisme and the same by Manna that we haue at the Lords table Only this difference was betweene them and vs that our redemption by Christes death and passion was then onely promised and now it is perfourmed and past And as their Sacramentes were figures of his death to come so be our figures of the same now past and gon And yet it was all but one Christ to them and vs. Who gaue life comfort and strength to them by his death to come and geueth the same to vs by his death passed And he was in their Sacramentes spiritually and effectually present and for so much truely and really present that is to say in deede before he was born no lesse thē he is now in our Sacramēts present after his death and assention into heauen But as for carnall presence he was to them not yet come And to vs he is come and gone agayne vnto his Father from whom he came And as for the reseruation of the Sacrament neither Cyrill nor Hesychius speake any worde what ought to be done with the Sacrament when by negligence of the Minister it were reserued ouer long But Hesychius sheweth plainly that nothing ought to be reserued but to be burned what so euer remayned And as for the flying of Christ vp into heauen so soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or changed in the stomack I say not that the church teacheth so but that Papistes say so whith for as
the armes be there be the legges so that in euery part of the bread and wine is altogether whole head whole feet whole flesh whole bloud whole hart whole lunges whole breast whole backe and altogyther whole confused and mixt without distinction or diuersity O what a foolish and an abhominable inuention is this to make of the most pure and perfect bodye of Christ such a confuse and monstrous body And yet can the Papistes imagine nothing so foolish but all Christian people must receiue the same as an oracle of God and as a most certayne article of their fayth without whisperyng to the contrary Winchester This is a maruaylous Rhetorique and such as the author hath ouerséene himselfe in the vtterance of it and confesseth himself pretely abused to the latter end of his yeares to haue beleued that he now calleth so foolish But to the purpose In the book of common prayer now at this time set foorth in this Realme It is ordered to teach the people that in ech part of the bread consecrate brokeÌ„ is the whole body of our Sauiour Christ which is agreable to the Catholicke doctrine Upon occasion hereof it liketh this author to multiply language by enumeration of partes and because reason without fayth directeth the bodily eye to so little a visible quantity in the host this Author beareth in hand the Catholicke Church to say and teach all that fond reason deuiseth where as the Church in yâ— doctrine of this mistery denieth all that reasoÌ„ without fayth diuiseth and therefore when we acknowledge by fayth Christs body present although we say it is present truly Really Substantially yet we say our senses be not priuy to that presence â—e the maner of it but by instruction of fayth and therefore we say Christes body to be not locally present not by manner of quantity but inuisible and in no sensible manner but maruailously in a Sacrament and mistery truely and in such a spirituall maner as we can not define and determyne and yet by fayth we knowe his bodye present the partes of which be in them selfe distinct one from an other in their owne substaunce but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of our capacitie which partes we can by no demonstration place nor by imagination displace diminish alter or confound as this author for his pleasure reporteth who writeth monstrously in so high a mistery and impudently beareth in hand the Catholicke Church to teach that he listeth to beare in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of the teaching where as al true Christian men beleue symply Christes wordes and trouble not their heades with such consequences as séeme to striue with reason This is in the Author no whisperyng but playnely rayling wherein if he had remembred himselfe well he would not haue spoken of all Christian men in the receypt of that he entendeth to disproue And if he would say he spake it by an Irony or skorne yet it implyeth that all had receyued that he thus mocketh which after the sort he writeth was neuer deuised by Papist or other to be so taught otherwyse then as this Author might read it as an ydle argument to shew absurditie in reason For in Gods workes as the sacramentes hée we must think all semelynesse in déed without deformity euen as we beleue al Gods iudgements iust and true although reason conclude in them euident iniquitie Mans reason when it séemeth most gallant is full of spottes and folly Gods workes be all séemelynesse without confusion monsier or any such absurditée as this Author supposeth Although I can not in the Sacrament with the eye of my reason locally distinct Christs head from his foote his legs from his arme And where in the booke of common prayer it is truely said in ech part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christes whole body if one of curiositee would question with me and I of folly would aunswere him first where is Christes head I should say here poynting with my finger he would thinke it first a little head Then he would aske where is his foote and I should say there and poynt in the same place againe for there is none other left If he replyed that I poynted before the same for the head might not the third a catholicke man that stood by trow you wisely call vs both madde to go about to discusse that wée must grant we se not wheÌ„ by faith we know only the being preset of Christs most precious body then by blynd reason to discusse the manner of being in the situation of such partes as we do not see Now if there came among vs a fourth man as a mediatour and would do as king Alexander dyd when he could not open the knot of Gordius he did cut it with his sworde if this man should say I will reléeue this matter You beleue Christes body is preseÌ„t in déed really and substaÌ„tially Leaue out really and subtaÌ„tially and say his body is present in signification and then it may be easily conceaued by reason that Christs body being neuer so great may be as well signified by a little péece of bread as by a great péece of bread euen as a man may write a great mans name as wel in smal letters short as in great letters at length And to commend further his deuise vnto vs would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconueniences might be auoyded by it This fourth man I speak of making himselfe a mediatour but in déede vnmete therfore because he hath no participation with sayth yet if our religion and fayth were mans inuention as that of Numa Pompilius was he should not vtter this his conceit all ydelly For he speaketh of a ioly easy way without any mistery or maruaile at all But our faith is of hearing as hath bene preached continually from the beginning grounded vpon the most sure trueth of the word of God and therefore can not be attempered as man would deuise it to exclude trauayle in carnall reason For then the Sabellians were to be harkned vnto who by their heresy toke away all the hard and difficile questions in the mistery of the Trinitie The Arrians also releued much mans reason in consideration of Christs death denying him to be of the same substance with his father which â—as a pestilent heresy Now in the SacrameÌ„t to say Christs body is present onely by signification as it releueth in some mens iudgementes the absurdities in reason which ought not to be releued so it condemneth all the true publike faith testified in the Church from the beginning hetherto and sheweth the learned holy men to haue wondred in their writynges at that which hath no wonder at all to ordeyn one thing to be the signification of an other which is practised daily among men But from the beginning the mistery of the Sacrament hath béen with wonder marueyled at how
is a truth And therefore if I make a lye herein as Smyth saith I doe yet I lie not alone but haue you to beare me company And yet once again more may the reader here note how the Papists vary among them selues And it is vntrue that you say that good men beleeue vpon the credit of Christ that there is truely in the Sacrament the very true body of Christ. For Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud which as the old authors say must needs be vnderstanded figuratiuely but he neuer sayd that his true body is truely in the Sacrament as you here report of him And the manner of his presence you call so high a mistery that the carnall man can not reach it And in deed as you fayne the matter it is so high a mistery that neuer man could reach it but your selfe alone For you make the manner of Christes being in the Sacrament so spirituall that you say his flesh bloud and bones be there really and carnally and yet you confesse in your booke that you neuer red any old author that so said And this manner of handling of so pure a mistery is neither godly foolishnes nor worldly but rather a meere fransy and madnesse And although the scripture speak of Christes body to be eaten of vs yet that is vnderstanded of spiritual and not of corporall eating and of spirituall not of corporall presence The scripture sayth that Christ hath forspoken the world and is ascended into heauen Upon which words S. Augustine Uigilius and other auncient authors do proue that as concerning the nature of his manhode Christ is gone hence and is not here as I declared in my 3. booke the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters And where you thinke that this manner of speech was neuer red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity I am sure that it was neuer red in any approued author that Christ hath his proper forme and quantitie in the sacrament And Duns saith that his quantitie is in heauen and not in the Sacrament And when I say that Christ is in the Sacrament Sacramentally and without forme and quantitie who would thinke any man so captious so ignorant or so full of sophistry to draw my wordes to the forme of Christs diuinitie which I speake most plainly of the forme and quantity of his body and humanitie as I haue before declared And although some other might be so farre ouerseen yet specially you ought not so to take my words Forasmuch as you sayd not past 16. lynes before that my wordes seeme to implye that I ment of Christes humayne body And because it may appeare how truely and faithfully you reporte my words you adde this word all which is more then I speake and marteth all the wholl matter And you gather therof such absurdities as I neuer spake but as you sophistically doe gather to make a great matter◠of nothing And where of this word there you would conclude repugnaunce in my doctrine that where in other places I haue written that Christ is spiritually present in them that receaue the sacrament and not in the sacramentes of bread and wine and now it should seeme that I teach contrary that Christ is spiritually present in the very bread and wine if you pleased to vnderstād my wordes rightly there is no repugnaunce in my words at al. For by this word there I meane not in the Sacraments of bread and wine but in the ministration of the Sacrament as the olde authors for the most part when they speake of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament they meane in the ministration of the Sacrament Which my saying varyeth from no doctrine that I haue taught in any part of my booke Now followeth the tenth comparyson They say that the fathers and Prophets of the old Testament did not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ. We say that they did eat his body and drink his bloud although he was not yet borne nor incarnated Winchester This comparison of difference is clerkly conueyed as it were of a riddle wherin nay and yea when they be opened agrée and consent The fathers did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in the truth of promise which was effectuall to them of redemption to be wrought not in trueth of presence as we do for confirmation of redemption already wrought They had a certayn promyse and we a certayne present payment they did eat Christ spiritually beleeuing in him that was to come but they did not eat Christes body present in the Sacrament sacramentally and spiritually as we do Their Sacramentes were figures of the thinges but ours conteyn the very things And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned mē it may be verefied that the fathers did eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud yet there is no such forme of words in scripture and it is more agreeable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the fathers before Christes natiuitie did not eat the body and bloud of Christ which body and bloud Christ himselfe truely tooke of the body of the virgin Mary For although S. Paule in the tenth to the Corrinthians be so vnderstanded of some as the fathers should eat the same spirituall meat and drink the same spirituall drink that we do to which vnderstanding all doe not agrée yet following that vnderstanding we may not so presse the words as there should be no difference at al and this one difference S. Augustine noteth how their sacraments conteined the promise of that which in our sacrament is geuen Thus he sayth And this is euident of it selfe how to vs in the holy supper Christ saith This is my body that shal be betraied for you take eat which was neuer said to the fathers although their faith in substaunce agréed with ours hauing al one Christ and mediator which they looked for to come and we acknowledge to be already come come and to come as S. August saith differeth But Christ is one by whom all was created and mans fall repayred from whom is all féeding corporal spiritual in whom all is restored in heauē in earth In this faith of Christ the fathers were fed with heauenly spirituall food which was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ and redemption by them hoped which is atchieued by the mistery of the body and bloud of Christ by reason wherof I deny not but it may be said in a good sense how they did eat the body and bloud of Christ before he was incarnat but as I sayd before Scripture speaketh not so and it is no holsome fashion of spéech at this time which furthereth in sound to the eares of the rude the pestilent heresie wherin Ione of Kent obstinately dyed that is to say that Christ tooke nothing of the Uirgine but brought his body with him from aboue beyng a thing worthy to be noted how
manner which we say not but in a spirituall maner and therefore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such maner as God onely knoweth yet dooth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence exceding our capacitie to comprehend the maner how This is the very true teaching to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament euen of the same body that suffred in playne simple euident termes and wordes such as can not by cauilation be mistaken and construed so néere as possibly mans infirmitie permitteth and suffreth Now let vs consider in what sort the author and hys company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the Sacrament who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne which sonne this author sayth is euer corporally in heauen and no where els and yet by operation and vertue is here in earth so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any language of man able to expresse God and hys mysteryes For and thinges that be sene or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible misteryes the nature wherof is that they can not throughly be expressed they were no misteries and yet it is true that of thinges visible wherein God worketh wonderfully there may be great resemblances some shadowes and as it were inductions to make a man astonied in consideration of thinges inuisible when he séeth thinges visible so wonderfully wrought and to haue so maruaylous effectes And diuers good catholicke deuoute men haue by diuers naturall things gone about to open vnto vs the mistery of the trinitie partely by the sonne as the author doth in the Sacrament partely by fyre partely by the soule of man by the Musitians science the arte the touch with the players fingers and the sound of the cord wherein wil hath all trauailed the matter yet remayneth darke ne can not be throughly set forth by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the sonne whiche sonne this author sayth is onely corporally in heauen and no where els and in the earth the operatiō and vertue of the sonne So as by this authors supposall the substance of the sonne should not be in earth but onely by operation and vertue wherein if this author erreth he doth the reader to vnderstande that if he erre in consideration of naturall thinges it is no maruayle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I will not of my selfe begin the contention with this author of the naturall worke of the Sonne I will bryng forth the saying of Martin Bucer now resident at Cambridge who vehemently and for so much truly affirmeth the trew reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament For he sayth Christ sayd not This is my spirite this is my vertue but This is my body Wherefore he sayth we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hang vpon the crosse our Lord hym selfe whiche in some parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the sonne for hys purpose to proue Christes body present really and substancially in the sacramēt where this author vseth the same similitude to proue the body of Christ really absent I will wryte in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin expounding the xrvi chapiter of Saynte Mathew and then I will put the same in english Bucers wordes bée these Vt Sol vere vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est radys tamen suis praesens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substantialiter quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini simbolis quam oculi vident habent Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res sidei non sunt igitur huc admittende cogitationes de presentatione corporis quae constar ratione huius vitae etiamnum patibilis fluxae Verbo Domini simpliciter inhaerendum est debet fides sensuum de fectui praebere supplimentum Which is thus much in English As the sonne is truely placed determinately in one place of the visible heauē and yet is truely and substantially present by meanes of hys beames els where in the world abroad So our Lord although he be comprehended in one place of the secrete and diuine heauen that is to say the glory of hys father yet neuerthelesse by hys word and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man and therfore in substance in his holy supper which presence mans mind geuing credite to his words and tokens with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see and haue the sonne presente exhibited and shewed with his corporally lyght This is a deep secrete matter and of the new testament and a matter of fayth and therfore herein thoughtes be not to be receiued of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of thys life transitorie and subiect to suffer We must simply cleaue to the word of Christ and fayth must releue the default of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his minde whereunto because the similitude of the sonne doth not aunswere in all partes he noteth wisely in th ende howe this is a matter of faith and therefore vpon the foundation of faith we must speake of it thereby to supply where our sences fayle For the presence of Christ and whole Christe God and man is true although we can not thinke of the maner how The chiefe cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shew how in hys iudgement we haue not onely in earth the operation and vertue of the sonne but also the substance of the sonne by incane of the sonne beames which be of the same substaunce with the sonne and can not be deuided in substance from it and therfore we haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sonne not onely the operation and vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sort yet the beames that touch the earth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papiste and yet for the reall and substantiall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pithely and playnly and here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the sonne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the sacrament which is one of the high misteries in our religiō And this may
beleued with our faith or that the bread and wine after the Consecration be the body and bloud of Christ or that we be nourished with the body and bloud of Christ or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here or that Christ at his last supper bare himselfe in his owne hands These and all other like sentences may be vnderstanded of Christes humanity litterally carnally as the words in cōmō spech do properly signifye for so dooth no man eat Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud nor so is not the bread and wine after the consecration his flesh and bloud nor so is not his flesh and bloud whole here in earth eatē with our mouthes nor so did not Christ take him selfe in his own hands But these and all other like sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth to be eaten and drunken of Christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euery where or els they must be vnderstanded figuratiuely or spiritually For figuratiuely he is in the bread and wine and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread wine but really carnally and corporally he is onely in heauen from whence he shall come to iudge the quick and dead This briefe aunswere will suffice for all that the papists can bryng for their purpose if it be aptly applyed And for the more euidence hereof I shall apply the same to somme such places as the Papistes think do make most for thē that by the aunswere to those places the rest may be the more easely answered vnto Winchester In the lxxiiii leaf this author goeth about to geue a generall solution to all that may be sayd of Christes beyng in earth in heauen or in the sacrament and geueth iustructions how these wordes of Christs diuine nature figuratiuely spiritually really carnally corporally may be placed and thus he sayth Christ in his diuine nature may be sayed to be in the earth figuratiuely in the sacrament spiritually in the man that receiueth but really carnally corporally only in heauen Let vs consider the placing of these termes When we say Christ is in his diuine nature euery where is he not really also euery where according to the true essēce of his godhed in deed euery where that is to say not in fantasy nor imagination but verily truely and therefore really as we beleue so in déed euery where And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace is not Christ in them really by grace but in fantasy and imagination And therfore what soeuer this author sayth the word really may not haue such restraint to be referred onely to heauen vnles the author would deny that substance of the godhead which as it comprehendeth all being incomprensible is euery where without limitation of place so as it is truely it is in déed is and therfore really is and therfore of Christ must be sayd wheresoeuer he is in his diuine nature by power or grace he is there really whether we speak of heauen or earth As for the termes carnally and corporally as this author semeth to vse them in other places of this book to expresse the maner of presence of the humaine nature in Christ I maruaile by what scripture he shall proue that Christs body is so carnally and corporally in heauen We be assured by fayth groūded vpon the scriptures of the truth of the beyng of Christs flesh and body there and the same to be a true flesh and a true body but yet in such sence as this author vseth the termes carnall and corporall against the sacrament to imply a grossenes he can not so attribute those termes to Christes body in heauen S Augustine after the grosse sense of carnally sayth Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen And Gregory Nazianzen sayth Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge so as he shal be sene yet there is in him no grossenes he sayth and referreth the maner of his being to his knowlege onely And our resurrection S. Augustine sayeth although it shall be of our true flesh yet it shall not be carnally And when this author had defamed as it were the termes carnally and corporally as tearmes of grossenes to whō he vsed alwayes to put as an aduersatiue the terme spiritually as though carnally and spiritually might not agrée in one Now for all that he would place them both in heauē where is no carnallyty but all the maner of being spirituall where is no grossenes at all the secrecie of the manner of which life is hidden from vs and such as eye hath not séen or eare heard or ascended into the hart and thought of man I know these termes carnally and corporally may haue a good vnderstanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossenes or made them aduersaries to spirituall and a man may say Christ is corporally in heauen because the truth of his body is there and carnally in heauen because his flesh is truly there but in this vnderstanding both the wordes carnally and corporally may be coupled with the word Spiritually which is agaynst this authors teaching who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christes presence in the man that receiued the sacrament worthely which spech I do not disalow but as Christ is spiritually in the man that dooth receiue the Sacrament worthely so is he in him spiritually before be receiue or els he can not receiue worthely as I haue before said And by this appeareth how this author to frame his generall solution hath vsed neither of the tearmes really carnally and corporally or spiritually in a conuenient order but hath in his distribution misused them notably For Christ in his diuine nature is really euery where and in his humaine nature is carnally and corporally as these words signify substāce of the flesh and body continually in heauen to the day of iudgement neuertheles after that signification present in the sacrament also And in those termes in that signification the fathers haue spoken of the effect of the eating of Christ in the sacrament as in the perticuler solutions to the authors here after shall appear Mary as touching the vse of the word figuratiuely to say that Christ is figuratiuely in the bread and wine is a saying which this author hath not proued at all but is a doctrine before this diuerse times reproued and now by this author in England renewed Caunterbury ALthough my chief study be to speak so playnly that all men may vnderstand euery thing what I say yet nothing is plaine to him that wil finde knots in a rish For when I say that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth and to be eaten and drunken of christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euerye where or els they must be vnderstand figuratiuely or spiritually for figuratiuely he
not haue fayled here to alleage it But bicause you haue nothing that maketh for you in dede therfore you alleage nothing in especiall least in the answer it should euidently apeare to be nothing and so slide you from the matter as though all men should beleue you bicause you say it is so And as for the place of Irene alleaged by Melancthon in an Epistle Decolampadius without any such troubling of him selfe as you imagine maketh a playne and easy answer therto although Melancthon wrot not his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius as you negligētly looking vpon their workes be deceaued but to Frideritus Miconius And the wordes of Irene aleadged by Melancthon meane in effect no more but to proue that our bodyes shall rise agayne and be ioyned vnto our soules and reigne with them in the eternall life to come For he wrote agaynst Ualentine Martion and other hereticks which deneied the resurrection of our bodies from whō it semeth you do not much dissent when you say that our bodyes shall rise spiritually if you meane that they shall rise without the forme and fashion of mens bodies without distinction and proportiō of members For those shal be maruaylous bodies that shal haue no shape nor fashion of bodies as you say Christs body is in the sacramēt to whose body oures shall be like after the Resurrection But to returne to answere Irene clearely and at large his meaning was this that as the water in baptisme is called Aqua regenerans the water that doth regenerate and yet it doth not regenerate indeed but is the Sacrament of regeneration wrought by the Holy Ghost and called so to make it to be esteemed aboue other common waters so Christ confessed the creatures of bread and wine ioyned vnto his wordes in his holy supper there truely ministred to be his body bloud meaning thereby that they ought not to be taken as common bread or as bakers bread and wine drunken in the tauern as Smyth vntruely gesteth of me throughout his booke but that they ought to be taken for bread wine wherin we geue thanks to God and therfore be called Eucharistia corporis sanguinis Domini the thanking of Christs body and bloud as Irene termeth them or Misteria corporis sanguinis Domini the misteries of Christes flesh and bloud as Dionysius calleth them or Sacramenta corporis sanguinis Domini the sacraments of Christs flesh and bloud as diuers other authours vse to call them And when Christ called bread and wine his body and bloud why do the the old Authours chaunge in many places that speech of Christ and call them Eucharistia misteria sacramenta corporis sanguinis Domini the thankes geuing the misteries and the sacraments of his flesh and bloud but because they would clearely expound the meaning of Christes speech that whē he called the bread and wine his flesh and bloud he ment to ordayne them to be the sacraments of his flesh and bloud According to such a spech as S. Augustine expresseth how the Sacramentes of Christes flesh and bloud be called his flesh and bloud and yet in deede they be not his flesh bloud but the sacramēts therof signifying vnto the godly receiuers that as they corporally feed of the bread and wine which comfort theyr harts and cōtinue this corruptible life for a seasō so spiritually they feed of Christs very flesh drinke his very bloud And we be in such sort vnited vnto him that his flesh is made our flesh his holy spirite vnityng him and vs so together that we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and make all one misticall body wherof he is the head and wee the members And as feding nourishing and life commeth from the head and runneth into all partes of the body so doth eternal nourishment and life come from Christ vnto vs completely and fully as well into our bodyes as soules And therfore if Christ our head be risen agayne then shall we that be the members of his body surely rise also forasmuch as the members can not be seperated from the head but seyng that as he is our head and eternall foode we must needs by him liue with him for euer This is the argument of Irene agaynst those heriticks which denyed the resurrection of our bodies And these things the sacraments of bread and wine declare vnto vs but neither the carnall presence nor the carnall eating of Christes flesh maketh the things so to be nor Irene ment no such thing For then should all manner of persons that receaue the sacramentes haue euerlasting life and none but they Thus haue I answered to Irene playnly and shortly and Oecolampadius neded not to trouble himselfe greatly with aunswering this matter For by the corporal eating and drinking of Christs flesh and bloud Irene could neuer haue proued the resurrection of our bodies to eternal life And Peter Martir maketh the matter so playn that he concludeth Ireneus wordes to make directly agaynst the doctrine of the Papistes The answere also is easely made to the place which you alleadge out of Ignatius where he calleth Eucharistia the flesh of our sauior Iesus Christ. For he meaneth no more but that it is the sacramēt of his flesh or the mistery of his flesh or as Irene sayd Eucharistia of his flesh as euen now I declared in mine answere to Irene And your long processe here may haue a short aunswere gathered of your owne wordes This word Eucharistia say you can not be well Englished but the body of Christ is good and playne English then if Eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be well Englished it can not be called the body of Christ but by a figuratiue speech And how can you thē conclude of Ignatius words that this is my body is no figuratiue speech It semeth rather that the cleane contrary may be concluded For if these ii speeches be like of one sence Eucharistia is Christs body and this is my body the first be a declaration of the second is this a good argument The fyrst is a figure Ergo the second is none Is it not rather to be gathered vpon the other side thus The first is a declaratiō of the secōd and yet the first is a fygure Ergo the second is also a figure And that rather then the first because the declaration should be a more playne speech then that which is declared by it And as for your coulor of Rhetorick which you cal Reiectiō it is so familiar with your self that you vse it commonly in your booke when I alleage any author or speake any thing that you can not answere vnto And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader that Ignatius in this epistle entreateth not of the manner of the presēce of Christ in the sacramēt but of the maner of his very body as he was borne of his mother crucified and rose agayn appeared
vnto his Apostles and ascended into heaueÌ„ Which things diuers hereticks sayd were not done verily in deed but apparantly to mens sightes and that in deed he had no such carnall corporall body as he appered to haue And agaynst such errors speaketh the epistle and not of the reall and corporall presence of Christ in the sacrameÌ„t although Eucharistia or the sacrament be ordeyned for a remembrance of that very body and so hath the name of it as the sacraments haue the names of the things which they signify But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from the true sence and purpose that was ment to an other sence and purpose that was not ment may appeare the truth of the Papistes who wrast and misconstrue all old auncient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and vngodly purposes Next in my book followeth mine aunswere to Dionisius Dionysius also Whom they alleage to prayse and extoll this sacrament as in deed it is most worthy being a sacrament of most high dignity and perfection representing vnto vs our most perfect spirituall coniunction vnto Chryst and our continuall nourishing feeding comfort and spiritual life in him yet he neuer sayd that the flesh and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wine really corporally sensibly and naturally as the Papists would beare vs in hand but he calleth euer the bread and wine signes pledges and tokens declaring vnto the faythfull receiuers of the same that they receaue Christ spiritually that they spiritually eat his flesh drinke his bloud And although the bread and wine be figures signes tokens of Christes flesh and bloud as S. Dionyse calleth them both before the Consecration and after yet the Greek annotations vpon the same Dionyse do say that the very things themselues be aboue in heauen And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in thys poynt of Christes real and corporal presence so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean agaynst them and that specially in three poynts in Transubstantiation in reseruation of the Sacrament and in the receiuing of the same by the Priest alone Winchester As touching Dionysius a wise reader may without any note of mine se how this author is troubled in hym and calleth for ayd the help of him that made the greek commeÌ„taries vpon Dionysius and pleadeth therwith the forme of the wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally wherof two that is to say really and sensibly the old authors in sillables vsed not forsomuch as I haue red but corporally and naturally they vsed speaking of this sacrament This Dionyse spake of this mistery after the dignitie of it not contending with any other for the truth of it as we do now but extolling it as a marueilous high mistery which if the bread be neuer the holyer and were onely a signification as this author teacheth were no high mistery at all As for the things of the Sacrament to be in heauen the church teacheth so and yet the same thinges be indéede present in the sacrament also which is a mistery so deepe and darke from mans naturall capacitie as is onely to be be beleued supernaturally without asking of the question how wherof S. Chrisostom maketh an exclamation in this wise O great beneuolence of God towards vs he that sitteth aboue with the father at the same houre is holden here with the hands of all men and geueth himselfe to them that will claspe and embrace him Thus sayth Chrisostom confessing to be aboue and here the same things at once and not onely in mens brests but hands also to declare the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible Sacrament whereby Christ is present in the mids of our sences and so may be called sensibly present although mans sences can not comprehend and feel or tast of him in their proper nature But as for this Dionyse he doth without argumeÌ„t declare his fayth in the adoratioÌ„ he maketh of this SacrameÌ„t which is openly testified in his workes so as we need not to doubt what his fayth was As for this authors notes they be descant voluntary without the tenor part being be like ashamed to alleadge the text it self least his thrée notes might seeme fayned without ground as before in S. Clements epistle and therfore I will not trouble the reader with them Canterbury I Aske no more of the reader but to read my book and theÌ„ to iudge how much I am troubled with this author And why may not I cite the grek commentaryes for testimony of the truth Is this to be termed a callyng for ayd Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for ayde Is not your doing rather a caling for ayd when you be fayne to flye for succor to Martin Luther Bucer Melancthon Epinius Ionas Peter Marter and such other whom al the world knoweth you neuer fauored but euer abhorred their names May not this be termed a calling for ayd when you be driuen to such a straight and need that you be glad to cry to such men for helpe whom euer you haue hindered and defamed asmuch as lay in you to do And as for pleading of those wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally they be your owne termes and the termes wherein resteth the whole contention betweene you and me and should you be offended because I speak of those termes It appeareth now that you be loth to here of those wordes and would very gladly haue them put in silence and so should the variance betweene you and me clearely ended For if you will confesse that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament really corporally sensibly and naturally then you and I shal shake hands and be both earnest frends to the truth And yet one thing you do here confesse which is worthy to be noted had in memory that you read not in any old author that the body of Christ is really and sensibly in the sacrament And hereunto I adde that none of them say that he is the bread and wine corporally nor naturally No neuer no papist said that Christes body is in â—he sacrament naturally nor carnally but you alone who be the first auâ— or of this gros error which Smith himself condeÌ„neth and denieth that euer ChristiaÌ„ man so taught although some say that it is there really some substantially and some sensibly Now as concerning the high mistery which S. Denys speaketh of he declareth the same to be in the meruelous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures beyng made after his image and being his liuely temples and Christes misticall body and not in the vnreasonable and vnsensible and vnliuely creatures of bread and wine wherin you say the deep and darke mistery standeth But notwithstanding any holines or godlines wrought in the receauers of them yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselfes but be only tokens
of his worke entreating transubstantiation he would the same wordes of Chrisostome by this forme of spech in the negatiue should not deny precisely And when Chrisostome sayth Do not think that you by man receiue the body of God but that we should not consider man in the receiuing of it Here this author doth alleage these wordes and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of mere deniall But I would aske of this author this question If Chrysostomes fayth had bene that we receaue not the body of God in the Sacrament verily why should he vse wordes idlely to entreate of whom we receiued the body of God which after this authors doctrine we receaue not at all but in figure and no body at all which is of Christes humanity being Christ as this author teacheth spiritually that is by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receaueth and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in this booke onely fyguratiuely Turne back reader to the 36. leafe in the authors booke and read it with this and so consyder vpon what principle here is made an Ergo. I will aunswere that place when I speake of Transubstantiation which shall be after answered to the third and fourth booke as the naturall order of the matter requireth The second place of Chrisostome that this author bringeth forth he graunteth it soundeth much agaynst him fauoreth his aduersaryes but with conferring and considering he trusteth to alter it from the true vnderstanding And not to expound but confound the matter be ioyneth in spech the sacrament of baptisme with this sacramēt which shift this author vsed vntruely in Hylary and would now beare in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament then in baptisme which is not so for in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present and in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence therof for dispensatiō of that mistery as I haue before touched discussing the aunswere to Emissen where as Chrisostome speaking of this sacrament whereof I haue before spoken and Melancthon alleadging it to Decolampadius saith thus The great miracle and great beneuolence of Christ is that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre in our handes here to be embrased of vs. And therfore where this author would note the wonder of Gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonerfull for the worke and effect in man this is one peece of trueth but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the old Fathers wonder at the worke in the Sacrament how bread is chaunged into the body of Christ how Christ sitting in heauen God man is also man and God in the Sacramēt and being worthely receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hylary sayth and corporally as Cyrill sayth How this can be no man can tell no faythfull man should aske and yet it is the true catholick fayth to be truely so wrought For as Cinistene sayth he that is the author of it he is the witnes of it And therfore I will make it an issue with this author that the olde fathers speaking of the wonderfull operation of God in this Sacrament referre it not onely to the vertue and effect of this Sacrament nor to the vertue specially but chiefly to the operation of God in the substaunce of this Sacrament and the Sacrament selfe for such a difference S. Augustine maketh saying Aliud est Sacramentum aliud virtus sacramenti The Sacrament is one the vertue of the Sacramēt is an other Finally in aunswering to Chrisostome this author doth nothing but spend wordes in vayne to the more playne declaration of his owne ignoraunce or worse Caunterbury AS concerning Chrisostome you haue spent so many taunting and scornefull wordes in waste without cause that I need to wast no wordes here at all to make you aunswere but referre the reader to my booke the 25. leafe and 36. leafe and to the 32.33 and 34. leafe where the reader shall finde all that is here spoken fully aunswered vnto But alwayes you be like your selfe proceding in amplification of an argument agaynst me which you haue forged yourselfe and charge me therewith vntruely For I vse not this spech that we receaue not the body of God at all that we receaue it but in a figure For it is my constant fayth and beleefe that we receaue Christ in the sacrament verily and truely and this is plainely taught and set forth my book But that verily as I with Chrisostome and all the olde authors take it is not of such a sort as you would haue it For your vnderstanding of Uerily is so Capernaicall so grosse and so dul in the perceauing of this mistery that you thinke a man can not receaue the body of Christ verily vnles he take him corporally in his corporall mouth flesh bloud and bones as he was borne of the virgine Mary But it is certaine that Chrisostome ment not that we receaue Christes body verily after such a sort when he sayth Doe not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God And yet because I deny onely this grosse vnderstāding you misreport my doctrine that I should say we receaue not Christ at all but in a figure and no body at all wherin you vntruly and sclaundrously report me as my whole book and doctrine can witnesse agaynst you For my doctrine is that the very body of Christ which was borne of the virgine Mary and suffered for our sinnes geuing vs lyfe by his death the same Iesus as concerning his corporal presence is taken from vs and sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet is he by fayth spiritually present with vs and is our spirirituall foode and nourishment and sitteth in the middes of all them that-be gathered togither in his name And this feding is a spirituall feedyng and an heauenly feeding farre passing all corporall and carnall feeding and therfore there is a true presence and a true feding indeed and not in a figure onely or not at all as you most vntruely report my saying to be This is the true vnderstanding of the true presence receiuing feding vpon the body and bloud of our Sauior Christ and not as you depraue the meaning and true sence therof that the receiuing of Christ truly and verily is the receiuing corporally with the mouth corporall or that the spirituall receauing is to receaue Christ onely by his diuine nature which thing I neuer sayd nor mēt Turn I pray thee gētle reader to the 36 leaf of my booke and note these wordes there which I alledge out of Chrisostome Doe not thinke sayth he that you receaue by a man the body of God Then turne ouer the leafe and in the xx line note again my saying that in the holy communion Christ himselfe is spiritually eaten and drunken and
nourisheth the right beleuers Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier and thou shalt euidently perceiue that either he wil not or can not or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer and in my booke also by the receauing and feding vpon Christ spiritually But it is no maruaile that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ before they be borne a new and forsaking their papisticall leauen haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God then flesh bloud can teach them Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth that Christes body is corporally there where the visible formes of bread wine be of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture which teacheth vs to beleue professe that Christ as concerning his bodily presence hath forsaken the world is ascended into heauen shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud there is no mouth and teeth can serue but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes and speake very little And the cause why is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes Caparnaites that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity spirituall circumcition spirituall honger and thirst and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ but they hang all together so in the letter that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit which knowledge if that you had you should soone perceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made And where you peruert the order of the bookes setting the carte before the horse that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second saying that the naturall order of the matter so requireth here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes which is vnder the pretence coulour of order to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light For when they perceaue a window open wherby the light may shine in and the truth appeare then they busily go about to shut that window and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is and les light can be sene And when besides the darkenes of the matter they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes that he is become blind thē dare they make him iudge be the matter neuer so vntrue And no meruail for he is now becōe so blindfeld subiect vnto them that he must say what so euer they bid him be it neuer so much repugnāt to the euidēt truth In such sort it is in the matter of that sacramēt For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined that plaine wordes of the scripture the consent of aūcient writers the articles of our fayth the nature of a sacrament reason all sences making so euidently agaynst it therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation but they will alwayes beare men in hand that other matters must fyrst be examined as the late Bishop doth here in this place Now in the second place of Chrisostome where you say that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen which shall suffice for answere here also And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre here with vs in our handes truth it is that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment But that we shoud not think that he is corporally here with vs S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum saying Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man that we should therby take away the truth of his body And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body to be in two places at one tyme therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally and also naturally in the sacrament For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule But like as it is not to be thought that Quicquid est in deo est putandum vbique vt dens that whatsoeuer is in god is euery where as God is so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme euery where where his godhead is But Christ is sayth S. Augustine Vbique per id quod est deus in coelo autem per id quod est homo Euery where in that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence and the presence of his diuinitie of his grace of his truth of his maiestie and power is reall and effectuall in many places according to his worde Now as concerning your issue I refuse it not but say that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred and which our sauiour Christ ment and the old fathers speake of is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life Now if you can bring good testimony for you that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud and that it shall lyue for euer which neuer had lyfe and that Gods operation worke is more in domme creatures then in man then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you And when I heare your testimonies I shall make answer but before I here them I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne and beate the wind to no purpose Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alleadge sayth thus Christ geuing thankes dyd breake which also we doe adding thereto prayer And he gaue vnto them saying Take this is my body this that I do now geue and that which ye now do take For the bread is not a
example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this author teacheth then were the bread of Proposition figure of a figure and shadow of a shadow which is ouer great an absurditie in our religion Therfore there can not be a more playne proofe to shew that by S. Hieromes mynd Christes body is verely in the Sacrament and not figuratiuely onely then wheÌ„ he noteth Panes propositionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christes body in the Sacrament For as Tertulian sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis esses corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that answered vnto it wer not of truth which is the sence of Tertulians wordes And therfore S. Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certaynly playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this author sayth For S. Hierome affirmeth playnly Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although S. Hierom attributeth to the minister yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the author and worker notwithstanding by reason of the minestry in the church the doing is ascribed to manne as minister bycause Christ sayd Hoc facite after which speach saluation remission of sinne and the worke in other SacrameÌ„tes is attribute to the minister being neuerthelesse the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde bicause some be vniustly offended to heare that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findth fault before at the word making which religiousely heard and reuerently spoken should offend no man for man is but a minyster wherin he should not glory And Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread nor maketh him selfe so oft of bread a new body but sitting in heauen dooth as our inuisible Priest worke in the mistery of the visible pristhood of his church and maketh present by his omnipotencie his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuertion of the visible creatures of bread and wine as Emissen sayth into the same This author of this booke as thou reader mayst perceaue applieth the figure of the breades called Panes propositionis to the body of Christ to come where as S. Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore doth fashion his argument in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so much cleanes in them that should eat them that they might not eate of them which a day or two before had lyen with theyr wiues what cleanes is required in him that should make the body of Christ Wherby thou mayst se how this author hath reserued this notable place of S. Hierom to the later ende that thou shouldest in the ende as well as in the middest see him euidently snarled for the better remembrance Caunterbury TO these wordes of S. Hierome I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And now to adde some thing therunto I say that he meaneth not that Panis Propositionis be figures of the sacrament but of Christes very body And yet the same body is not onely in the sacrament figuratiuely but it is also in the true ministration therof spiritually present spirituallye eaten as in my booke I haue playnely declared But how is it possible that Caius Vlpian or Sceuola Batholus Baldus or Curtius should haue knowledge what is ment by the spirituall presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the spirituall eating of his flesh and bloud if they be voyde of a liuely fayth feeding and comforting theyr soules with their owne workes and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ. The meat that the Papistes liue by is indulgences and pardons and such other remission of sinnes as cometh all from the Pope which giueth no life but infecteth and poysoneth but the meate that the true Christian man lyueth by is Christ him selfe who is eaten onely by fayth and so eaten is life and spirite giuing that life that endureth and continueth for euer God graunt that we may learne this heauenly knowledge of the spirituall presence that we may spiritually taste and feede of this heauenly foode Now where you say that there canne not be a more playne proofe to shew that Christes body is verely in the sacrament and not figuratiuely onely than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christes body in the sacrament For as Tertulian sayth the other were not to be called a figure if that which aunswereth to it were not of truth Here your for is a playne fallax à non causa vt causa and a wonderous subtiltie is vsed therin For where Tertulian proueth that Christ had here in earth a very body which Martion denied bicause that bread was instituted to be a figure therof and there canne bee no figure of a thing that is not you alleadge Tertulians wordes as though he should say that Christes body is in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread whereof neyther Tertulian intreated in that place nor it is not required that the body should be corporally where the figure is but rather it should be in vayne to haue a figure when the thing it selfe is present And therfore you vntruely reporte both of S. Hierome and Tertulian For neyther of them both do say as you would gather of theyr wordes that Christes body is in the sacrament really and corporally And where you say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matier of bread either you be very ignoraunt in the doctrine of the sacrament as it hath bene taught these fiue hundred yeares or els you dissemble the matter Hath not this bene the teaching of the schole diuines yea of Innocent him selfe that the matter of this Sacrament is bread of wheat and wine of grapes Do they not say that the substaunce of bread is tourned into the substaunce of Christes flesh and that his flesh is made of bread And who worketh this but Christ him selfe And haue you not confessed all this in your booke of the Deuils sophistry why do you then deny here that which you taught before and which hath bene the common aproued doctrine of the Papistes so many yeares And bycause it should haue the more authorite was not this put into the masse bookes and reade euery yeare Dognum datur christianis quod in caâ—nem transit panis uinum in sanguinem Now seing that you haue taught so many yeares that the matter and substaunce of bread is not consumed to nothing but is chaunged and tourned into the body of Christ so that the body of Christ is made of it what meane you now to deny that Christ is made of the matier of bread Whan water was tourned into wine was not the wine made of the
men eate and drincke the body and bloud of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors playnly which I haue alleadged without your addition of spirituall manducation and not one of them all say as you do that in the visible Sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do But I make no such vayne proofes as you fayne in my name that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present bycause euil men receaue it But this argument were good although I make no such Euell men eate and drincke the sacrament and yet they eate and drincke not Christes flesh and bloud Ergo his flesh and bloud be not really and corporally in the sacrament And when you say that Christ may be receaued of the euel man to his condemnation is this the glory that you geue vnto Christ that his whole presence in a man both with flesh bloud soule and spirite shall make him neuer the better and that Christ shal be in him that is a member of the deuell And if an euill man haue Christ in him for a tyme why may he not then haue him still dwelling in him For if he may be in him a quarter of an houre he may be also an whole houre and so a whole day and an whole yeare and so shall God and the diuell dwell together in one house And this is the croppe that groweth of your sowing if Christ fall in euell men as good seed falleth in euell ground And where you say that all that euer I bring to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ may be shortly aunswered truth it is as you sayd in one place of me that all that I haue brought may be shortly aunswered if a man care not what he aunswer as it seemeth you pas not much what you aunswer so that you may lay on lode of wordes For where as I haue fully proued as well by authoritie of scripture as by the testimony of many olde writers that although euell men eate the sacramentall bread and drincke the wine which haue the names of his flesh and bloud yet they eate not Christes very flesh nor drincke his bloud Your short and whole aunswer is this that euell men may be sayd not to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud bycause they do it not frutefully as they ought to do And that may be called a not eating as they may be sayd not to heare godes word that heare it not profitably and a thing not well done may be in speach called not done in the respect of the good effect I graunt such speaches be sometyme vsed but very rarely and when the very truth commeth in discussion then such Paradoxes are not to be vsed As if it come in question whether a house be builded that is not well builded then the diffinition of the matter must not be that it is not builded although the carpenters and other workemen haue fayled in theyr couenaunt and bargayne and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to haue done So our sauiour Christ teacheth that all heard the word whether the seed fell in the high way or vpon the stones or among the thornes or in the good groūd Wherfore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers whether euell menne eate Christes body or no if the truth had bene that euill men eate it the olde writers would not so precisely haue defined the contrary that they eate not but would haue sayd they eate it but not effectually not frutefully not profitably But now the authors which I haue alleaged define playnly and absolutely that euell men eate not Christes body without any other addition But after this sort that you do vse it shall be an easy matter for euery man to say what liketh him and to defend it well inough if he may adde to the scriptures and doctours wordes at his pleasure and make the sense after his owne phantasye The scriptures and Doctoures which I alleadge do say in playne wordes as I do say that euell menne do not eate the body of Christ nor drincke his bloud but onely they that haue life therby Now come you in with your addition and glose made of your owne head putting therto this word effectually Yf I should say that Christ was neuer conceaued nor borne could not I auoyd all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary by adding this word apparantly and defend my saying stoutly And might not the Ualentinians Marcianistes and other that sayd that Christ dyed not for vs defend their errour with addition as they did of this word putatiue to all the scriptures that were brought agaynst them And wat herisie can be reproued if the heretikes may haue the liberty that you do vse to adde of their owne heades to the wordes of scripture contrary vnto Godes word directly who cōmaundeth vs to adde nothing to his word nor to take any thing away And yet more ouer the authorities which I haue brought to approue my doctrine do clerely cast away your addition adding the cause why euell men can not eate Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud And you haue taught almost in the beginning of your booke that Christes body is but a spirituall body and after a spirituall manner eaten by fayth And now you haue confessed that who so fedeth vpon Christ spiritually must nedes be a good man How can you than defend now that euell men eat the body of Christ except you will now deny that which you graunted in the beginning and now haue forgotten it that Christes body cannot be eaten but after a spirituall maner by fayth Wherin it is meruayle that you hauing so good a memory should forgette the common prouerbe Mendacem memorem esse oportet And it had ben more conuenient for you to haue answered fully to Cyprian Athanasius Basyll Hierom and Ambrose then when you cannot answer to wipe your handes of them with this slender answer saying that you haue answered And whether you haue or no I refer to the iudgement of the reader And as concerning S. Augustine De ciuitate Dei he sayth that euell men receaue the sacrament of Christes body although it auayleth them not But yet he sayth in playne wordes that we ought not to say that any man eateth the body of Christ that is not in the body And if the reader euer saw any meare cauilation in all his lyfe tyme let him read the chapter of S. Augustine and compare it to your answer and I dare say he neuer sawe the like And as for the other places of S. Augustine by me alleadged with Origen and Cirill for the more ease you passe them ouer with silence and dare eate no such meate it is so hard for you to digest And thus haue you with post hast runne ouer all my scriptures and doctours as it were playing at the post with still passing and geuing ouer euery game And yet shal you
our Lordes body to proue the presence of Christes body there who compareth such an offender to the Iewes that did shed Christes bloud maliciously as those do prophane it vnprofitably in which sense the Grke commentaries do also expound it And where this author bringeth in the wordes of S. Paule as it were to poynt out the matter Let a man examine him selfe and so eate of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth vnworthely c. these wordes of examining and so eatyng declare the thing to be ordered to be eaten and all the care to be vsed on our side to eate worthely or els S. Paule had not sayd and so eat And when S. Paule sayth Eate iudgement and this Author well remember him selfe he must call Iudgement the effect of that is eaten and not the thing eaten for iudgment is neyther spirituall meat nor corporall but the effect of the eating of Christ in euyll men who is saluation to good and iudgement to euell And therfore as good men eating Christ haue saluation so euill men eating Christ haue condemnation and so for the diuersite of the eaters of Christes body followeth as they be worthy and vnworthy the effect of condemnation or lyfe Christes sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that sacrament bring alwayes one And what so euer this author talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles Caunterbury AS touching myne aunswere here to the wordes of S. Paule you would fayne haue them hid with darkenesse of speach that no man should see what I meane For as Christ sayd Qui male agit odit lucem and therfore that which I haue spoken in playne speach you darken so with your obscure termes that my meaning can not be vnderstand For I speake in such playne termes as all men vnderstand that when S. Paule sayd he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth drinketh his owne damnation in that place he spake of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not of the corporall eating and drincking of Christes flesh and bloud These my playne wordes you do wrape vp in these darke termes that I would distinct the vnworthy eating in the substaunce of the Sacrament receaued Which your wordes vary so farre from myne that no man can vnderstand by them my meaning except you put a large comment therto For I distinct the vnworthy eating none otherwise then that I say that when S. Paule speaketh of vnworthy eating he maketh mencion of the vnworthy eating of the bread and not of the body of Christ. And where you aske me this question why it should be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when it is not there at all There is in my booke a full and playne answere vnto your question alredy made as there is also to your whole booke So that in making of my booke I did foresee all things that you could obiect agaynst it In so much that here is not one thing in all your book but I can shew you a sufficient answer therto in one place or other of my former booke And in this your question here moued I referre the reader to the wordes of my booke in the same place And where you say that if the bread be but a figure it is lyke Manna as concerning the materiall bread truely it is like Manna but as concerning Christ him selfe he sayd of him selfe Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer And as concerning Erasmus and the greke commentaries neyther of them sayth vppon the place of S. Paule as you alleage them to say And what soeuer it pleaseth you to gather of these wordes examining and so eating yet S. Paules wordes be very playne that he spake not of the eating of the very body of Christ but of the eating of the materiall bread in the sacrament which is all one whether the good or euyll eate of it And all the care is on our syde to take heede that we eate not that bread vnworthely For as the eating of the bread vnworthely not of Christ him selfe who can not be eaten vnworthely hath the effect of iudgemēt and damnacion so eating of the same bread worthely hath the effect of Christes death and saluation And as he that eateth the bread worthely may be well sayd to eate Christ and life So he that eateth it vnworthely may be sayd to eate the diuell and death as Iudas did into whom with the bread entred Satan For vnto such it may be called mensa daemoni orum non mensa Domini not Gods bourd but the diuels And so in the eaters of the bread worthely or vnworthely followeth the effect of euerlasting lyfe or euerlasting death But in the eating of Christ himselfe is no diuersite but whosoeuer eateth him hath euerlasting lyfe For asmuch as the eating of him can be to none dampnation but saluation because he is lyfe it selfe And what so euer you bable to the contrary is but meare fables deuised without goddes word or any sufficient ground Now foloweth myne aunswer vnto such authors as the Papistes wrast to theyr purpose But here may not be passed ouer the answer vnto certayne places of auncient authors which at the first shew seeme to make for the Papistes purpose that euill men do eate and drincke the very flesh and bloud of Christ. But if those places be truely and throughely wayed it shall appeare that not one of them maketh for theyr errour that euill men do eat Christes very body The first place is of S. Augustine Contra Cresconium Grammaticum where he sayth that although Christ him selfe say He that eateth not my flesh and drinketh not my bloud shall not haue life in him yet doth not his Apostels teach that the same is pernicious to them which vse it not well for he sayth Whosoeuer eateth the bread and drincketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely shal be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. In which wordes S. Augustine semeth to conclude that aswel the euill as the good doe eate the body and bloud of Christ although the euill haue no benefite but hurt therby But consider the place of S. Augustine diligently and then it shall euidently appeare that he ment not of the eating of Christes body but of the Sacrament therof For the intēt of S. Augustine there is to proue that good thinges auayle not to such persons as do euill vse them and that many thinges which of them selues be good and be good to some yet to other some they be not good As that light is good for whole eyes and hurteth sore eyes that meate which is good for some is euill for other some One medecine healeth some and maketh other sicke One harnes doth arme one and combreth another one coate is meete for one and to straight for an other And after other examples
rather our senses do confirme our fayth Or els what auayled it to S. Thomas for the confirmation of Christes resurrection that he did put his hand into Christes syde and felt his woundes if he might not trust his sences nor geue no credite thereto And what a wide doore is here opened to Valentinianus Martion and other heretikes which sayd that Christ was not crucified but that Simon Cireneus was crucified for him although to the sight of the people it semed that Christ was crucified Or to such heretikes as sayd that Christ was no man although to mens sightes he appeared in the forme of man and semed to be hungry drie weary to wepe sleepe eate drincke yea and to dye like as other men do For if we once admitte this doctrine that no credite is to be geuen to our senses we open a large field and geue a greate occasion vnto an innumerable rablement of most heinous heresies And if there be no trust to be geuen to our senses in this matter of the sacrament why then do the Papistes so stoutly affirme that the accidents remayne after the consecration which can not be iudged but by the sences For the scripture speaketh no word of the accidents of bread wine but of the bread wine themselues And it is agaynst the nature diffinitiō of accidētes to be alone without any substāce Wherfore if we may not trust our sences in this matter of the sacramēt than if the substance of the bread wine be gone why may we not then say that the accidēts be gone also And if we must nedes beleue our senses as conserning the accidēts of bread and wine why may we not do the like of the substance and that rather than of the accidents forasmuch as after the consecration the Scripture sayth in no place that there is no substance of bread nor of wine but calleth them still by such names as signifie the substances and not the accidents And finally if our senses be dayly deceaued in this matter than is the sensible sacrament nothing els but an elution of our senses And so we make much for theyr purpose that sayd that Christ was a crafty iugglar that made thinges to appeare to mens sightes that in dede were no such thinges but formes onely figures and apparances of them But to conclude in fewe wordes this processe of our senses let al the Papists lay their heades togither and they shall neuer be able to shew one article of our fayth so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thynge to be and yet our fayth shall teache vs the contrary thereunto Winchester As in answering to the third chapiter I haue shewed how reason receaued into faythes seruice doth not striue with Transubstantiation but agreeth well with it so I trust to shew howe mannes sences whych this author calleth the fyue wyttes be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation as a matter wherof they can no skill And therfore to a question this Author asketh in the end of the second columne in the 22. leafe which is this If we beleue our sences in the accidents why may we not do the like of the substance I answere thus that the sences can no skill of substance as lerned men speake of substance nor this author neither if a man should iudge him by this question For and a sensuall man one that followeth his rude senses would say Come hither master schollar I here much talking in this world of substance and accidence and if he were of a mery nature would say his litle boy had learned his accidence but him selfe woreth not perfectly what substance meaneth as clerkes terme it and bringing forth a piece of bread an other of chese and a pot of ale would desire the scoller to learne him the substance of them and shew it with his finger and shew him also what differēce betwene the substance of bread chese and the ale I thincke the schollar with the aduice of all at cambridge and Oxford also could not doe it and the more the schollar should trauayle with such a rude man so sensuall in the matter I thinke he should be the further of oneles the sensuall man would set a part his rude wittes and learne of the schollar some reasonable vnderstanding which is that the substance is the inward nature wherin those that be accidents do naturally stay the quantity immediately and the rest by meane of quantity in which the rest may be sayd to stay which wordes were new diuinity to this man who touching the bread would aske the scholler roundly Callest thou not this substance this good thicke piece that I handle The scholler would answere Syr as I shall answere you You will say I play the sophister for I must speake lerning to you that you can no skill of And be not angry though I tell you so for and ye were learned ye would not aske me this question for substance as it is properly vnderstanded to be of this or that thing is properly neither sene by it selfe nor felt and yet by reason comprehended truely to be in that we fele or see neuertheles in cōmon speach and in the speach of such as for the purpose speake after the common capacitie the word substance is vsed to signifie that is seene or felt and so ye may say ye see the substance or fele the substance of bread and yet ye do in dede see but the colour and by it the largenes and fele the heate or coldnes moysture or drines weight or lightnes hardnes or softnes thiknes thinnes If ye wil learne what substāce is ye must leaue your outward sēces consider in your vnderstanding how in euery thing that is there is a stay which we cal a substance being the principall part of euery thing which fayling we say that speciall thing not to be As where the substance of bread is not there the special thing bread is not bicause bread is as euery other naturall visible thing is of two partes substance and accidentes now if the one parte that is to say substance be not there which can be but by miracle then is no bread properly there bicause the one and chief part is not there and yet I say not nothing is there for the other part remayning hath a being as Gods visible creature and may be called the visible part of bread and therfore the outward kind and forme of bread and the apparāce of bread and a true sensible part of bread and therfore be called also by the name of bread not that it is so properly but after the common speach and capacity of men and may be called the nature of bread signifying the property and the matter of bread signifiing the grossenes The rude man I thinke would hereat say Here is sophistry in dede for here is substance and no substance matter of bread and no bread apparance of
deuise wayward answers to the externall actes of Christ as now a dayes they delude the miraculous entring of Christ to his disciples the dores being shutte Our fayth of the true manbode in Christ is truely beleued by true preaching thereof and by the scriptures not by the outward sences of men which altogither we must confesse could be no certayne ineuitable profe thereof And therfore Christ appearing to his disciples going into â—â—â—â—us opened the scriptures to them for the profe of his death that he suffred as very man and yet he vsed also in some part to preach to their sences with sensible exhibition of him selfe vnto them And so all Christes doinges which were most true doe beare testimony to the truth but in their degree of testimony and the feeling of S. Thomas being as S. Gregory sayth miraculous serueth for profe of an other thing that gods worke in miracle doth not empayre the truth of the thing wrought and so S. Thomas touched then Christ as truely by miracle after his resurrection in his body glorified as if he had touched his body before glorification Finally in Christes actes or his ordinances be no illusions all is truth and perfect truth and our sences in the visible fourmes of bread and wine be not illuded but haue their proper obiectes in those accidents and reason in carnall vnderstanding brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth doth in the estimation of the host consecrate yelde to fayth according wherunto we confesse truely the same to be the body of Christ. Where this Author would all the Papistes to lay all their headers togither c I know no such Papistes but this I say without farther counsayle which this author with all his counsayle shall not auoyde we beleue most certaynly the resurrection of our flesh and be perswaded by Catholique teaching that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament shal be made incorruptible and yet after the iudgemeÌ„t of our sences and conclusions gathered of them considering the manner of the continuall wasting of the sayd bodies appeare the vtter consumption whereof some philosophers haue at length after their reason declared their mynde whome Christen men contemne withall the experience of sences which they alleadge being vehement in that matter we reade in Scripture of the feeding of Angels when Loth receaued them Caunterbury AS in your answere to the iii. chapiter of my booke you haue doone nothing but dalied and trifled euen so do you likewise in the iiii Chapiter and yet farre more vnsemely then in the third For doth it become a christen Bishop of a matter of religion and a principal article of our fayth to make a matter of bread and chese And of the holy supper of the Lord to make a resemblance of a dinner of hogges flesh And yet for perswatioÌ„ of your purpose you make as it were a play in a dialogue betwene a rude man and a learned scholler wherin the matter is so learnedly handeled that the simple rude man sheweth himselfe to haue more knowledge then both you and your learned scholler And why you should bring in this matter I know not except it be to shew your ignoraunce to be as great in logike and philosophy as it is in diuinity For what an ignorance is this to say that a man can know no difference betwene one substance and an other and that substances be not iudged by any sences And that all naturall thinges be of these .ii. partes of substances and accidents and that their accidents be part of their substances and be called their substances their natures and matters Was there euer any such learning vttered before this tyme May not all men now euidently perceaue unto what a straight your errour hath driuen you that you haue none other defence but to flie to such absurdities as be agaynst the iudgement of the whole world Would you make men beleue that they know not the substance of the bread from drincke nor of chalke from chese Would you leade the world into this errour that Christ was neuer indede sene heard nor felt when he walked here with his apostles Did he not proue the truth of his very flesh and bones by sight saying A spirite hath not flesh and bones as you see me haue And although substances be not seene and knowne to our sences but by their accidents yet be they indede knowne and properly knowne and truely knowne by their accidentes and more properly seene then their accidents bee For the accidents be rather the meanes to know the substaunce by then the thinges that be knowne Is not wine knowne from beare by the taste and mustard from suger Is not one man knowen by his voyce from another And a shalme from a drumme And is not a man discerned from a beast and one from an other by sight But when you tourne vp all speaches all reason and all manner of knowledge it is lesse to be meruayled that you tourne vp diuinity also wherin you can lesse skill then in the rest And where you say that the sences can no skill of substances bicause they mâ—â—be deceaued therin so may they also be in the accidents For doe not the sunne and moone sometyme looke redde by meanes of the vapors betwene vs and them And doth not spectacles make althinges looke of the same colour that they be of And if you hold vp your finger directly betwene your eyes and a candell looking full at the candell your finger shall seeme two and if you looke full at your finger the candell shal seeme two And an age we maketh swete thinges seeme bitter and that is swete to one is bitter to an other And if a man hauing very hote handes and an other very colde if they handle both one thing the one shall thinke it hote and the other colde So that the sences may erre aswell in the accidents as in the substances and can not erre in the substances except they erre also in the accidents But in speaking of substance you declare such a substance as neuer was nor neuer shal be phantasiyng substance by your imagination to be a thing in it selfe separated from all accidents and so confounding the substances of all thinges and mixting heauen and earth togither you make all substances but one substance without any differeÌ„ce And where almighty God hath taught by his word that there be heauenly bodyes and earthly bodyes and that euery seede hath his owne proper body and that all flesh is not one flesh but the flesh of men of beastes of fish and of foule be diuers you teach by your wordes that all flesh is one flesh and all substances one substance and so confound you all flesh with hogges flesh making an hotche potche like vnto him that made a greate variety of dishes all of hogges flesh For take away the accidentes and I pray you what difference is betwene the bodely substance of the
signatum in signo And where you be fayne to say that accidents be meate without substance all the world may iudge how shamefull a shift this is and how contrary to this principle of philosophy Ex eisdem sunt nutriuntur omnia Oh what absurdities you be driuen vnto for the defence of your Papisticall inuentions Now cometh S. Iohn Chrisostome of whome in my booke is thus written About the same tyme of shortly after about the yeare of our Lord 400. S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth thus agaynst them that vsed onely water in the Sacrament Christ sayth he minding to plucke vp that heresy by the rootes vsed wine as well before his resurrection when he gaue the misteries as after at his table without misteries For the sayth of the fruite of the vine which surely bringeth forth no water but wine These wordes of Chrisostome declare playnly that Christ in his holy table both drancke wine and gaue wine to drincke which had not bene true if no wine had remayned after the consecration as the Papistes fayne And yet more playnly S. Chrisostome declareth this matter in an other place saying The bread before it be sanctified is called bread but when it is sanctified by the meanes of the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body although the nature of bread dooth still remayne The nature of bread sayth he doth still remayne to the vtter and manifest confutation of the Papists which say that the accidents of bread do remayne but not the nature and substance Winchester Christostome speaketh in this place of wine as Ciprian did before agaynst those that offer no wine but water Chrisostome sayth thus Christ vsed wine and I graunt he did so For he did consecrate that creature and as Emissene sayth turned it in the celebration and dispensation of these misteries But this saying toucheth nothing the doctrine of Transubstantiation The second saying of Chrisostom which I neuer redde but in Peter Martirs booke who sayth it is not printed toucheth this authors doctrine much if the bread by consecration be deliuered from the name of bread and exalted to the name of our Lordes body Now consider reader if this manner of speach by Chrisostome here meaneth an effectuall naming to make the substance of the body of Christ present as Chrisostome in his publike approued workes is vnderstanded of all to teach then is the deliuerance from the name of bread of like effect to take away the reason of the name of bread which is the change in substance therof Or if the author will say that by the name of bread Chrisostome vnderstandeth the bare name how can that stand without reprofe of S. Paule who after this authors mynde calleth it bread after consecration and so do many other by this author alleadged Here percase may be sayd what should I reason what he ment when he sayth playnly the nature of bread still remayneth To this I say that as Chrisostome in this place of an epistle not published by credite sayth that the nature of bread remayneth So Ciprian that was older then he sayth the nature of bread is changed which Chrisostome in his other workes by publique credite set abrode semeth not to deny Now the word nature signifieth both the substance and also propriety of the nature The substance therfore after Ciprian by the word of God is changed but yet the proper effect is not changed but in the accidences remayne without illusion by which diuers signification and acception of the word nature both the sayings of S. Ciprian and S. Chrisostome if this be his saying may be accorded and notwithstanding the contrariete in letter agree neuertheles in sence betwene themselfe and agree with the true doctrine of Transubstantiation Adde to this how the wordes of Chrisostome next following this sentence alleadged by this author and as it semeth of purpose left her out do both confound this authors enterprise and confirme the true doctrine Which wordes be these And is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne of God Of Chrisostome I shall speake agayne hereafter Caunterbury THe first place of Chrysostome by me alleadged you say toucheth not the doctrine of Transubstantiation But you rehearse but a piece of Chrisostomes wordes For he sayth not onely that Christ vsed wine but also drancke wine in the misteries and the very wine of the grape And how could then the wine be transubstantiate except it were transubstantiate after it was drunken Now as touching the second part of Chrisostome where he sayth that the bread when it is consecrated is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body and yet the nature of bread doth still remayne he meaneth that the bread is deliuered from the bare name of bread to represent vnto vs the body of Christ according to his institution which was crucified for vs not that he is present or crucified in the bread but was crucified vpon the Crosse. And the bread is not do clearely deliuered from the name of bread that it is no bread at all for he sayth the nature of bread doth still remayne nor that it may not be called by the name of bread but it is so deliuered that commonly it is called by the higher name of the Lordes body which to vs it representeth As you and I were deliuered from our surnames when we were cōsecrated bishops sithens which tyme we haue so commonly bene vsed of all men to be called bishoppes you of Winchester and I of Caunterbury that the most part of the people know not that your name is Gardyner and myne Cranmer And I pray God that we being called to the name of Lordes haue not forgotten our owne baser estates that once we were simple squiers And yet should he haue done neyther of vs wrong that should haue called vs by our right names no more then S. Paule doth any iniury to the bread in the sacrament calling it bread although it haue also an higher name of dignity to be called the body of Christ. And as the bread being a figure of Christs body hath the name therof and yet is not so in deede so I pray God that we haue not rather bene figures of bishops bearing the name and title of Pastors and Bishoppes before men then that we haue in deede diligently fed the little flocke of Christ with the swete and holsome pasture of his true and liuely word And where you alleadge Ciprian to auoyd therby the saying of Chrisostome in the epistle by me cited you take Ciprian clearely amisse as I haue playnly opened hereafter in the xi chapiter of this booke wherunto for to auoyde the tediousnes of repeting I referre the indifferent reader vnto which myne answer there healpeth much that which you graunt here that the word nature signifieth both the substance and also the propriety For in Ciprian
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
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
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
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
agayne once assended into heauen and there sitteth and shall sit at the right hand of his father euermore although spiritually he be euery day amongst vs and who so euer come togither in his name he is in the middest among them And he is the spirituall pasture and food of our soules as meat and drincke is of our bodyes which he signifieth vnto vs by the institution of his most holy supper in the bread and wine declaring that as the bread and wine corporally comfort and feed our bodyes so doth he with his flesh and bloud spiritually comfort and feed our soules And now may be easely answered the Papistes argument wherof they do so much boast For bragge they neuer so much of their conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet that conuersion is spirituall and putteth not away the corporall presence of the materiall bread and wine But for as much as the same is a most holy sacrament of our spirituall norishment which we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ there must needes remayne the sensible element that is to say bread and wine without the which there can be no sacrament As in our spirituall regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme if there be no water For as baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spirituall regeneration without there be aswell the element of water as the holy ghost spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised which is signified by the sayd water euen so the supper of the Lord can be no perfect Sacrament of spirituall food except there be as well bread and wine as the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spiritually feeding vs which by the sayd bread and wine is signified And how so euer the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ be there present they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine as with the accidents of the same as the scholeauthors do confesse them selues and it shall be well proued if the aduersaries will deny it Thus you see the strongest argument of the Papistes answered vnto and the chiefe foundation wherupon they buyld their errour of Transubstantiation vtterly subuerted and ouerthrowen Winchester Wherein this author not seeing how little he hath done concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him entending to shew that the doctrine of Transubstantiation dependeth onely of authority which is not so using the sayinges of Duns and Gabriell as he reporteth them for his purpose bicause they as he sayth boast themselues what they could doe if the determination of the counsaile were not and thus euery idle speach may haue estimation with this author agaynst the receaued truth And from this poynt of the matter the author of this booke maketh a passage with a litle sport at them he fanâ—â—eth or liketh to call so English Papistes by the way to enterprise to answere all such as he supposeth reasons for Transubstantiation and authorities also First he findeth himselfe mirth in divissing as he calleth them the Papistes to say that Christ is made a new which fansie if it were so is agaynst the reall presence as well as transubstantiation In which wordes bicause euery wise reader may see how this author playeth I will say no more but this Christ is not made a new nor made of the substance of bread as of a matter and that to be the Catholique doctrine this author if he be right named knoweth well enough and yet spendeth two leaues in it Caunterbury WHen I haue proued most euidently as well by the testimony of the scripture as by the consent of the olde authors of Christes church both greekes and Latines from the beginning continually from tyme to tyme that transubstantiation is agaynst gods most holy word agaynst the olde church of Christ agaynst all experience of our sences agaynst all reason and agaynst the doctrine of all ages vntill the Bishops of Rome deuised the contrary therfore I conclude that the sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation may iustely be called the Romish or papisticall doctrine And where I haue shewed further that the chiefe pillers of the papisticall doctrine as Duns Gabriell Durand with other do acknowledge that if it had not bene for the determination of the church of Rome they would haue thought otherwise which is a most certayne argument that this doctrine of Transubstantiation came from Rome and therfore is worthely called a papisticall doctrine all this must be answered with these wordes as this author reporteth and Duns and Gabriell boast what they could do wheras neither Duns nor any of the other eyther bragge or bost but playnly and franckely declare what they thinke And if I report then otherwise then they say reproue me therfore and tell me wherin But these be but shiftes to shake of the matter that you cannot answer vnto Therfore vntill you haue made me a more full and direct answer I am more confirmed in my assertion to call transubstantiation a papisticall doctrine then I was before But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader whose scholler I was in Cambridge almost forty yeares passed who when he came to any hard chapiter which he well vnderstoode not he would find some preaty toy to shift it of and to scip ouer vnto an other chapiter which he could better skill of The same is a common practise of you through out your whole booke that when any thing in my booke presseth you so sore that you cannot answere it then finely with some mery iest or vnsemely taunt you passe it ouer and go to some other thing that you perswade yourselfe you can better answere which sleight you vse here in ii matters togither the one is where I proue the doctrine of Transubstantiation to come from Rome the other is that of your sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation it followeth that Christ euery day is made a new and of a new matter In which ii matters you craftely slide away from myne arguments and answere not to one of them Wherfore I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader whither you ought not to be taken for conuinced in these ii poyntes vntill such tyme as you haue made a full answere to my profes and arguments For where you say that Christ is not made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter this is but a slippery euasion For if Christ be made of bread eyther he is made of the matter of bread or of the forme therof But the fourme say you remayneth and is not turned into Christes body Therfore if Christ be made of bread you must needes graunt that he is made of the matter of bread Now for the the answere to the second reason of the Papistes my booke hath thus An other reason haue they of like strength If the bread should remayne say they than should follow many absurdities and chiefly that Christ hath taken the
not of his fleshe as it is vnited vnto his diuinitie pag. 27. lin 53. and. pag. 329. lin 24. God in Baptisme giueth onely the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the aultar the very body and bloud of Christ. pag. 34. lin 44. Unworthy receiuers of the sacrament receiue Christes body with mouth onely the worthy receiuers both with mouth and hart pag. 54. lin 47. c. We must beleue Christes workes to be most perfectly true accordyng to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in Scripture driueth vs from it how soeuer it seeme repugnaunt to reason pag. 62. lin 20. The Fathers did eate Christes body and drinke his bloud in truth of promise not in truth of presence pag. 74. lin 23. c. The Fathers did eate Christ spiritually but they did not eate his body present spiritually and sacramentally pag. eadem lin 26. Their Sacramentes were figures of the thynges but ours contayne the very thynges ibid. lin 27. Albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verified that the Fathers did eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud yet there is no such forme of wordes in scripture And it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the Fathers before Christes Natiuitie did not eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ. pag. 78. lin 28. And although S. Paule in the truth to the Corinthes be so vnderstanded of some that the Fathers should eate and drinke the spirituall meate and drinke that we doe yet to that vnderstandyng all doe not agree Ibidem lin 34. c. Their Sacramentes contayned the promise of that which in our sacramentes is geuen Ibidem lin 36. And although that willyng obedience was ended and perfected vpon the Crosse to the whiche it continued from the begynnyng yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham the earnest will and offeryng was accoumpted for the offeryng in deede so the declaration of Christes will in his last supper was an offeryng of him selfe to God the Father pag. 82. lin 2. c. In that mystery he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the world by the same will that he sayd his body should bee betrayed for vs. Ibidem lin 12. As Christ offered him selfe vpon the Crosse in the execution of his will so hee offered him selfe in his Supper in declaration of his will pag. 82. lin 13. c. Christes body in the supper or communion is represented vnto vs as a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world and it is the onely sacrifice of the Churche and the pure and cleane sacrifice wherof Malachie spake pag. 84. lin 4. pag. 88. lin vltima c. As Christ declareth in the supper him selfe an offeryng and sacrifice for our sinne offeryng him selfe to his Father as our Mediatour so the Church at the same supper in their offeryng of laudes and thankes ioyne them selues with their head Christ representyng and offeryng him pag. 89. lin 10. The sunne beames bee of the same substaunce with the sunne pag. 92. lin 5. We haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sunne Ibidem lin 7. When Christ sayd This is my body this word This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. To eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud is of it selfe a propre speach pag. 112. lin 35. Carnally Ibidem lin 50. with teeth and mouth pag. 112. lin 8. and pag. 34. lin 38. To eate Christes body carnally may haue a good signification pag. 113. lin 4. Origene doth not meane to destroy the truth of the letter in these words of Christ. Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. pag. 114. lin 40. S. Augustin taketh the same for a figuratiue speache bycause it seemeth to commaunde in the letter carnally vnderstanded an haynous and wicked thyng to eate the flesh of a man pag. 116. lin 40. The sayd woordes of Christ. Except you eate c. is to the vnfaythfull a figure but to the faythfull they be no figure but spirite and life Ibidem lin 48. The Fathers called it a figure by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecie apt onely to bee vnderstand of men beleuyng pag. 117. lin 3. That is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded Ibid. lin 13. This word Represent in S. Hierome and Tertullian signifieth a true reall exhibition pag. 120. lin 27. and pag. 128. lin 11. The word Eucharistia can not be well Englished pag. 161. In Gods word and in Baptisme we be made participant of Christes Passion by his spirite but in the Lordes Supper we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanitie exhibite to vs for foode So as in this mystery we receiue him as man and God and in the other by meane of his Godhead we be participant of the effect of his Passion suffered in his manhode In this Sacrament we receiue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the generall resurrection spirituall with our soule In Baptisme we haue bene made spirituall by regeneration of the soule pag. 158. lin 45. c. In Baptisme Christes humanitie is not really present though the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there pag. 159. lin 4. The maner of Christes beyng in the sacrament is onely spirituall Ibidem lin 16. To vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the Church Ibidem lin 34. Our perfect vnitie with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christ bodily naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode pag. 166. lin 32. By Christes flesh in the sacrament we be naturally in him and he is naturally in vs. Ibidem lin 45. c. Christ dwelleth naturally in vs and we bee corporally in him Ibidem lin 35. Christes flesh is very spirituall and in a spirituall maner deliuered vnto vs. pag. 167. lin 12. and pag. 243. lin 11. and pag. 243. lin 28. and pag. 295. lin 33. Christ dwelleth in vs naturally for the naturall communication of our body and his pag. 167. lin 19. When Christ vnited him selfe vnto vs as man which he doth geuyng his body in the sacrament to such as worthely receiue it then he dwelleth in them corporally pag. 172. lin 27. In Baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes Passion and bloud Christes Godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie pag. 181. lin 16. c. In Baptisme our vnitie with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue effect of Christes bloud pag. 181. lin 2. and. 16. In Baptisme our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body in deede but in hope onely pag. 181. lin 6. In Baptisme we be vnited to Christes manhode by his diuinitie but in the Lordes Supper
1. Cor. 10. Ioh. 6. Ioh. 16. Heb. 7.9 10. Christ is spiritually present An issue No writer approued testifieth this authors faith The summe of the issue Outward teaching Your doctrine is not catholike by your owne description My issue I notable matter a man to be condemned by his owne former writinges Bertram confessed to be of this opinion This authors doctrine often reiected as false Actes v. My Catechisme Bertrame Berengarius Wickliffe Luther The Papistes haue bene the cause why the catholike doctrine hath bene hundered and hath not had good successe these late yeâ—es These wordes This is my body agre in sence with the rest of the scripture Vntrue report This author hath no wordes of scripture for the ground of his faith This is my body is no proper speach Gods omnipotencie Psal. 115. Rom. 9. An aunswer to the like speaches in apparance The fayth of this author is but to â—eleue a story The Lordes supper hath nâ— miracle in it by this authors vnderstanding No promise made to a token in the supper or in yâ— 6. of Iohn Iniury to baptisme Math. v â— Mark. vit Tokens be but tokens howsoeuer they be garnished with gay wordes without scripture For apparell pag. 30. numero 9. Untrue report Euery speciall sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a secret hiddeÌ„ truth Bread is not a vayn and bare token I warrant Ioh. 6. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10 A new teaching of onely figure How can â— fayth be called catholike that begunneth to be published nowe Marke 1. Tokens how to discern truth from falshood â— Reg. 3. A lesson of Salomons iudgement Truth nedeth no ayd of lies Truth loueth simplicity and playnnes The Church of Rome is not the true mother of the catholick fayth Absurda falsa The speaking of the true mother Rome to the mother of the papistical fayth The name of the Author great wherewith to put men to silence An impudent vntruth The sayth of the Sacrament in the Catechisme unproueth this Authors doctrine now Erasmus commendeth to the world the work of Algerus vpon the Sacrament The body of Christe hidden vnder the signes Erasmus would all to repent that follow Berengarius error Peter Martyr doth with lyes impugne the faith of the Sacrament An issue This Author would with the enuious words of papish oppresse the truth Foure manifest vntruthes The first vntruth that the faith of the reall presence to the faith of the papists Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Epinus Mine issue Cyrill and â—â—â—storius In baptisme we receaue Christs spirite to geue life in the Lords Supper we receaue his flesh bloud to continue life Chap. 1. The abuse of the Lordes supper Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. Iohn 6. The second vntrueth for verely meat translatyng very meat Origenes in Leuit. hom 7. Propterea er go caro cius verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus Et in Math. hom 12. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus verus est potus Hierom. in Eccle. cap. 3. Caro enim verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus August in Psal. 33. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus vere potus est Damas. lib. 4. ca. 14. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meus verus est potus Euthyimus in lo. cap. 9. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meas verus est potus The nature of a cuttil Plim lib. 9. ca. 29. Eccle. 37. Christ is verely and truely geueÌ„ in the Sacrament but yet spiritually Iohn 6 Cyrill Lanathematismo 11. Nestorius Iniury to baptisme Galat. 3 In the sixt chapiter of Iohn Christ spake not of corporall eating Iohn 6 Iohn 6. Iohn 8. Iohn 1. The 3. vntruth of the handling the wordes of S. Augustine Mine issue August in 10 an Tractat. 26. Eodem tract Aug. de Ciuit. lib. 21. cap. 25. worthely August de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 13. How Christes flesh is eaten Iohn 6. Cyprian in sermone de caena Domini August in Ioan. tra 26. Cap. 3. The eating of the Sacrament of his body Mat. 26. Marck 14. Luke 2â— 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 4. Christ called the materiall bread his body 1. Cor. 10. Marck vii 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 5. Euill men do eat the SacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 6. These thinges suffice for a christian mans faith concerning this Sacrament Cap. 7. The SacrameÌ„t which was ordayned to make loue and concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord Math. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. The 4. vntruth that by these words hoc est corpus meum Christ ment not to make the bread his body Neither Saint Paul nor the Euangelistes adde any words wherby to take away the signification of bread and wine The fourth vntruth the Christ intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body The variaunce between you Smith Against Smith Christ called bread his body Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. Ireneus Tertullianus Cyprianus Epiphanius Heironymus Augustinus Cyrillus Theodorus Gods miraculous workes in the Sacrament Imuty to baptisme Mine issue Gods omnipotency Mat. 16. Gen. 1. Eating signifieth beleeuing 3 vntruthes vttered by you in this one place The first Iohn 6. The secondâ— Iohn 6. The third That Christ fulfilled not his promise to geue vs life at his supper Iohn 6 Esay 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9. Gal. 6. Rom. 1. Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. Iohn 3. Gal. 3. Mat. 16. Marck 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. A warrant for apparrell Christes ambiguous speechess were not alwayes opened by the Euangelistes Luke 12. Luke 9. Iohn 12. 1 Math. 13. Psal. 77. This is my body is no proper speech Cap. 6. Cap. 9. The spirituall hunger thirstines of the soul. Eph. 2. Rom. 3 Psal. 41. Psal. 62. Rom. 4. Rom. 7. Rom. 8. Math. 5. Luke 1. Iohn 4. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. Cap. 10. Mat. 11. The spirituall foode of the soule Iohn 7. Iohn 6. Iohn 6. Gal. 2. Cap. 11. Christ farre excelleth all corporall foode Iohn 11. Cap. 12. The sacrameÌ„ts were ordayned to confirme our faith Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 13. Wherfore this sacrament was ordayned in bred and wine Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 14. The vnity of Christes misticall body 1. Cor. 10. Dionysios eccle Hie. cap. 31 Cap. 14. This sacrameÌ„t moueth all men to loue and freÌ„dship The doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—ion doth clean subuert our faith in Christ. Cap. 16. The spirituall eating in with the hart not with the teeth Iohn 6. Luke 21. 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. Luke 22. Mark 14. Iniury to both Sacramentâ—s D. Smith Cap. 17. 4 principall errors of the Papistes The first is of the presence of Christ. Innocent 3. De summa trin fide
Christ made bread his body and wyne his bloud and vnder the figure of those visible creatures gaue inuisibly his precious body any bloud presently there And as he gaue sayth S. Barnarde his life for vs so he gaue his flesh to vs in that mistery to redéeme vs in this to féede vs. Which doings of Christ we must vnderstand to haue béene perfited not in an imagination in a figure and signification but really in very déede truely and vnfaynedly not because we beléeue it so but because he wrought it so whose works we must beleue to be most perfitly true according to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in scripture driueth vs from it howsoeuer it seme repugnant to our reason be we neuer so wise and wittie which mans reason now a dayes enflamed with fury of language is the only aduersary against the most blessed Sacrament as it may appeare by these comparysons of differences throughly considered Caunterbury DId not you beleue I pray you many yeares together that the bishop of Rome was Christs vicar and the head of his church If you did not you wittingly and willingly defended a false errour in the open Parliament But sithens that tyme you haue called that beléefe as it is in deede very folish And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter be no more abashed to confesse it in this if you haue respect more vnto Gods trueth then to your owne estimation It is lawfull and commendable for a man to learn from time to tyme and to go from his ignorance that he may receaue and embrace the trueth And as for me I am not I graunt of that nature that the Papists for the most part be who study to deuise all shamefull shiftes rather then they will forsake any errour wherewith they were infected in youth I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance as S. Paul S. Ciprian S. Augustine and many other holy men did who now be with Christ to bring other to the knowledge of the trueth of whose ignoraunce I haue much ruth and pitie I am content to geue place to Gods word that the victory may be Christs What a member had the church of God lost if Paule would haue been as froward as some Papistes be that will sticke to their errour tooth and nayle though the Scripture and auncient writers be neuer so plain and fâ—at against them Although S. Paule erred yet because his errour was not wilfull but of ignoraunce so that he gaue place to the trueth when it was opened vnto him he became of a most cruell persecutor a most seruent setter forth of the trueth and Apostle of Christ. And would God I were as sure that you be chaunged in déede in those matters of religion wherein with the alteration of this realme you preteÌ„d a change as I am glad euen from the bottom of my hart that it hath pleased almighty God in this latter end of my yeares to giue me knowledge of my former errour and a will to embrace the truth setting a part all maner of worldly respectes which be speciall hinderances that hold backe many from the free profession of Christ and his word And as for the booke of common prayer although it say that in ech part of the bread broken is receaued the whole body of Christ yet it sayth not so of the partes vnbroken nor yet of the partes or whole reserued as the Papistes teach But as in baptisme we receaue the holy ghost and put Christ vpon vs as well if wee be Christened in one dysh full of water taken out of the fonte as if we were chistned in the whole fonte or riuer so we be as truely fed refreshed and comforted by Christ receauing a peece of bread at the Lords holy table as if we dyd eat an whole loafe For as in euery part of the water in baptisme is wholl Christ and the holy spirit sacramentally so be they in euery part of the bread broken but not corporally and naturally as the Papists teach And I beare not the catholick church in hand as you report of me that it sayth and teacheth that whole Christ is in euery part of the bread consecrated but I say that the Papistes so teach And because you deny it read the chiefe pillers of the Papistes Duns and Thomas de Aquino which the Papists call S. Thomas who say that Christ is whole vnder euery part of the formes of bread and wine not only when the host is broken but wheÌ„ it is wholl also And there is no distance sayth he of partes one from an other as of one eie from another or of the eye from the eare or the head from the feet These be Thomas wrds Christus totus est sub qualibit parte specicruÌ„ panis vini non soluÌ„ cuÌ„ frangitur hostia sed etiaÌ„ cuÌ„ integra manet Nec est distaÌ„tia partiuÌ„ ab inniceÌ„ vt oculi ab oculo aut oculi ab aure eut capitis à pedibus sicut est in alijs corporibus orgameis Talis enim distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero sed non prout est in hoc Sacraâ—eÌ„to And not only the Papists do thus write and teach but the Pope himself Innocentius the third And so beare I in haÌ„d or report of the Papisies nothing but that which they say indeed And yet you say the church sayth not so which I affirme also and then it must needs follow that the doctrine of the Papistes is not the doctrine of the church Which Papists not by reason with out faith but agaynst aswell reason as fayth would direct our mindes to seeke in euery little crum of bread whole Christ and to find him in so many places there as be small crums in the bread And where you trauesse the matter of the iudgement of our senses herein it is quite and cleane from the matter and but a crafty shift to conuey the matter to an other thing that is not in question lyke vnto crafty male-factours whych perceauing them selues to be sore pursued with a hound make a new trayn to draw the hound to an other fresh suit For I speake not of the iudgement of our senses in this matter whether they perceaue any distinction of partes and members or no but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no which the Papistes do deny And therefore I say not vntruely of them that in the sacrament they say There is no distance of partes one from another And if the parts in theyr substance be distinct one from an other as you say and be not so distinct in the SacrameÌ„t as Thomas sayth theÌ„ must it follow that the partes in their owne substaunce be not in the sacrament And if this distinction of partes be in the true body of Christ and not in the sacrament as Thomas saith then followeth it again that the true body of Christ
is not in the sacrament And forasmuch as I speake not one word of the comprehension of our senses to what purpose do you bring this in if it be not to draw vs to a new matter to auoyd that which is in controuersy You do herein as if Iames should by of Iohn a percell of land and by his atturney take state and possession therein And after Iohn should trauers the matter and say that there was neuer no state deliuered and thereupon ioyne their issue And when Iames should bryng forth his witnesses for the state and possession theÌ„ should Iohn runne to a new matter and say that Iames saw the possession deliuered what were this allegation of Iohn to the purpose of the thing that was in issue whether the possession were deliuered in deede or no Were this any other thing then to auoid the issue craftely by bringing in of a new matter And yet this shift is a common practise of you in this booke and this is another point of the deuils Sophistry wherin it is pitty that euer such a wit as you haue should be occupied Again you say that impudently I beare the Catholick church in hand to teach that I list to beare in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching wheras al true christen men beleeue simply Christs words and trouble not their heads with such consequences This is in the author no whispering but plain railing say you This is your barking eloqueÌ„ce wherewith your booke is well furnished for as dogs barke at the moone without any cause so doe you in this place For I doe no more but truely reporte what the Papistes them selues doe write and no otherwise not bearing the Catholick church in hand that it so teacheth but charging the Papistes that they so teach nor bearing the Papistes in hand what I list or what by wantoÌ„ reason may be deduced of their teaching but reporting onely what their own words and sayinges be And if they be no true christen men that trouble their heades with such matters as you affirme they be not then was Innocent the third the chiefe author of your doctrin both of transubstantiation and of the reall preseÌ„ce no true christian man as I beleeue well inough Then was your Saint Thomas no true christian man Then Gabriell Duns Durand and the great rablement of the schoole authors which taught your doctrin of traÌ„substantiation and of the reall presence were not true christen men And in few words to comprehend the whol then were almost none that taught that doctrine true christen men but your selfe alone For almost all with one consent doe teach that wholl Christ is really in euery part of the host But your termes here of rayling mocking and scorning I would haue taken patiently at your hand if your tongue and pen had not ouershot theÌ„ selues in braging so far that the truth by you should be defaced But now I shal be so bold as to send those termes thether from whence they came And for the matter it selfe I am ready to ioyn an issue with you notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words But in Gods workes say you as the Sacramentes be we must think all seemelines in deede without deformity But what seemelines is this in a mannes body that the head is where the feete be and the armes where the legges be which the Papistes doe teach and your selfe seeme to confesse when you say that the partes of Christes body be distinct in themselues one from another in their own substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places And yet you seeme again to deny the same in your wise dialogue or quadriloge betweene the curious questioner the folish ansÌ„werer your wise catholick man standing by and the mediator In which dialoge you bring in your wise catholick man to condemne of madnes all such as say that Christes head is there where his feete be and so you condemne of madnes not onely al the scholasticall doctors which say that Christ is wholl in euery part of the coÌ„secrated bread but also your own former saying where you deny the distinction of the partes of Christs body in seuerall places Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser then you all who losing this knot of Gordius saith that Christes body how big soeuer it be may be as well signified by a little peece of bread as by a greate and so as concerning the reason of a sacrameÌ„t al is one whether it be an whol bread or a peece of it as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the wholl fonte or in a parte of the water taken out therof For the respect and consideration of the Sacrament is all one in the lesse and more But this fourth man say you hath no participation with faith condemning all the true publick faith testified in the church from the beginning hetherto which hath euer with wonder marueiled at the mistery of the Sacrament which is no wonder at all if bread be but a signification of Christ his body this is a wonderfull saying of you as of one that vnderstoode nothing vtterly what a Sacrament meaneth and what is to be wondred at in the Sacrament For the wonder is not how God worketh in the outward visible Sacrament but his marueilous worke is in the worthy receauers of the Sacramentes The wonderfull worke of God is not in the water which oâ—ely washeth the body but God by his omnipotent power worketh wonderfully in the receauers thereof scouring washing and making them clean inwardly and as it were new meÌ„ and celestiall creatures This haue allâ—olde authors wondered at this wonder passeth the capacities of all mens wits how damnation is turned into saluation and of the Sonne of the deuill condemned into hell is made the Sonne of God and inheritour of heauen This wonderfull worke of God all men may maruel and wonder at but no creature is able sufficiently to comprehend it And as this is wondred at in the Sacrament of Baptisme how he that was subiect vnto death receiueth life by Christ and his holy Spirite So is this wondred at in the Sacrament of Christes holy Table how the same life is continued and endureth for euer by continuall feeding vpon Christes flesh and his bloud And these wonderfull workes of God towardes vs we be taught by Gods holy worde and his Sacramentes of breade wine and water and yet be not these woÌ„derfull workes of God in the Sacraments but in vs. And although many authors vse this manner of speech that Christ maketh bread his body and wine his bloud and wonder thereat yet those authors mean not of the bread and wine in them selues but of the bread and wine eaten and dronken of faithfull people For when Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud he wake not those words to the bread wine but to the eaters and drinkers of them saying Eat this is my body Drink this is my
yet for the tyme of the receauing it hath the licour in it And how can Christ departe from an vnpenitent sinner as you say he doeth if he haue him not at all And because of myne ignoraunce I would fayne leran of you that take vpon you to be a man of knowledge how an euill man receauing Christes very body and whole Christ God and man as you say an euell man doth and Christes body being such as it cannot be deuided from his spirite as you say also how this euell man receauing Christes spirite should be an euell man for the tyme that he hath Christes spirit within him Or how can he receaue Christes body and spirite according to your saying and haue them not in him for the tyme he receaueth them Or how can Christ enter into an euell man as you confesse and be not in him into whome he entreth at that present tyme These be matters of your knowledge as you pretend which if you can teach me I must confesse myne ignoraunce And if you cannot for so much as you haue spoken them you must confesse the ignoraunce to be vpon your owne part And S. Paule sayth not as you vntruely recite him that in him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation but that he eateth and drincketh condemnation And where you say that S. Paules wordes playnly import that those did eate the very body of Christ which did eate vnworthely euer still you take for a supposition the thing which you should proue For S. Paule speaketh playnly of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not one word of eating of the body and drincking of the bloud of Christ. And let any indifferent reader looke vpon my questions and he shall see that there is not one word answered here directly vnto them except mocking and scorning be taken for aunswere And where you deny that of your doctrine it should follow that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell you can not deny but that your owne teaching is that Christ entreth into euell men when they receaue the sacrament And if they be his temple into whome he entreth then must euell men be his temple for the tyme they receaue the sacrament although he tary not long with them And for the same tyme they be euell men as you say and so must nedes be the temple of the deuell And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching that at one tyme a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the deuell And in your figure of Christ vpon earth although he taryed not long with euery man that receaued him yet for a tyme he taried with them And the word of God tarieth for the tyme with many which after forget it and kepe it not And then so must it be by these examples in euell men receauing the sacrament that for a tyme Christ must tary in them although that tyme be very short And yet for that tyme by your doctrine those euell men must be both the temples of God and of Beliall And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authoritie of S. Paule it is no small contumely and iniury to S. Paule to asscribe your fayned and vntrue glose vnto him that taught nothing but the truth as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mentiō of the eating and drincking of the bread and cuppe but not one word of the eating and drincking of Christes body and bloud Now followeth in my booke my answer to the Papistes in this wise But least they should seme to haue nothing to say for them selues they alleadge S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth where he sayth He that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh and bloud as it is manifest to euery man that will reade the text For these be the wordes of S. Paule Let a man examin him selfe and so eat of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body In these wordes S. Paules mynd is that for asmuch as the bread and wine in the Lordes supper do represent vnto vs the very body and bloud of our sauiour Christ by his owne institution and ordinance therfore although he sit in heauen at his fathers right hand yet should we come to this misticall bread and wine with fayth reuerence purite and feare as we would do if we should come to see and receaue Christ him selfe sensibly present For vnto the faythfull Christ is at his own holy table presēt with his mighty spirite grace and is of them more fruitfully receaued then if corporally they should receaue him bodely present and therfore they that shall worthely com to this Gods boord must after due triall of them selues consider first who ordeined this table also what meat and drincke they shall haue that come therto and how they ought to behaue them selues therat He that prepared the table is Christ him selfe The meat and drincke wherwith he fedeth them that come therto as they ought to do is his own body flesh and bloud They that com therto must occupy theyr myndes in considering how his body was broken for them and his bloud shed for theyr redemption and so ought they to approch to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart and godlynes of mynd as to the table wherin Christ hym selfe is giuen And they that come otherwise to this holy table they come vnworthely and do not eat drincke Christes flesh and bloud but eat and drincke theyr own damnation bicause they do not duely consider Christes very flesh and bloud which be offred there spiritually to be eaten and drinken but dispising Christes most holy supper do come therto as it were to other common meates drinckes without regarde of the Lordes body which is the spirituall meat of that table Winchester In the .97 leafe and the second columne the Author beginneth to trauerse the wordes of S. Paule to the Corinthians and would distinct vnworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament receyued which can not be For our vnworthines can not alter the substance of Gods sacrament that is euermore all one howsoeuer we swarue from worthynes to vnworthynes And this I would aske of this Author why should it be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when he is taught yf this authors doctrine be true that it is not there at all If the bread after this authors teaching be but a figure of Christes body it is then but as Manna was the eating wherof vnworthily and vnfaythfully was no gift of Christes body Erasmus noteth these wordes of S. Paule to be gylty of
viii chap. prouing by authority of the oldest authors in Christs church that he called bread his body and wine his bloud And agayne in the ix x. xi and xii chapters I haue so fully intreated of such figuratiue speaches that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speake of any more but I referre the reader to those places And if M. doctor require a further answere herein let him looke vpon the late bishop of Winchesters booke called the detection of the diuels sophistry where he writeth plainly that when Christ spake these wordes This is my body he made demonstration of the bread THan further in this prologue this Papist is not ashamed to say that I set the cart before the horses putting reason first and fayth after which lye is so manifest that it needeth no further proofe but onely to looke vpon my booke wherein it shall euidently appeare that in all my fiue bookes I ground my foūdation vpon gods word And least the Papistes should say that I make the expositions of the scripture my selfe as they commonly vse to do I haue fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs that were in the beginning of the church and many yeares after vntill the Antichrist of Rome rose vp and corrupted altogither And as for naturall reason I make no mention therof in all my v. bookes but in one place onely which is in my second booke speaking of Transubstantiation And in that place I set not reason before fayth but as an handmayden haue appoynted her to do seruice vnto fayth and to wayte vpon her And in that place she hath done such seruice that D. Smith durst not once looke her in the face nor find any fault with her seruice but hath flylye and craftely stolen away by her as though he saw her not But in his owne booke he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christes owne wordes putting the wordes behind that goe before the wordes before that goe behind that except a shameles Papist no man durst be so bolde to attempt any such thing of his owne head For where the Euangelist and S. Paule rehearse Christes wordes thus Take eate this is my body he in the confutation of my second booke turneth the order vpside downe and sayth This is my body take eate After this in his Preface hee rehearseth a great number of the wonderfull workes of God as that God made all the world of nought that he made Adam of the earth and Eue of his side the bush to flame with fire and burne not and many other like which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture And vpon these he concludeth most vainly and vntruly that thing which in the scripture is neyther expressed nor vnderstanded that Christ is corporally in heauen and in earth and in euery place where the sacrament is And yet D. Smith sayth that Gods word doth teach this as playnly as the other vsing herein such a kind of sophisticall argumēt as all Logitiās do reprehend which is called petitio principij whē a mā taketh that thing for a supposition and an approued truth which is in controuersy And so doth he in this place when he sayth Doth not Gods word teach it thee as playnly as the other Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be graunted him as a truth which he ought to proue and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in questiō that is to say whether it be as playnly set out in the scripture that Christes body is corporally in euery place where the sacrament is as that God created all thinges of nothing Adam of the earth and Eue of Adams side c. This is it that I deny and that he should proue But he taketh it for a supposition saying by interrogation doth not the word of God teach this as playnly as the other Which I affirme to be vtterly false as I haue shewed in my third boobe the xi and twelfe chap. where I haue most manifestly proued as well by Gods word as by aūcient authors that these wordes of Christ This is my body and This is my bloud be no playne speaches but figuratiue THen forth goeth this papist vnto the vi chap. of S. Thou saying Christ promised his disciples to geue them such bread as should be his owne very naturall flesh which he would geue to death for the life of the world Can this his promise sayth M. Smith be verified of common bread Was that giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world Wherto I answer by his owne reason Can this his promise be verified of sacramentall bread was that geuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world I meruayle here not a little of M. Smithes eyther dulnes or maliciousnes that cannot or will not see that Christ in this chap. of S. Ihon spake not of Sacramentall bread but of heauenly bread nor of his flesh onely but also of his bloud and of his godhead calling them heauenly bread that giueth euerlasting life So that he spake of him selfe wholy saying I am the bread of life He that cōmeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleueth in me shall not thirst for euer And neyther spake he of common bread nor yet of sacramentall bread For neyther of them was giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world And there can be nothing more manifest then that in this vi chap. of Ihon Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh but of his very flesh And that aswell for that the sacrament was not then instituted as also that Christ sayd not in the future tense the bread which I will giue shal be my flesh but in the present tense the bread which I will geue is my flesh which sacramentall bread was neyther then his flesh nor was then instituted for a Sacrament nor was after giuen to death for the life of the world But as Christ when he sayd vnto the woman of Samaria The water which I will geue shall spring into euerlasting life he ment neyther of materiall water nor of the accidents of water but of the holy ghost which is the heauenly fountayne that springeth vnto eternall life so likewise when he sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world he ment neyther of the materiall bread neither of the accidents of bread but of his owne flesh Which although of it selfe it auayleth nothing yet being in vnity of persō ioyned vnto his diuinity it is the same heauenly bread that he gaue to death vpon the crosse for the life of the world But here M. Smith asketh a question of the tyme saying thus When gaue Christ that bread which was his very flesh that he gaue for vs to death if he did it not at his last supper when he sayd This is my