said that Christ was a crafty iuggler that made thinges to appere to mens sightes that in dede were no suche thynges but formes onely figures and apparances of them But to conclude in fewe wordes this processe of our senses let al the Papistes lay their heades togither and thei shal neuer be able to shew one article of our faith so directely contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thynge to be and yet oure fayth shall teache vs the contrary thervnto Nowe for as much as it is declared how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is against the woorde of God agaynst nature against reason and agaynste all our senses wee shall shewe furthermore that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the old authors of Christes churche begynnyng at those authors whiche were nerest vnto Christes tyme and therefore myght best knowe the truthe herein Fyrst Iustinus a great learned man and an holy martyr the oldest author that this day is knowen to write any treatie vpon the sacramentes and wrote not muche aboue one hundred yeres after Christes ascension He wryteth in his seconde apologie that the bread water and wine in this sacrament ar not to be taken as other cōmon meates and drinkes be but they bee meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to god and therfore be called Eucharistia and be called also the body and bloude of Christ. And that it is laufull for none to eate or drynke of them but that professe Christ and lyue accordyng to the same And yet the same meate and drynke saith he is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud and norisheth our bodies By which saiyng it is euident that Iustinus thought that the bread and wine remained still for els it could not haue been tourned into our fleshe and bloud to nourishe our bodies Next hym was Ireneus aboue 150. yeres after Christ who as it is supposed could not be deceiued in the necessary pointes of our faithe for he was a disciple of Polycarpus which was disciple to saint Iohn the Euangelist This Ireneus foloweth the sense of Iustinus wholly in this matter and almoste also his woordes sayenge that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God although it be of the yearth yet whan the name of God is called vpon it it is not than common bread but the bread of thankes geuyng hauyng two thyngs in it one earthly and the other heuenly What ment he by the heauenly thyng but the sanctification whyche cometh by the inuocation of the name of God And what by the earthly thynge but the very bread which as he sayd before is of the earth and which also he saith doeth nourishe our bodies as other bread dothe whiche we doo vse Shortely after Ireneus was Origen about 200. yeares after Christes ascension Who also affirmeth that the materiall bread remaineth saiyng that the mattier of the breade auayleth nothyng but goeth doune into the bealy and is auoided dounewarde but the woorde of God spoken vpon the breade is it that auaileth After Origen came Cyprian the holy martyr about the yeare of our Lorde 250. who wryteth against theym that ministred this Sacrament with water onely and without wyne For as muche sayth he as Christ sayd I am a true vyne therefore the bloud of Christ is not water but wyne nor it can not bee thouhgt that his bloud wherby wee bee redemed and haue life is in the cuppe whan wyne is not in the cuppe whereby the bloud of Christ is shewed What woordes could Cyprian haue spoken more plainly to shewe that the wyne doth remayne than to say thus If there bee no wyne there is no bloud of Christ And yet he speaketh shortly after as plainely in the same Epistle Christ sayth he takyng the cuppe blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saiyng Drynke you all of this for this is the bloud of the newe testament whiche shall bee shedde for many for the remission of synnes I say vnto you that from hencefurth I wyll not drynke of this creature of the vyne vntyll I shall drinke with you newe wyne in the kyngdome of my father By these woordes of Christe sayth sainct Cyprian we perceiue that the cuppe whiche the Lorde offered was not onely water but also wyne And that it was wyne that Christ called his bloud whereby it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wyne in the Chalise And after it foloweth Howe shal we drynke with Christ newe wyne of the creature of the vyne if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offre wyne In these wordes of sainct Cyprian appereth moste manyfestly that in this sacrament is not only offered very wyne that is made of grapes that come of the vyne but also that we drynke the same And yet the same geueth vs to vnderstand that if we drynke that wyne worthely we drynke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ whiche was shed for our synnes Eusebius Emissenus a mā of syngular fame in learnyng about CCC yeres after Christes ascention did in fewe wordes set out this matter so plainely bothe howe the bread and wyne be conuerted into the body bloud of Christ and yet remayne styll in their nature and also howe besydes the outwarde receiuyng of bread and wyne Christ is inwardely by fayth receyued in our heartes al this I say he doth so plainly set out that more playnnesse can not be reasonably desyred in this matter For he sayth that the cōuersion of the visible creatures of bread wyne into the body and bloud of Christ is lyke vnto our cōuersion in baptisme where outwardly nothyng is changed but remayneth the same that was before but all the alteration is inwardely and spiritually If thou wylt knowe sayth he howe it ought not to seme to the a newe thyng and impossible that yearthly and corruptible thynges be turned into the substance of Christ loke vpon thy selfe which art made newe in baptisme whan thou wast farre from life and banished as a straunger frō mercy and fro the way of saluation and inwardely wast dead yet sodeynly thou beganste another lyfe in Christ and wast made newe by holsome mysteris and wast turned into the body of the churche not by seyng but by beleuynge and of the childe of damnation by a secrete purenesse thou waste made the chosen sonne of God Thou visibly dyddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by increace of faythe thou wast made an other man Outwardely nothynge was added but all the chaunge was inwardly And so was man made the son of Christ and Christe fourmed in the mynd of man Therfore as thou puttyng away thy former vilenesse diddest receaue a newe dygnitee not feelyng any change in thy body and as the curynge of thy
is manyfest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For whan Christ gaue bread to his disciples and sayd This is my body there is no man of any discrecion that vnderstandeth the Englishe tongue but he may well knowe by the order of the speeche that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the olde authors also do affirme although many of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the woordes seme and purport but there must nedes be some figure or mystery in this speeche more than appeareth in the plaine wordes For by this maner of speeche plainly vnderstande without any figure as the wordes lye can bee gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread whiche all christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherfore in these words must nedes be sought out an other sense and menyng then the wordes of them selues do beare And althoughe the true sense and vnderstandyng of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the mattier so playne that no scruple or doubt shal remaine here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whych processe shall be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud bee fyguratiue speches And although it be manyfest ynoughe by the playne wordes of the Gospel and proued before in the processe of transubstantiation that Christe spake of bread whan he sayde This is my body lykewise that it was very wine whiche he called his bloud yet least the Papistes shuld say that we sucke this out of our owne fingers the same shall be proued by testimonye of all the olde authors to be the trewe and olde faithe of the catholike churche Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not bee able to shewe so muche as one worde of any auncient author to the contrary Fyrst Ireneus writyng agaynst the Ualentinians in his fourthe boke saithe that Christe confessed bread whiche is a creature to be his body and the cup to be his bloud And in the same boke he writeth thus also The bread wherein the thankes be geuen is the body of the Lorde And yet agayne in the same booke he saithe that Christe takyng bread of the same sorte that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing whiche was tempered in the chalice was his bloudde And in the fift boke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his bloude a man is norished and doeth growe by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plaine that Christe takynge very materiall breade a creature of God and of suche sort as other breade is whiche wedd vse called that his body when he sayde This is my bodye And the wyne also whiche doothe feede and noryshe vs he called his bloudde Tertulian likewise in his booke written agaynst the Iewes saith that Christe called bread his body And in his booke against Martion he oftentymes repeteth the selfe same wordes And S. Cyprian in the firste boke of his epistles saith the same thyng that Christ called such breade as is made of manny cornes ioyned togither his body and suche wyne he named his bloudde as is pressed out of many grapes and made into wyne And in his second boke he saith these wordes water is not the bloud of Christe but wyne And agayn in the same Epistle he sayeth that it was wyne whiche Christe called his bloude and that if wyne bee not in the chalice than we drynke not of the fruit of the vyne And in the same epistle he sayth that meale alone or water alone is not the body of Christe excepte they be both ioyned togither to make thereof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speakyng of a lofe whiche is round in fashion and can not see here nor feele sayde of it This is my body And Saynt Hierome writynge Ad Hedibiā saieth these wordes Let vs mark 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 saith that althoughe we may sette foorthe Christe by mouthe by wrytynge and by the sacramente of his bodye and bloud yet wee call neyther our tounge nor wordes nor ynke letters nor paper the body and bloudde of Christe but that wee calle the bodye and bloudde of Christe whiche is taken of the fruite of the yearth and consecrated by mysticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meate his body and drynke his bloudde More ouer Cyrill vpon Sayncte Iohn saith that Christe gaue to his disciples peces of bread saiyng Take eate this is my bodye Likewise Theodoretus saith Whan Christe gaue the holy mysteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wyne and water he called his bloude By all these forsaid authors and places with manny mo it is playnely proued that whan our Sauiour Christe gaue breadde vnto his Disciples sayinge Take and eate this is my body And lykewise when he gaue them the cuppe sayinge Diuide this amonge you and drynke you all of this for this is my bludde he called than the very materiall bread his bodye and the very wyne his bloudde That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth amonge 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 made into bread of such sort as other our bred is that hath neither sence nor reason finally that fedeth and nourisheth our bodies suche bread Christe called his bodye whan he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togyther and ther of is made drynke whiche norisheth the body suche wyne he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by holy scripture as by all auncient authors of Christes churche bothe Grekes and Latines that is to say that when our Sauiour Christe gaue bread and wyne to his disciples and spake these woordes This is my bodye This is my bloude it was very bread and wyne whiche he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shewe some authoritee for their opinion eyther of scripture or of some auncient author And let theim not constrayne all men to folowe their fonde deuises onely bycause they sai It is so without any other groūd or authoritee but their owne bare wordes For in suche wyse credite is to bee geuen to Goddes worde onely and not to the worde of any man As many of theym as I haue redde the byshop of Wynchester only excepted doo say that Christe called not the bread his body nor wyne his bloud whan he said This is my body This is my bloude and yet in
neuerthelesse both present and absent he is all one Christe Hytherto you haue herd Uigilius speke that Christ as concernynge his bodily presence and the nature of his manhode is gone from vs taken from vs is gone vp into heuen is not with vs hath left vs hath forsaken vs. But as concernyng the other nature of his deitee he is styl with vs so that he is bothe with vs and not with vs with vs in the nature of his deitee and not with vs in the nature of his humanitee And yet more clerely doth the same Uigilius declare the same thyng in an other place sayenge If the worde and the fleshe were bothe of one nature seyng that the word is euery where why is not the fleshe than euery where For whan yt was in earthe than verily it was not in heauen and nowe whan it is in heauen it is not surely in yearth And it is so sure that it is not in earth that as concernyng it we looke for hym to come from heauen whom as concernyng his eternall woorde we beleue to bee with vs in earthe Therfore by your doctrine saith Uigilius vnto Eutyches who defended that the diuinitee and humanite in Christe was but one nature either the word is conteyned in a place with his fleshe or els the fleshe is euery where with the worde For one nature can not receaue in it selfe two diuers and contrary thinges But these two thinges be dyuers and farre vnlyke that is to say to be conteyned in a place and to be euery where Therfore in as muche as the word is euery where and the fleshe is not euery where it appeareth playnly that one Christ hym self hath in hym two natures that by his diuine nature he is euery where and by his humain nature he is conteined in a place that he is created hath no beginnyng that he is subiect to death can not die Wherof one he hath by the nature of his worde wherby he is God the other he hath by y ◠nature of his fleshe wher by the same God is man also Therfore one son of God the self same was made the sonne of mā and he hath a begynnynge by the nature of his fleshe and no begynnynge by the nature of his Godheade He is created by the nature of his fleshe and not created by the nature of his Godhead He is comprehended in a place by the nature of his fleshe and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead He is inferiour to angels in the nature of his fleshe and is equall to his father in the nature of his Godhead He dyed by the nature of his fleshe and died not by the nature of his Godhead This is the faithe and catholyke confession whyche the Apostles taught the martyrs dyd corroborate and faithfull people kepe vnto this daie All these be the saiynges of Uigilius who accordyng to al the other authors before rehersed and to the faith and catholike confession of the apostles martyrs and all faithfull people vnto his tyme saith that as concernyng Christes humanitee whan he was here on erthe he was not in heauen and nowe whan he is in heauen he he is not in earthe For one nature can not bee both conteyned in a place in heauen and be also here in earthe at one tyme. And for asmuche as Christe is here with vs in earth and also is conteined in a place in heauen he proueth thereby that Christ hath two natures in hym the nature of a man wherby he is gon from vs and ascended into heauen and the nature of his godhed wherby he is here with vs in erth So that it is not one nature y t is here with vs that is gone from vs that is ascended into heauen and ther cōteined that is permanēt here with vs in erth Wherfore the Papistes whiche nowe of late yeares haue made a newe faythe that Christes naturall bodye is really and naturally present bothe with vs here in earthe and sytteth at the ryght hande of his father in heauen do erre in two very horrible heresies The one that thei confound his two natures his godhead his manhod attributynge vnto his humanitee that thyng which appertaineth only to his diuinitee that is to say to be in heuen and erth and in many places at one tyme. The other is that they deuide and separate his humain nature or his body makyng of one body of Christ. ii bodyes and ii natures one whiche is in heauen visible and palpable hauing al membres and proportions of a most perfect natural man an other which they say is in erth here with vs in euery bread and wyne that is consecrated hauing no distinction forme nor proporcion of membres whiche contrarieties diuersities as this holy martyr Uigilius saith can not be together in one nature But now seyng that it is so euident a matter bothe by the expresse wordes of scripture also by all tholde authors of the same that our sauior Christ as cōcernyng his bodely presence is ascended into heauē and is not here in yerth And seyng that this hath been the true confession of the catholike fayth euer sithens Christes ascencion it is nowe to be cōsidered what moued the Papistes to make a newe and contrary fayth what scriptures they haue for their purpose What moued them I knowe not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condicion of the sea of Rome whiche is of all other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for scripture thei allege none but only one that not truly vnderstāded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to gerre sound cōtrary to al other scriptures partainyng to that matter Christ toke bread say they blessed and brake it and gaue it to his disciples saiyng This is my body These woordes they euer styll repeate and beate vpon that Christe sayd This is my body And this saiyng they make their shote anker to proue therby aswell the real and nataral presence of Christes body in the sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these woordes of Christ say they be most playne and most true Than forasmuch as he sayd This is my body it must nedes be true that that thyng whiche the priest holdeth in his hādes is Christes body And if it be Christes body than can it not be bread whereof they gather by their reasonyng that there is Christes body really present and no bread Nowe forasmuche as all their profe hangeth onely vpon these wordes This is my body the true sence and meanyng of these wordes must be examined But say they what nede thei any examinacion What wordes can bee more playne than to say This is my body Truth it is in deede that the woordes bee as playne as may be spoken but that the sence is not so plaine it
expounding these wordeÌ„s thei vary amoÌ„g them selfes which is a tokeÌ„ that thei be vncertain of their owne doctrine For some of them saye that by this pronoune demonstratiue this Christ vnderstode not the bread nor wyne but his body and bloud And other som say that by the pronoune this he ment nether the bread nor wyne nor his body nor bloud but that he ment a particular thyng vncertayne whiche they cal Indiuiduum vagum or Indiuiduum in genere I trow some Mathematicall quiditee they can not tell what But let all these Papistes together shew any one authoritee either of scripture or of auncient author either Greke or Latin that saith as thei say that Christ called not breade and wyne his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall geue theim place and confesse that they say trewe And if they can shewe nothynge for theym of antiquitee but onely their owne bare wordes than it is reason that thei geue place to the truthe confirmed by so many authoritees both of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very material bread his body and very wyne made of grapes his bloud Nowe this beyng fully proued it must nedes folow consequently that this maner of speking is a figuratiue speeche For in playne and proper speche it is not true to saie that breadde is Christes body or wyne his bloud For Christes body hath a soule life sence reason but bread hath neither soule nor life sense nor reason Likewise in playne speche it is not true that we eate Christes body and drynke his bloude For eatynge and drynkynge in their proper and vsuall signification is with the tong teeth and lyppes to swalow diuide and chawe in peeces whiche thyng to do to the fleshe and bloudde of Christ is horrible to be heard of any christian So that these speches To eate Christes body and drynk his bloud be speches not taken in the proper signification of euery worde but by translation of these wordes eatyng and drinkyng from the signification of a corporal thyng to signifie a spiritual thyng and by callyng a thyng that signifieth by the name of the thyng which is signified therby Which is no rare nor straÌ„ge thyng but an vsual maner and phrase in coÌ„mon speeche And yet least this fault shulde be imputed vnto vs that we doo fayne thynges of our owne heades without authoritee as the Papistes bee accustomed to do here shalbe cited sufficient authoritee as well of scripture as of olde auncient authors to approue the same Fyrst when our sauiour Christ in the sixte of Iohn sayd that he was the bread of life the wheÌ„che whosoeuer did eate should not dye but liue for euer that the bread whiche he would geue vs was his fleshe and therefore whosoeuer should eate his fleshe and drynke his bloud should haue euerlastyng lyfe and they that should not eate his fleshe and drynke his bloud should not haue euerlastyng life When Christ had spoken these woordes with many mo of the eatyng of his fleshe and drinkyng of his bloud both the Iewes mani also of his disciples wer offended with his wordes and sayd This is an hard saiyng For howe can he geue vs his fleshe to be eaten Christ perceiuing their murmuring heartes because they knewe none other eatyng of his fleshe but by chawyng and swalowyng to declare that they should not eate his body after that sorte nor that he ment of any suche carnall eatyng he sayd thus vnto theim What if you see the sonne of man ascende vp where he was before It is the spirite that geueth life the fleshe auayleth nothyng The wordes whiche I spake vnto you be spirit and life These wordes our sauior Christ spake to lift vp their myndes froÌ„ yearth to heauen froÌ„ carnal to spiritual eatyng that thei should not phaÌ„tasy that they should with their trethe eate him preseÌ„tly here in yearth for his flesh so eateÌ„ sayth he should nothyng profite them And yet â—o thei should not eate him for he would take his body away from them and ascend with it into heuen And there by fayth not with teeth they should spiritually eate him sittyng at the right hand of his father And therfore sayth he The wordes whiche I do speake be spirite and life that is to say are not to be vnderstand that we shall eate Christ with our teethe grossely and carnally but that we shall spiritually gostly with our fayth eate him beyng carnally absent from vs in heauen And in suche wyse as Abraham and other holy fathers did eate him many yeres before he was incarnated and borne As S. Paule sayth that they did eate the same spiritual meate that wee do and dranke the same spirituall drynke that is to saye Christe For they spiritually by their fayth were fed and norished with Christes body and bloud and had eternal life by him before he was borne as we haue nowe that come after his ascencion Thus haue you hearde the declaracion of Christe him selfe and of sainct Paule that the eatyng and drinkyng of Christes fleshe bloud is not taken in the common signification with mouthe and teethe to eate and chawe a thyng beyng present but by a liuely fayth in heart and mynde to chawe and degest a thyng beyng absent either ascended hence into heauen or els not yet borne vpon yearth And Origene declaryng the sayd eatyng of Christes flesh and drinkyng of his bloud not to be vnderstand as the wordes do sound but figuratiuely wryteth thus vpon these woordes of Christ Except you eate my fleshe and drinke my bludde you shall not haue lyfe in you Considre saith Origen that these thinges written in gods bokes are figures and therefore examine and vnderstande them as spirituall and not as carnall men For if you vnderstand them as carnall menne they hurte you and feede you not For euen in the gospels is there founde letter that kylleth And not only in the olde testamente but also in the newe is there found lettre that slayeth him that doth not spiritually vnderstande that whiche is spoken For if thou folowe the lettre or woordes of this that Christe saide Excepte you eate my fleshe and drinke my bludde this lettre kylleth Who canne more plainlye expresse in any wordes that the eatinge and drinkinge of Christes fleshe and blood are not to be taken in common significacion as the wordes pretend and sound than Origene doth in this place And S. Iohn Chrysostom affirmeth the same saying that if any man vnderstand the woordes of Christ carnally he shall surely profite nothyng therby For what meane these woordes The fleshe auaileth nothinge He ment not of his fleshe god forbid but he ment of them that fleshely and carnally vnderstode those thynges that Christe spake But what is carnall vnderstanding To vnderstand the woordes simply as they be spoken and nothinge els For we ought not so to vnderstande the
bread bread and wyne wyne and neuer alteryng Christes woordes herein The bread whiche wee breake sayth he is it not the communion of Christes body Nowe I aske agayn of the Papists whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not cōsecrated Thei can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated for that is not the communion of Christes body by their owne doctrine And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated than they must needes confesse that after consecracion suche bread remayneth as is broken bread whiche can bee none other than very true material bread And straight wayes after sainct Paule sayth in the same place that wee be partakers of one bread and one cuppe And in the next chapiter speakyng more fully of the same matter four tymes he nameth the bread and the cuppe neuer makyng mention of any transubstantiation or remainyng of accidētes without any substaunce whiche thynges he would haue made some mencion of if it had been a necessary article of our fayth to beleue that there remayneth no bread nor wyne Thus it is euident and plaine by the wordes of scripture that after cōsecracion remayneth bread and wyne and that the Papisticall doctrine of transubstantiation is directly contrary to Gods worde Let vs nowe consider also howe the same is against natural reason and natural operacion which although thei preuaile not against Gods woorde yet whan they bee ioyned with Gods worde they be of great moment to confirme any truthe Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum that is to saie that there shoulde be any empty place wherin no substance shoulde be But yf ther remain no bread nor wine the place where they wer before and where theyr accidentes be is fylled with no substance but remaineth vacuum cleane contrary to the order of nature We se also that the wyne though it be consecrated yet wyll it tourne to vyneger and the breadde wyll mowle whyche than be nothynge elles but sowre wyne and mowled bread which could not waxe sowre nor mowly if there were no breade nor wyne there at all And if the sacramentes were nowe brent as in the olde church they bourned all that remained vneaten lette the Papistes telle what is brente They must needes saie that it is eyther bread or the body of Christe But breade saye they is none there Than muste they needes bourne the body of Christ and be called Christbourners as heretofore they haue burned many of his membres except they wil say that accidentes bourne alone without any substaunce contrary to all the course of nature The sacramentall breade and wyne also wyll nourishe whiche nourishement naturally commeth of the substance of the meates and drynkes and not of the accidentes The wyne also wyll poyson as dyuers byshops of Rome haue had experiences bothe in poysonyng of other and beyng poysoned them selues whiche poysonyng they can not ascribe to the moste holsome bloud of our sauior Christ but onely to the poysoned wyne And most of all it is against the nature of accidentes to be in nothing For the definition of accidentes is to be in some substance so that if they be they must nedes be in some thyng And yf they be in nothynge than they bee not And a thousand thynges mo of lyke foolishnesse doo the Papistes affirme by their Transubstantiation contrary to all nature and reason As that two bodies bee in one place and one body in many places at one tyme and that substances be gendred of accidentes onely and accidentes conuerted into substances and a body to be in a place and occupie no roume and generation to be without corruption and corruption without generation with many suche lyke thynges agaynst all order and principles of nature and reason The Papistical doctrine is also against al our outward senses called our fiue wittes For our eies say they se there bread and wine our noses smell bread wine our mouthes taste and oure handes feele bread and wine And although the articles of our faith be aboue all our outward senses so y ◠we beleue thynges which we can neither see fele here smell nor taste yet they bee not contrary to our senses at the lest so contrary that in suche thynges whiche we from tyme to tyme do see smell fele here and tast we shall not trust our senses but beleue cleane contrary Christ neuer made no suche article of our faith Our faithe teacheth vs to beleeue thynges that we see not but it doth not byd vs that wee shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eies and heare with our eares and grope with our handes For although our senses can not reache so farre as our faithe doothe yet so farre as the compas of our senses doeth vsually reache our faith is not contrary to the same but rather our senses doo confirme our faith Or els what auailed it to S. Thomas for the confirmation of Christes resurrectiō that he did put his hand in to Christs side felte his woundes if he might not trust his senses nor giue no credit therto And what a wyde doore is here opened to Ualentinianus Marcion and other heretikes whiche sayde that Christe was not crucified but that Symon Cyreneus was crucifyed for him although to the syghte of the people it seemed that Christe was crucified Or to suche heretikes as sayde that Christ was no man although to mens sightes he appered in the forme of man and semed to be hūgry dry weery to wepe slepe eate drynke yea and to dye lyke as other men doo For if we ones admyt this doctrine that no credite is to be geuen to our senses we open a large field geue a great occasiō 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 sacramente why than do the Papistes so stoutely affirme that the accidentes remayn after the consecration whiche can not be iudged but by the senses For the scripture speaketh no woorde of the accidentes of breade and wyne but of the breade and wyne them selues And it is againste the nature and diffinition of accidentes to bee alone withoute any substance Wherefore if we may not truste our senses in this matter of the sacrament thā if the substance of the bread and wyne be gone why may we not then say that the accidentes begon also And if we must nedes beleue our senses as cōcernyng the accidents of bread wine why may we not do the lyke of the substance that rather than of the accidentes Forasmuche as after the cōsecration the scripture saith in no place that there is no substance of bread nor of wyne but calleth them still by suche names as signifie the substances and not the accidentes And fynally if our senses be dayly deceiued in this matter thā is the sensible sacrament nothyng els but an elusion of our senses And so we make muche for their purpose that
as the Papistes do fondly phantasy And likewise the substances of bread wyne do feede and norishe the body of them that eate the same and not the only accidentes In these answeres is no absurditie nor inconuenience nothyng spoken either contrarye to holy scripture or to natural reason Philosophy or experience or against any olde auncient author or the primatiue or catholike churche but onely against the malignant and Papisticall church of Rome Where as on the other syde y t cursed synagoge of Antichrist hath defined and determined in this matter many thynges contrary to Christes wordes contrary to the olde catholike church and the holy martyrs and doctoures of the same and contrary to all naturall reason learnynge and phylosophy And the final end of all this Antichrists doctrine is none other but by subtelty and crafte to bringe christian people from the true honouringe of Christ vnto the greatest ydolatry that euer was in this worlde deuised as by goddes grace shalbe plainly sette forth hereafter Thus endeth the seconde booke THE THIRDE BOOKE TEACHETH THE MANNER HOWE Christe is present in his supper NOW THIS MATTER OF transubstantiation being as I trust sufficiently resolued which is the fyrst part before rehersed wherin the papistical doctrine varieth from the catholicke truth ordre requireth next to intreate of the seconde part whiche is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloode of our sauiour Christe in the sacramente thereof wherein is no lesse contention then in the fyrste parte For a plaine explication wherof it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people that oure sauiour CHRIST beeinge perfecte God and in all thinges equall and coeternall wyth his father for our sakes beecame also a perfect manne takynge fleshe and bloode of his blessed mother and virgine Marye and sauing synne beinge in all thinges lyke vnto vs adioyninge vnto hys diuynitie a moste perfecte soule and a moste perfecte bodye hys sowle beinge indued with lyfe sence wyll reason wysdome memory and all other thinges required to the perfect soule of man and hys body being made of very fleshe and bones not onlye hauinge all membres of a perfecte mannes bodye in due ordre and proportion but also beinge subiect to hunger thyrste laboure sweate werines colde heate and all other lyke infirmyties and passions of man and vnto death also and that the moste vile and painefull vppon the crosse And after his death he rose againe with y e selfe same visible and palpable bodye and appeared therwith and shewed the same vnto hys Apostels and specially to Thomas makinge him to put his handes into his syde and to feele hys woundes And with the selfe same bodye he forsooke this worlde and ascended into heauen the Apostels seeynge and beholdinge hys body when it ascended and nowe sytteth at the right hand of his father and there shall remaine vntyll the laste daye when he shal come to iudge the quick and the deade This is the trewe catholicke faythe whâ—che the scrripture teacheth the vniuersal churche of Christe hathe euer beleued frome the begynnynge vntyll within these fower or fyue hundreth yeares last passed that the Byshoppe of Rome with the assistaunce of his Papists hath sette vp a newe faithe and beliefe of theyr owne deuising that the same body really corporally naturally and sensiblye is in this worlde styll and that in an hundreth thousand places at one tyme beynge inclosed in euerye pyxe and bread consecrated And althoughe we do affirme accordinge to Gods word that Christ is in all persones that truelye beleue in him in suche sorte that with his flesh and bloode he dothe spiritually norishe theim and feede theim and giueth theim euerlasting lyfe â–ª and doth assure them therof aswell by the promise of his word as by the sacramentall bread and wine in his holy supper which he did institute for the same purpose yet we do not a little varye frome the hainous erroures of the Papistes For they teache that Christe is in the breade and wine But we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the breade and wine They saye that when anye manne eateth the breadde and drynketh the cuppe CHRIST goeth into his mouth or stomake with the breade and wyne and no further But wee saye that CHRIST is in the whole man bothe in the body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread and drinketh the cuppe and not in hys mouthe or stomacke onely They saye that CHRIST is receiued in the mouth and entreth in wyth the bread and wyne Wee saye that hee is receaued in the harte and entreth in by faithe They saye that Christe is reallye in the sacramentall breade beeynge reserued an whole yeare or so longe as the fourme of breade remaineth but after the receiuynge thereof hee flyeth vp say they frome the receiuer vnto heauen as soone as the breade is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke But wee say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receiueth it so longe as the manne remayneth a membre of Christe They say that in the sacrament the corporall membres of Christe be not distaunt in place one from another but that wheresoeuer the head is there be the feete and wheresoeuer the armes be there be the legges so that in euery parte of the bread wyne is altogither whole head whole feete whole fleshe whole bloud whole hearte whole lunges whole brest whole backe and altogither whole confused and mixte withoute distinction or diuersitie O what a foolishe and an abhominable inuencion is this to make of the moste pure and perfect body of Christe suche a confuse and monstruous body And yet canne the Papistes imagine nothinge so foolishe but all Christian people must receyue the same as an oracle of God and as a moste certayne article of their fayth without whisperyng to the contrary Furthermore the Papistes say that a dogge or a Catte eate the body of Christe if they by chaunce do eate the sacramental bread We say that no yearthly creature can eate the body of Christ nor drynke his bloud but onely man They say that euery maÌ„ good and euil eateth the body of Christe We say that bothe do eate the sacramental bread and drynke the wyne but none do eate the very body of Christ and drynke his bloud but only they that be liuely membres of his body They say that good menne eate the body of Christ and drynke his bloud only at that tyme whan they receiue the sacrament We say that they eate drinke and feede of Christ coÌ„tinually so long as they be membres of his body They say that the body of Christe that is in the sacrament hath his owne proper fourme and quantitee We say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without fourme or quantitee They say that the fathers prophetes of the olde testament did not eate the body nor drunke the bloud of Christ We
59 1 4 Christ called not bread his body 72 2 16 This baptisme and washynge by the fyre the holy goste this newe byrthe this water that spryngeth in a man and floweth into euerlastyng lyfe and this clothyng and buryall can not be vnderstande of any materiall baptisme materyall washyng â–ª material byrth clothing and burial but by translatioÌ„ of â–ª c. 96 2 8 For asmuche as the fleshe of Christe dothe naturally geue lyfe therfore it maketh them to lyue â–ª c. 97 â— 30 That as he whiche hathe not the spirite â–ª c All other faultes may bee easyly corrected A TABLE OF THE CHIEF AND PRINCIPALL MATTERS CONteyned in this Booke The contentes of the first booke THe abuse of the Lordes supper Fol. 1. The eatyng of the body of Christ. Eodem The eatyng of the sacrament of his body fol. 2. Christ calleth the material bread his body fol. 4. Euil men do eat y e sacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. fo 5. Thynges sufficente for a christen mans faythe concernyng this sacrament Eodem The sacrament which was ordeined to make loue concord is tourned into the occasion of variance and discord fo 6. The spirituall hunger and thirstynesse of the soule fol. eod The spirituall foode of the soule fol. 8. Christ farre excelleth all corporal foode fol. 9. The sacrameÌ„tes were ordayned to confirme our fayth eodeÌ„ Wherfore this sacrameÌ„t was ordayned in bread and wyne fol. 11. The vnitee of Christes mistical body Eodem This sacrament moueth all men to loue frendship fol. 12. The doctrine of transubstantiation doth cleane subuert our fayth in Christ. Eodem The spiritual eatyng is with the heart not with the teethe fol. 13. Foure principal errors of the Papistes fol. 14. The first is of transubstantiation fol. eod The second is of the presence of Christ in this sacrament fol. 15. The third is that euil menne eate and drynke the very body and bloud of Christ fol. 17. The fourth is of the dayly sacrifice of Christ fol. eod The contentes of the second booke The confutation of the error of TraÌ„substantiation fol. 17. The Papistical doctrine is contrary to Gods worde EodeÌ„ The Papistical doctrine is against reason fol. 20. The Papistical doctrine is also against our senses fol. 21. The Papistical doctrine is contraye to the fayth of the olde authors of Christes Churche fol. 23. Transubstantiation came from Rome fol. 29. The first reason of the Papistes to proue their Transubstantiation with the answere therto fol. 31. The seconde argumente for Transubstantiation with the aunswere fol. 33. The thirdâ— argument with the answere fol. 34. Authours wrested of the Papystes for theyr transubstantiation fol. 34. Negatives by comparison fol. 36. Absurditees that folowe of transubstantiation fol. 43. The contentes of the thirde booke ¶ The presence of Christe in the sacrament fol. 45. Christe corporally is ascended into heauen fol. â—od The difference betwene the trewe and the Papisticall doctrine concernyng the presence of Christes body fol. 46. The profe wherof by our professioÌ„ in our coÌ„mon crede fo 48 An other profe by the holy scripture fo 49 Also an other profe by auncient authours fol. eodem One body can not be in dyuers places at one tyme fol. 52. An answere to the Papistes alledgyng for them these wordes This is my body fol. 56. The argumente of the Papystes fol. eod The interpretation of these wordes This is my body fol. eod Christ called bread his body wine his bloud fo 57. Bread is my body wyne is my bloudde bee figuratiue speeches fol. 59. To eate Christes fleshe and drynke his bloud be figuratiue speeches folâ— eod This is my body This is my bloudde bee figuratiue speeches fol. 62. The breade representeth Christes bodye and the wyne his bloude fol. eod Signes and fygures haue the names of the thynges whyche they sygnifie fo 64. Fiue principall thinges to be noted in Theodoretus fo 70. Figuratiue speeches bee not straunge fo 71. Christe hym selfe vsed figuratiue speeches fol. eodem The Paschall Lambe folio 72. The Lordes Supper folio eodem What figuratiue speeches were vsed at Christes laste supper folio 73. Aunswere to the auctoritees and argumentes of the Papystes folio 74. One brefe aunswere to all fol. eod The aunsweres to all the doctours folio 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87. The contentes of the fourth boke Whether euill men do eate and drynke Christe fol. 90. The godly onely eate Christ Eodem What is the eatyng of Christes fleshe and drinkyng of his bloud fol. 91. Christ is not eaten with teethe but with fayth Eodem The good only eate Christe fol. 92. The aunswere to the Papystes that doo affyrme that the euyll doo eate Christes body c. fo 97. The aunswere to the Papystes authors whyche at the fyrste shewe seeme to make for theym foli 98. Figures be called by the names of the thynges whiche they sygnifie fol. 99. The adoration of the sacrament folio 101. The simple people be deceyued Eodem They be the Papistes that haue deceiued the people fol. 103. An exhortation to the true honoryng of Christ in the sacrament foli 104. The contentes of the fift booke ¶ The sacrifice of the masse fol. 104. The difference betweene the sacrifice of Christe and of the priestes of the olde lawe folio eodem Two kyndes of sacrifices fol. 106. The sacrifice of Christe folio eodem A more playne declaration of the sacrifice of Christ. fo eod The sacrifices of the olde lawe fol. 107. The masse is not a sacrifice propiciatorye fol. 108. A confutation of the papistes cauillation fol. 109 The true sacrifice of all christen people Eodem The Popishe Masse is detestable Idolatry vtterly to be banished from all christen congregations fol. 110. Euery manne ought to receiue the sacrament himselfe and not one for another fol. 111. The difference betwene the priest the lay man Eodem The answere to the Papistes concernyng the sacrifice propiciatorie fol. 112. An aunswere to the authors fol. eodem The lay persons make a sacrifice aswel as the priest fol. 114 The Papistical Masse is neither a sacrifice propitiatorye nor of thankes geuyng Eodem There was no Papistical Masses in the primatiue churche Eodem The causes and meanes howe Papisticall Masses entered into the Churche fol. 115 The abuses of the Papisticall Masses fo eod What Churche is to bee folowed fo 116. A shorte instruction to the holy communyon fol. eod Here endeth the Table IMPRINTED at London in Poules churcheyarde at the signe of the Brasen serpent by Reynold Wolfe Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum ANNO DOMINI M.D.L. Math â–ª 15 â–ª The eatyng of the body of Christ. Ihon. 6. Augustin in Ioan Tractat 26. Eodent tract Aug. de Ciuitate Lib. 21. cap. 25. Chap. 3. The eting of the sacramente of his bodye Math. 26 Matâ— 14 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Chap. 4. Christ called the materiall breade his