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
knew they it not Forsooth because their mindes were grosse as yet and had not receaued the fulnes of the Spirite And therfore our Sauyour Christ minding to draw them from this grossenes tolde them of an other kinde of meate then they fantasied as it were rebuking them for that they perceiued not that there was any other kinde of eating and drinking besides that eating and drinking which is with the mouth and throate Likewise when he said to the woman of Samaria Who soeuer shall drink of that water that I shal geue him shal neuer be thirsty again They that heard him speak those words might well perceiue that he went about to make them well acquainted with an other kinde of drinking then is the drinking with the mouth and throate For there is no such kinde of drinke that with once drinking can quench the thirst of a mans body for euer Wherefore in saying he shall neuer be thirsty agayn he did draw their mindes from drinking with the mouth vnto another kinde of drinking wherof they knew not and vnto another kinde of thirsting wherewith as yet they were not acquainted And also when our Sauyour Christ said he that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleeueth on me shall neuer be thirsty he gaue them a plain watcheworde that there was another kinde of meate and drinke then that wherwith he fed them at the other syde of the water and an other kynde of hungryng and thirstyng then was the hungryng and thyrstyng of the bodye By these wordes therfore he droue the people to vnderstand an other kynde of eatyng and drynking of hungring and thirsting then that whiche belongeth onely for the preseruation of temporall life Now then as the thing that comforteth the body is called meate and drink of a lyke sorte the scripture calleth the same thinge that comforteth the soule meate and drinke Wherfore as here before in the first note is declared the hunger drought of the soule so is it nowe secondly to be noted what is the meate drinke and foode of the soule The meate drinke foode and refreshing of the soule is our Sauiour Christ as he sayd himselfe Come vnto me all you that trauaile and be laden and I will refresh you And If any man be dry sayth he let him come to me and drinke He that beleueth in me floudes of water of life shall flowe out of hys bellye And I am the bread of life saith Christe he that commeth to me shall not be hungry and he that beleeueth in me shall neuer be dry For as meate and drinke do comfort the hungry body so doth the death of Christes body and the shedding of his bloud comforte the soule when she is after her sorte hungry What thinge is it that comforteth and nourisheth the body Forsooth meate and drinke By what names then shall we call the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ which do comfort and nourish the hungry soule but by the names of meate and drynke And this symilitude caused our Sauiour to say my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drinke For there is no kinde of meate that is comfortable to the soule but only the death of Christes blessed body Nor no kinde of drinke that can quench her thirst but only the bloudsheading of our Sauyour Christ which was shed for her offences For as there is a carnall generation and a carnall feeding and nourishment so is there also a spirituall generation and a spirituall feeding And as euery man by carnall generation of father and mother is carnally begotten and borne vnto this mortall life so is euery good christian spiritually borne by Christ vnto eternall life And as euery man is carnally fedde and nourished in his body by meat and drinke euen so is euery good christian man spiritually fed and nourished in his soule by the flesh and bloud of our Sauyour Christ. And this Christ hymselfe teacheth vs in thys syxt of Iohn saying Verely verely I say vnto you excepte ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drynke hys bloud you haue no life in you Who so eateth my flesh and drynketh my bloude hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the last daye For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drynke He that eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloude dwelleth in me and I in hym As the liuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall lyue by me And this S. Paul confessed him selfe saying That I haue life I haue it by faith in the Sonne of God And now it is not I that liue but Christ liueth in me The thyrd thyng to be noted is this that although our Sauiour Christ resembleth hys fleshe and bloud to meate and drynke yet he farre passeth and excelleth all corporall meates and drynkes For although eorporall meates and drynkes do nourish and continue our life here in this world yet they begin not our life For the beginning of our lyfe we haue of our fathers and mothers and the meate after we be begotten doth feede and nourish vs and so preserueth vs for a tyme. But our sauiour Christ is both the first beginner of our spirituall lyfe who first begetteth vs vnto God his father and also afterward he is our lyuely foode and nourishment Moreouer meate and drynke doe feede and nourishe onely our bodyes but CHRISTE is the true and perfect nourishment both of body and soule And besides that bodely foode preserueth the lyfe but for a tyme but Christ is such a spirituall and perfect foode that he preserueth both body and soule for euer as he sayde vnto Martha I am a resurrection and lyfe He that beleueth in me although he dye yet shall he lyue And hee that lyueth and beleeueth in me shal not dye for euer Fourthly it is to be noted that the true knowledge of these things is the true knowledge of Christ and to teache these thinges is to teache Christ. and the beleuing and feelyng of these thinges is the beleuyng and feelyng of Christ in our hartes And the more clearely we see vnderstand and beleue these thinges the more clearely we see and vnderstand Christ and haue more fully our fayth and comfort in hym And although our carnal generation and our carnal nourishment be known to all men by dayly experyence and by our common senses yet this our spirituall generation and our spirituall nutrition be so obscure and hyd vnto vs that we cannot attayne to the true and perfect knowledge and feelyng of them but onely by fayth which must be grounded vpon Goddes most holy worde and sacramentes And for this consideration our Sauiour Christ hath not only set forth these thyngs most playnly in his holy word that we may heare them with our eares but he hath also ordayned one visible sacrament of spirituall regeneration in water and an
in direct course to speake of the matter of transubstantiacion In this fourth Book the author intreateth eating and drinking of Christes body and bloud And in the first part therof trauayleth to confirme his purpose and in the second part aunswereth as he can so his aduersaries and so taketh accasion to speake of Adoration His chiefe purpose is to proue that euill men receiue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which after this authors doctrine is a very superfluous matter For if the sacrament be onely a figure and the body and bloud of Christ be there onely fyguratiuely whereto should this author dispute of euill mens eating when good menne can not eate Christ in the sacrament bycause he is not there For by the effect of this authors doctrine the Sacrament is but a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine that in beleeuing and remembring Christes benefites with reuoluing them in our mynde we should in fayth feed vpō Christ spiritually beleuing that as the bread wine feedeth nourisheth our bodies so Christ feedeth nourisheth our soules which be good wordes but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not learneds yet may be well gathered not to limitte the mistery of the supper but to be spoken taught touching the beleuing remēbring Christes benefites with the reuoluing of thē in our minde therby to learne vs how to feed vpō Christ cōtinually without the vse of the visible Sacramēt beyng called of S. Augustine the inuisible sacramēt wher in by fayth we be nourished with the word of God the vertus of Christes body bloud which the true teaching of the church calleth spirituall manducation only without which no man is to be accompted a true membre of the mysticall body of Christ. And therfore who so feedeth vpon Christ thus spiritually must needes be a good man for onely good men be true members of Christes misticall body which spirituall eating is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessaryly to be good and therfore it must be and is certayne conclusion that onely good men do eat and drincke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to life So as this author shall haue of me no aduersary therin And if this author had proued that to be the true doctrine that Christes very body and bloud is not present in the visible Sacrament then might he haue left this fourth booke vnwritten For after his doctrine as I sayd before good men do not eate Christes body in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes for bycause it is not there and then much lesse should euyll men reach it In the Catholike teaching all the doctrine of eating of Christ is concluded in two maner of eatings one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall an other spirituall without the sacrament And because in the eating of the visible Sacrament S. Paule speaketh of vnworthy the same true teaching to open the matter more clerely according to Scripture noteth vnto vs three maner of eatinges one spirituall onely which onely good men do feeding in fayth without the visible Sacrament An other is both spirituall and Sacramentall which also good men only do receiuing the visible Sacrament with a true sincere charitable fayth The third maner of eating is Sacramētall only which after S. Paule euell men do vnworthely and therfore haue iudgement and condemnation and be gilty of our Lords body not esteming our Lordes body there And here ariseth the knot of contention with this author who sayth euell men eate but the Sacramentall bread wher vnto I reply no more do good men neyther if this authors doctrine of the Sacrament be true seing he will haue it but a figure If this author will say the effect is other in good men then in euill men I will not striue therin But to discusse this matter euidētly we must rightly open the truth and then must consider the visible Sacraments as they be of Gods ordinaunce who directeth vs where to seeke for his giftes and how whose working all be it it be not restrayned by his Sacramentes and therfore God may and doth inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleaseth hym yet he teacheth vs of his ordinary working in the visible Sacramentes ordereth vs to seeke his giftes of helth and lyfe there wherupon S. Augustine noteth how Baptisme among the Christian men of Aphrike was very well called health and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in which God geueth helth and lyfe if we worthely vse them The ordinaunce of these Sacramentes is Goddes worke the very author of thē who as he is in him selfe vniforme as S. Iames sayth without alteration so as Dauid sayth his workes be true which is asmuch as uniforme for truth and uniforme aunswereth together As God is all Goodnes so all his workes be good So as considering the substaunce of Gods workes ordinaunces as they be in themselfe they be alwayes vniforme certayne and true in theyr substance as God ordered them Among men for whom they be worught and ordered there is varietie good men euill men worthy vnworthy but as S. Paule sayth there is but one Lord one fayth one Baptisme And the parable of the sower which Christ declared himselfe sheweth a diuersity of the groundes where the seed did fall but the seed was all one that did fall in the good ground and that did fall in the naughty ground but it fructified onely in the good ground which seed Christ calleth his word And in the sixt of S. Iohn sayth his word is spirit and life so as by the teaching of Christ spirite and lyfe may fall vpon naughty men although for theyr malice it tarieth not nor fructifieth not in them And S. Augustine according hereunto noteth how Christes wordes be spirit and lyfe although thou doest carnally vnderstād them and hast no frute of them yet so they be spirite and lyfe but not to thee wherby appeareth the substaunce of Gods ordinaunce to be one though we in the vsing of it vary The promises of God can not be disapoynted by mans infidelitie as S. Paule sayth which place Luther alleageth to shew the vnitie in the substaunce of Baptisme whither it be ministred to good or euill But S. Paule to the Corinthians declareth it notably in these wordes We be the good sauour of Christ in them that be salued and them that perish Here S. Paule noteth the sauour good and one to diuers men but after the diuersitie in men of diuers effectes in them that is to say the sauour of life and the sauour of death which saying of S. Paule the Greeke scooles gathered by Oecumenius open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptly The doue they say and the bèetell shall feed both vpon one oyntment and the beetell dye of it and the doue strengthned by it The diuersitie in the effect
following of the diuersitie of them that eate and not of that is eaten which is alway one According hereunto S. Augustine agaynst the donatists geueth for a rule the sacramentes to be one in all although they be not one that receaue vse them And therfore to knitte vp this matter for the purpose I intend and write it for we must consider the substance of the visible sacrament of Christes body and bloud to be alwayes as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce in the vnderstanding wherof this author maketh variaunce and would haue it by Christes ordinaunce but a figure which he hath not proued but and he had proued it then is it in substaunce but a figure and but a figure to good men For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad and so neyther to good nor bad this sacrament is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preaching Wherefore if it be more then a figure as it is in deed and if by Christes ordinance it hath present vnder the forme of those visible signes of bread and wine the very body and bloud of Christ as both bene truly taught hitherto then is the substance of the Sacrament one alwayes as the oyntment was whether doues eate of it or beteles And this Issue I ioyne with this author that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diuersitie in the substance of this sacrament what soeuer diuersite follow in the effect For the diuersitie of the effect is occasioned in them that receaue as before is proued And then to answere this author I say that onely good men eate and drinck the body and bloud of Christ spiritually as I haue declared but all good and euill receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce God hath ordeyned it which in it hath no variance but is all one to good and euill Caunterbury IN this booke because you agre with me almost in the whole I shall not need much to trauaile in the aunswer but leauing all your prety taūtes agaynst me and glorious bosting of your selfe which neyther beseemeth our persones nor hindreth the truth nor furthereth your part but by pompouse wordes to winne a vayne glory and fame of them that be vnlearned and haue more regarde to words then iudgement of the matter I shall onely touch here and there such thinges as we vary in or that be necessary for the defence of the truth First after the sūme of my fourth booke collected as pleaseth you at the first dash you beginne with an vntrue report ioyned to a subtell deceyte or falax saying that my chief purpose is to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament And hereupon you conclude that my fourth booke is superfluouse But of a false antecedent all that be learned do know that nothing can be rightly concluded Now mine intent and purpose in my fourth boooke is not to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the sacrament although that be true but my chief purpose is to proue that euell men eate not Christes flesh nor drincke not his bloud neither in the sacrament nor out of the sacrament as on the other side good men eat and drincke them both in the sacrament and out of the Sacrament And in the word Sacrament which is of your addition is a subtill falax called double vnderstanding For when the Sacrament is called onely a figure as you reherse wherin the body and bloud of Christ be onely figuratiuely there the word Sacrament is taken for the outwarde signes of bread and wine And after when you reherse that the Sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine in beleuing and remembring Christes benefites there the word Sacrament is taken for the whole ceremony and ministration of the Sacrament And so when you goe about by equiuocation of the word to deceaue other men you fall into your owne snare and be deceaued your selfe in that you think you conuey the matter so craftely that no man can espy you But to vtter the matter playnly without fallax or cauilation I teach that no man can eat Christes flesh and drincke his bloud but spiritually which forasmuch as euill men do not although they eat the sacramentall bread vntill theyr bellyes be full and drincke the wine vntill they be dronken yet eat they neither Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament because they cannot be eaten and dronken but by spirite and fayth wherof vngodly men be destitute being nothing but world and flesh This therfore is the summe of my teaching in this fourth booke that in the true ministration of the Sacrament Christ is present spiritually and so spiritually eaten of them that be godly and spirituall And as for the vngodly and carnall they may eate the bread and drincke the wine but with Christ him selfe they haue no communion or company and therfore they neyther eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which who soeuer eateth hath as Christ sayth him selfe life by him as Christ hath life by his father And to eate Christes body or drincke his bloud sayth S. Augustine is to haue life For whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally as you say or spiritually in them that rightly beleue in him and duely receaue the Sacrament as I say yet certayne it is that there he is not eaten corporally but spiritually For corporal eating with the mouth is to chaw teare in peces with the teeth after which maner Christes body is of no man eaten although Nicholas the second made such an article of the fayth and compelled Berengatius so to professe And therfore although Christ were corporally in the Sacrament yet seeing that he cannot be corporally eaten this booke commeth in good place and is very necessary to know that Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually by beleuing and remembring Christes benefites and reuoluing them in our mynd beleeuing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bodyes so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our soules And ought this to come out of a christian mannes mouth That these be good wordes but such as the wordes of christes supper do not learne vs Do not the wordes of Christes supper learne vs to eate the breade and drinke the wine in the remembraunce of his death Is not the breakyng and eating of the bread after such sort as Christ ordayned a communication of Christes body vnto vs Is not the cuppe likewise a communication of his bloud vnto vs Should not then christian people according hereunto in fayth feed vpon Christ spiritually beleuing that as the bread wine feed and nourish theyr bodyes so both Christ their soules with his owne flesh and bloud And shall any Christian man now say that these be good wordes but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not
all is one thing and one reason For in vs they be done by little and little but God worketh the same sodenly in one moment And yet if you had well considered the matter you should not haue found the sacraments of God likesoppes wherin licour is poured but you should haue found pouring an apt word to expresse the abundance of gods working by his grace in the ministration of his holy sacraments For when there cometh a small rayne then we say it droppeth or there is a few droppes but when there cometh a great multitude of rayne togither for the great abundance of it we vse in common speach to say it poureth downe So that this word pouring is a very apt word to expresse the multitude of Gods mercies and the plentifulnes of his grace poured into them whome he loued declared and exhibited by his wordes and sacraments And howsoeuer you be disposed by iesting and scoffing to mocke out all thinges as your disposition hath bene euer giuen to reprehend thinges that were well yet the indifferent reader may iudge by this one place among many other that you seeke rather an occasion to brable without cause and with idle wordes to draw your booke out at length then to seeke or teach any truth And if I should play and scoffe in such a matter as you doe I might dally with the word of Infusion as you do with the word powring For as you reiect my word of powring bicause some fond reader might fantasy that bread in the sacrament to be like a soppe wherin licour were powred by like reason may I reiect your English Latin of infuding bicause such a reader might fantasy therby the bread to be like water wherin the diuinity is stieped or infuded As infused rubarbe is called when it is stieped certayne houres in stilled water or wine without seething and so be roses and violets likewise infused when they be stieped in warme water to make inlep therof But as poticaries phisitions surgions and Alcumists vse wordes of Greeke Arabike and other strange langwages purposely therby to hide their sciences from the knowledge of others so farre as they can so do you in many partes of your booke deuise many strange termes and strange phrases of speach to obscure and darken therby the matter of the sacrament and to make the same meete for the capacities of very few which Christ ordayned to be vnderstanded and exercised of all men At the last as you say you come to your purpose not to open the truth but to hide it as much as you may and to gather of Ciprians wordes your owne faining and not his meaning who ment nothing lesse then eyther of any Transubstantiation or of the corporall presence of Christ in the bread and wine And to set out Ciprians mynde in few wordes he speaketh of the eating and not of the keeping of the bread which when it is vsed in the Lordes holy supper it is not onely a corporall meate to norish the body but an heauenly meate to nourish the soules of the worthy receauors the diuine maiesty inuisibly being present and by a spirituall transition and change vniting vs vnto Christ feeding vs spiritually with his flesh and bloud vnto eternall life as the bread being conuerted into the nature of our bodies fedeth the same in this mortall life And that this is the mynd of S. Ciprian is euident aswell by the wordes that go before as by the wordes following the sentence by you alleadged For a little before Ciprian writeth thus There is geuen to vs the foode of immortall life differing from common meates which reteineth the forme of corporall substance and yet proueth Gods power to be present by inuisible effect And agayne after he sayth This common bread after it is changed into flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodyes And therfore the weakenes of our fayth being holped by the customable effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the invisible sacraments is the effect of euerlasting life and that we be made one by a Transition or change not so much corporall as spirituall For he is made both bread flesh and bloud meate substance and life to his church which he calleth his body making it to be partaker of him Note well these wordes good reader and thou shalt well perceaue that Ciprian speaketh not of the bread kept and reserued but as it is a spirituall nourishment receaued in the Lordes supper and as it is frutefully broken and eaten in the remembrance of Christes death and to them that so eate it Ciprian calleth it the foode of immortall life And therfore when he sayth that in the inuisible sacrament is the effect of euerlasting life he vnderstandeth of them that worthely receaue the sacrament for to the bread and wine pertayneth not eternall life Neuertheles the visible sacrament teacheth vs that by a spirituall change we be vnited to Christes flesh and bloud who is the meate and sustenance of his church and that we be made partakers of the life euerlasting by the power of God who by his effectuall working is present with vs and worketh with his Sacraments And here is agayn to be noted that Ciprian in this place speaketh of no reall presence of Christes humanitie but of an effectuall presence of his diuine maiestie and yet the breade sayth he is a foode and nourishment of the body And thus Ciprian proueth nothing agaynst my sayinges neither of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud nor of Transubstantiation of bread and wine And where you be offended with this word spirituall it is not my deuise but vsed of S. Ciprian him selfe not past .vi. or vii lines before the wordes by you cited where he declareth the spirituall mutation or transition in the Sacraments And of the change in the sacrament of baptisme as well as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ speaketh not onely this author but also Nazianzen Emissene Chrisostome Ambrose with all the famous auncient ecclesiasticall authors And this water doth well to delay your hotte wine wherof you haue drunken so much out of the cuppe of the great whore of Babilon that the true wine representing to vs our whole redemption by the true bloud of Christ you haue clearly transubstantiate and taken away Now followeth my answere vnto Chrisostome An other authority they haue of S. Ihon Chrisostome which they boast also to be inuincible Chrisostome say they writeth thus in a certayne homily De Eucharistia Doest thou see bread Doest thou see wine Do they auoyde beneth as other meates do God forbid thinke not so For as waxe if it be put into the fire it is made like the fire no substāce remayneth nothing is lefte here so also thinke thou that the misteries be consumed by the substance of the body At these wordes of Chrisostome the Papists do triumph as though they had won the field Loe
set together two contradictories For that the scholemen say God cannot do Winchester If this author without force of necessitie would induce it by the like speaches as whē Christ sayd I am the dore I am the vine he is Helias and such other and because it is a figuratiue speach in them it may be so here which maketh no kynd of proofe that it is so here But yet if by way of reasoning I would yeld to him therein and call it a figuratiue speach as he doth what other poynt of faith is there then in the matter but to beleue the story that Christ did institute such a supper wherin he gaue bread and wine for a token of his body and bloud which is now after this vnderstanding no secret mysterie at all or any ordinaunce aboue reason For commonly men vse to ordeyne in sensible thinges remembraunces of themselues when they dye or depart the countrey So as in the ordinaunce of this supper after this vnderstanding Christ shewed not his omnipotencie but onely beneuolence that he loued vs and would be remēbred of vs. For Christ did not say Whosoeuer eateth this token eateth my body or eateth my flesh or shall haue any profite of it in speciall but do this in remembraunce of me Caunterbury I Make no such vayne inductions as you imagine me to do but such as he established by scripture and the consent of all the olde writers And yet both you and Smith vse such fonde inductions for your proofe of Trāsubstantiation when you say God can do this thing and he cā make that thing wherof you would conclude that he doth clearely take away the substance of bread and wine and putteth his flesh and bloud in their places And that Christ maketh his body to be corporally in many places at one tyme of which doctrine you haue not one iote in all the whole scripture And as concerning your argument made vpon the history of the institution of Christes supper like fonde reasoning might vngodly men make of the sacrament of Baptisme and so scoffe out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when Christ said these wordes after his resurrection Goe into the whole world and preach vnto all people baptising them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Here might wicked blasphemers say What point of faith is in these wordes but to beleue the story that Christ did institute such a sacrament wherin he commaunded to geue water for a token which is now after this vnderstanding no secrete mysterie at all or any ordinaunce aboue reason so as in the ordinaunce of this sacrament after this vnderstanding Christ shewed not his omnipotency For he sayd not then Whosoeuer receiueth this token of water shall receuie remission of sinne or the holy ghost or shall haue any profite of it in especial but Do this Winchester And albeit this author would not haue them bare tokens yet and they be only tokēs they haue no warrāt signed by scripture for any apparell at all For the vi of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made to the eating of a token of Christes flesh but to the eating of Christes very flesh wherof the bread as this author would haue it is but a figure in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body And if it be but a figure in Christes wordes it is but a figure in S. Paules wordes whē he said The bread which we breake is it not the communication of Christes body that is to say a figure of the communication of Christes body if this authors doctrine be true and not the communication in dede Wherfore if the very body of Christ be not in the supper deliuered in déede the eatyng there hath no speciall promise but onely commaundement to do it in remembrance After which doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and special mysterie that hath nothing hidden in it but a playne open ordinaunce of a token for a remembraunce to the eating of which token is annered no promise expressely ne any holynes to be accompted to be in the bread or wyne as this author teacheth but to be called holy because they be deputed to an holy vse If I aske the vse he declareth to signifie If I should aske what to signifie There must be a sort of good wordes framed without scripture For scripture expresseth no matter of signification of speciall effect Caunterbury IF I graunted for your pleasure that the bare bread hauyng no further respect were but onely a bare figure of Christes body or a bare token because that terme liketh you better as it may be thought for this consideration that men should thinke that I take the bread in the holy mysterie to be but as it were a token of I recommend me vnto you but if I graunt I say that the bare bread is but a bare token of Christes body what haue you gayned therby Is therfore the whole vse of the bread in the whole action and ministration of the lordes holy supper but a naked or nude bare token Is not one lofe being broken and distributed among faithful people in the lordes supper taken and eaten of them a token that the body of Christ was broken and crucified for them and is to them spiritually and effectually geuen and of them spiritually and fruitfully taken and eaten to their spirituall and heauenly comfort sustentation nourishment of their soules as the bread is of their bodies And what would you require more Cā there be any greater comfort to a christian man then this Is here nothing els but bare tokens But yet importune aduersaries and such as be wilful and obstinate wil neuer be satisfied but quarell further saying What of all this Here be a great many of gay wordes framed together but to what purpose For all be but signes and tokens as concerning the bread But how can he be taken for a good christian man that thinketh that Christ did ordaine his sacramentall signes and tokens in vayne without effectuall grace and operation For so might we as well say that the water in baptisme is a bare token and hath no warrant signed by scripture for any apparell at all for the scripture speaketh not of any promise made to the receiuing of a token or figure onely And so may be concluded after your maner of reasoning that in baptisme is no spirituall operation in dede because that washing in water in it selfe is but a token But to expresse the true effect of the sacramentes As the washing outwardly in water is not a vayne token but teacheth such a washing as god worketh inwardly in them that duely receiue the same So likewise is not the bread a vayne token but sheweth and preacheth to the godly receyuer what God worketh in him by his almighty power secretely and inuisibly And therfore as the bread is outwardly eaten in deede in the lordes supper
incarnation also Of which eating and not of Sacramentall eating he spake in the sixt of Iohn My flesh is very meat and my bloud is very drincke He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him And Cyrill I graunt agreed to Nestorius in the substance of the thing that was eaten which is Christes very flesh but in the manner of eating they varyed For Nestorius imagined a carnall eating as the papistes do with mouth and tearing with teeth But Cyrill in the same place sayeth that Christ is eaten onely by a pure faith and not that he is eaten corporally with our mouthes as other meates be Nor that he is eaten in the Sacrament onely And it seemeth you vnderstand not the matter of Nestorius who did not esteeme Christ to be made of two seuerall natures and seuerall persons as you report of him but his errour was that Christ had in hym naturallye but one nature and one person affirming that he was a pure man and not God by nature but that the Godhed by grace inhabited as hee doth in other men And where you say that in baptisme we receiue the Spirit of Christ and in the Sacrament of his body and bloud wee receeue his very fleshe and bloud This your saying is no small derogation to baptisme wherein wee receaue not only the Spirit of Christ but also Christ him selfe whole body and soule manhoode and Godhead vnto euerlasting life as well as in the holy communion For S. Paule sayth Quicunque in Christo baptizati estis Christū induistis as many as be baptized in Christ put Christ vpon them Neuerthelesse this is done in diuers respectes for in baptisme it is done in respect of regeneration and in the holy communion in respecte of nourishment and augmentation But your vnderstanding of the sixt chapiter of Iohn is such as neuer was vttered of any man before your time and as declareth you to be vtterly ignoraunte of Gods misteries For who euer sayd or taught before this time that the Sacrament was the cause why Christ sayd If we eate not the flesh of the sonne of man we haue not life in vs. The spirituall eating of his flesh and drincking of his bloud by faith by digesting his death in our mindes as our onely price raunsome and redemption from eternall damnation is the cause wherefore Christ sayd That if we eate not his flesh and drincke not his bloud we haue not life in vs and if we eate his fleshe and drincke his bloud we haue euerlasting life And if Christ had neuer ordayned the Sacrament yet should we haue eaten his flesh and droncken his bloud and haue had thereby euerlasting life as al the faithfull did before the the Sacrament was ordeyned and doe dayly when they receaue not the Sacrament And so did the holy men that wandered in the wildernesse and in all their life tune very seldome receaued the Sacrament and many holy Martyres either exyled or kept in prison did dayly feede of the foode of Christes body and drancke dayly the bloud that sprange out of his side or els they could not haue had euerlasting life as Christ him selfe sayd in the gospell of S. Iohn and yet they were not suffered with other Christen people to haue the vse of the Sacrament And therefore your argument in this place is but a fallax a non causa vt causa which is another tricke of the deuils sophistry And that in the sixt of Iohn Christ spake neither of corporall nor sacramentall eating of his flesh the time manifestly sheweth For Christ spake of the same present time that was then saying The bread which I will geue is my flesh And He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and Im him and hath euerlasting life At which time the sacramentall bread was not yet Christs flesh For the Sacrament was not then yet ordayned and yet at that time all that beléeued in Christ did eate his flesh and drinke hys bloude or els they could not haue dwelled in Christe nor Christ in them Moreouer you say your selfe that in the sixt of S. Iohns gospell when Christ sayd the bread is my flesh By the word flesh he ment his wholl humanity as is ment in this sentence The word was made flesh which he ment not in the word body when he said of bread this is my body Where by he ment not his wholl humanitye but his flesh onely neither his bloud nor his soule And in the vi of Iohn Christ made not bread his flesh when he said the bread is my flesh but he expounded in those wordes what bread it was that he ment of when he promised them bread that should geue them eternall life He declared in those wordes that himselfe was the bread that should geue life because they should not haue their fantasies of any bread made of corne And so the eating of that heauenly bread could not be vnderstanded of the Sacrament nor of corporall eating with the mouth but of spirituall eating by faith as all the olde authors do most cleerely expound and declare And seeing that there is no corporall eating but chawing with the teeth or swallowing as all men doe know if we eate Christ corporally thē you must confesse that we either swallow vp Christes flesh or chaw teare it with our teeth as pope Nicholas constrained Berengarius to confesse which S. Augustine saith is a wicked hainous thing But in few words to answere to this second euident manifest vntruth as you obiect against me I would wish you as truely to vnderstand these words of the sixt chap. of Iohn as I haue truely translated them Winchester Now where the author to exclude the mistery of corporall manducatiō bringeth forth of S. Augustine such wordes as intreat of the effect and operation of the worthy receauing of the Sacrament The handling is not so sincéere as this matter requireth For as hereafter shal be intreated that is not worthely and well done may because the principall intent fayleth be called not done and so S. Augustine saith Let him not thinke to eate the body of Christ that dwelleth not in Christ not because the body of Christ is not receaued which by S. Augustines minde euill men doe to their condemnation but because the effecte of life fayleth And so the Author by steight to exclude the corporall māducation of Christes most precious body vttereth such wordes as might sound Christ to haue taught the dwelling in Christ to be an eating which dwelling may be without this corporall manducation in him that cannot attayn the vse of it and dwelling in Christ is an effect of the worthy manducation and not the manducation it selfe which Christ doth order to be practised in the most precious Sacrament institute in his supper Here thou Reader mayst sée how this doctrine of Christ as I haue declared it openeth the
other visible sacrament of spirituall nourishment in bread and wine to the intent that as much as is possible for man we may see Christ with our eyes smell hym at our nose taste hym with our mouthes grope hym with our handes and perceiue hym with all our senses For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into our eares so likewise these elementes of water bread and wyne ioyned to Gods word do after a sacramentall maner put Christ into our eyes mouthes handes and all our senses And for this cause Christ ordeyned baptisme in water that as surely as we se feele and touch water with our bodyes and be washed with water so assuredly ought we to beleue when we be baptised that Christ is veryly present with vs and that by him we be newly borne agayne spiritually and wafhed from our sinnes and grafted in the stocke of Christes owne body and be apparailed clothed and harnessed with hym in such wise that as the deuill hath no power agaynst Chryst so hath he none agaynst vs so long as we remayne grafted in that stocke and be clothed with that apparell and harnessed with that armour So that the washing in water of baptisme is as it were shewing of Christ before our eyes and a sensible touching feelyng and gropyng of hym to the confirmation of the inwarde fayth which we haue in hym And in like maner Christ ordeined the sacrament of hys bodye and bloud in bread and wine to preach vnto vs that as our bodyes be fed nourished and preserued with meate and drynke so as touching our spirituall life towardes God we be fed nourished and preserued by the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ and also that he is such a preseruation vnto vs that neither the deuils of hell nor eternall death nor sinne can be able to preuayle agaynst vs so long as by true and constant faith we be fed and nourished with that meate and drynk And for this cause Christ ordeined this sacrament in bread and wine whiche we eate and drynke and be chiefe nutrimentes of our body to thintent that as surely as we see the bread and wine with our eyes smell them with our noses touch them with our handes and taste them with our mouthes so assuredlye ought we to beleue that Christ is a spirituall lyfe and sustinaunce of our soules like as the sayd bread and wine is the foode and sustinance of our bodyes And no lesse ought we to doubt that our soules be fed and liue by Christ then that our bodies be fed and liue by meate and drinke Thus our sauiour Christ knowing vs to be in this world as it were but babes and weakelinges in fayth hath ordeyned sensible signes and tokens whereby to allure and drawe vs to more strength and more constant fayth in hym So that the eatyng and drynkyng of thys sacramentall bread and wine is as it were shewing of Christe before our eies a smellyng of hym with our noses felyng and gropyng of hym with our handes and an eatyng chawing digestyng and feedyng vpon hym to our spirituall strength and perfection Fiftely it is to be noted that although there be many kindes of meates and drinkes which feede the body yet our Sauiour Christ as many auncyent authors write ordayned this sacrament of our spiritual feding in bread and wine rather then in other meates and drynkes because that bread and wine doe most liuely represent vnto vs the spirituall vnion and knot of all faythful people as well vnto Christ as also amonges them selues For like as bread is made of a great number of grains of corne ground baken and so ioyned together that therof is made one lose And an infinite number of grapes be pressed togither in one vessell and thereof is made wine likewise the whole multitude of true christen people spiritually ioyned first to Christ and then among them selues togither in one fayth one baptisme one holy spirite one knot and bond of loue Sixtly it is to be noted that as the bread and wine whiche we doe eate be turned into our fleshe and bloud and be made our very fleshe and very bloud and so be ioyned and myxed with our fleshe and bloud that they be made one whole body togither euen so be all faythfull christians spiritually turned into the body of Christ and so be ioyned vnto Christe and also togither amonge them selues that they doe make but one misticall body of Christe as S. Paule sayth We be one bread and one body as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. And as one lofe is giuen among many men so that euery one is partaker of the same lofe and likewise one cup of wine is distributed vnto many persons wherof euery one is partaker euen so our Sauiour Christ whose flesh and bloud be represented by the misticall bread and wine in the Lords Supper doth geue him selfe vnto al his true members spiritually to feede them nourish them and to geue them continuall life by him And as the branches of a tree or member of a body if they be dead or cut of they neither liue nor receaue any nourishment or sustinance of the body or tree so likewise vngodly and wicked people which be cut of from Christes misticall body or be dead members of the same doe not spiritually feede vpon Christes body and bloud nor haue any life strength or sustentation thereby Seuenthly it is to be noted that where as nothing in this life is more acceptable before God or more pleasant vnto man thē christen people to liue together quietly in loue and peace vnity and concord this Sacrament doth most aptly and effectuously moue vs thereunto For when we be made all partakers of this one table what ought we to thinke but that we be all members of one spirituall body wherof Christ is the head that we be ioyned together in one Christ as a great number of graynes of corne be ioyned together in one loafe Surely they haue very hard and stony hartes which with these thinges be not moued and more cruell and vnreasonable be they then bruit beastes that cannot be perswaded to be good to their christen brethren and neighboures for whom Christ suffered death when in this Sacrament they be put in remēbrāce that the Sonne of God bestowed his life for his enemies For we see by daily experience that eating and drinking together maketh frendes and continueth frendshippe much more then ought the table of Christ to moue vs so to doe Wilde beastes and birdes be made gentile by geuing them meate and drinke why then should not christen men waxe meeke and gentle with this heauenly meate of Christ Hereunto we be stirred and moued as well by the bread and wine in this holy Supper as by the wordes of holy Scripture recited in the same Wherefore whose hart soeuer this holy Sacrament Communion and Supper of Christ wil not kindle with loue vnto his
for your catholick confessiō that Christ doth in deed fede such as be regenerated in him not only by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud at his holy table this I confesse also but that he feedeth Iewes Turkes and Infidels if they receaue the sacrament or that he corporally feedeth our mouthes with his flesh and bloud this neither I confesse nor any scripture or auncyeut writer euer taught but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hartes and by fayth not with mouth and teeth except our hartes be in our mouthes and our fayth in our teeth Thus you haue labored sore in this matter and sponne a fayre threde and brought this your first booke to a goodly conclusion For you conclude your booke with blasphemous wordes agaynst both the sacrament of baptisme and the Lordes supper nigardly pinching gods giftes and diminishing hys lyberall promises made vnto vs in them For where Christ hat◠promised in both the sacramentes to be assistant with vs wholl both in body and spirite in the one to be our spirituall regeneration and apparell and in the other to be our spirituall meate and drinke you clyp hys liberall benefites in such sorte that in the one you make him to geue but onely his spirite and in the other but onely hys body And yet you call your booke an Explication and assertion of the true catholicke fayth Here you make an ende of your first booke leauing vnanswered the rest of my booke And yet forasmuch as Smith busieth him selfe in this place with the aunswere therof he may not passe vnanswered againe where the matter requireth The wordes of my booke be these But these thinges cannot manifestly appeare to the reader except the principall poyntes be first set our wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods word which be chiefly fower First the Papistes say that in the supper of the Lord after the wordes of consecration as they call it there is none other substaunce remaining but the substaunce of Christes flesh and bloud so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten nor wine to be dronken And although there be the colour of bread and wine the sauour the smell the bignesse the fashion and all other as they call them accidentes or qualities and quantitees of bread and wine yet say they there is no very bread nor wine but they be turned into the flesh bloud of Christ. And this conuersion they call transubstantiation that is to say turning of one substance into an other substance And although all the accidentes both of the bread and wine remaine still yet say they the same accidentes be in no maner of thing but hang alone in the ayre without any thing to stay them vpon For in the body and bloud of Christ say they these accidentes cannot be nor yet in the ayre for the body and bloud of Christ and the ayre be neither of that bignesse fashion smell nor colour that the bread and wine be Nor in the bread and wine say they these accidentes can not be for the substance of bread and wine as they affirm be clean gone And so there remaineth whitenes but nothing is white there remaineth colours but nothing is colored therwith there remaineth roundnes but nothing is round and there is bignes and yet nothing is bigge there is sweetenes without any sweet thing softnes without any soft thing breaking without any thing broaken diuision without any thing deuided and so other qualities and quantities without any thing to receiue them And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith But it is not the doctrine of Christ but the subtile inuention of Antichrist first decreed by Innocent the third and after more at large set forth by schoole authors whose study was euer to defend and set abroad to the world all such matters as the bishoppe of Rome had once decreed And the Deuill by his minister Antichrist had so daseled the eyes of a great multitude of christian people in these latter dayes that they sought not for their faith at the cleere light of Gods word but at the Romish Antichrist beleeuing what so euer he prescribed vnto them yea though it were against all reason al sences Gods most holy word also For els he could not haue been very Antichrist in deede except he had been so repugnant vnto Christ whose doctrine is clean contrary to this doctrin of Antichrist For Christ teacheth that we receaue very bread and wine in the most blessed Supper of the Lord as Sacraments to admonish vs that as we be fedde with bread and wine bodely so we be fedde with the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spirituallye As in our baptisme we receiue very water to signify vnto vs that as water is an elemēt to wash the body outwardly so be our soules washed by the holy ghost inwardly The second principall thinge wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods worde is this They say that the very naturall fleshe and bloud of Christ which suffred for vs vpon the crosse sitteth at the right hād of father in heauen is also really substancially corporally naturally in or vnder the accidents of the sacramental bread wine which they call the fourmes of bread and wine And yet here they vary not a litle among thē selues for some say that the very naturall body of Christ is there but not naturally nor sensibly And other say that it is there naturally and sensibly and of the same bignes and fashion that it is in heauen and as the same was borne of the blessed virgine Mary and that is there broken and torne in peces with our teeth And this appeareth partly by the schole authors partely by the confession of Berengarius which Nicholas the second constrained him to make which was this That of the Sacramentes of the Lordes table the said Berengarius should promise to hold that faith which the sayd Pope Nicholas his counsel held which was that not only the sacramēts of bread wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar broken and torne with the teeth of the faithful people But the true catholick faith grounded vpon Gods most infallible word teacheth vs that our sauiour Christ as concerning his mans nature and bodily presence is gone vp vnto heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father and there shall he tary vntill the worldes ende at what time he shall come againe to iudge both the quick and the dead as he saith him self in many Scriptures I forsake the world saith he and goe to my Father And in another place he saith You shal euer haue poore men among you but me shall not you euer haue And againe hee saith Many hereafter shall come and say looke here is Christ or looke there
in the second parte But what be you eased now by this We say as the scripture teacheth that Christ is corporally ascended in to heauen and neuerthelesse he is so in them that worthely eate the bread drinke the wine geuen and distributed at his holy Supper that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and bloud vnto eternal life But we say not as you doe cleerely without ground of Scripture that he is corporally vnder the formes of bread and wine where his presence should be without any profite or commoditie either to vs or to the bread and wine And here in this difference it seemeth that you haue either cleerely forgotten or negligently ouershotte yourselfe vttering that thing vnwares which is contrary is your wholl booke For the first parte which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramentall bread and wine is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued say you where it is true Christ to be present God and man the second part say you which is of the being of Christ in them that worthely eat and drink the bread and wine is of Christs spiritual presence Of your which words I se nothing to be gathered but that as concerning his substancial presence Christ is receaued into the Sacramental bread and wine and as for them that worthely receaue the Sacrament he is in them none otherwise then after a Spirituall presence For els why should ye say that the second parte is of Christes spirituall presence if it be as well of his corporall as of his spirituall presence Wherefore by your own words this difference should be vnderstanded of two different beings of Christ that in the Sacrament he is by his substance and in the worthy receauers spiritually and not by his substance for els the differences repugne not as you obiect against me Wherfore either you write one thing mean another or els as you write of other God so blindeth the aduersaries of the truth that in one place or other they confesse the truth vnwares Now follow my wordes in the second comparison They say that when any man eateth the bread and drinketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomacke with the bread and wine and no further But we say that Christ is in the wholl man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread drinketh the cup not in his mouth or stomack only Winchester In this comparison the Author termeth the true Catholick teaching at his pleasure to bring it in contempte Which doing in rude speach would be called otherwise then I will tearme it Truth it is as S. Augustine saith we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth and such speach other vse as a booke set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name called a Catechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ which I alleadge because it shall appeare it is a teaching set forth among vs of late as hath béene also and is by the booke of common prayer being the most true catholicke doctrine of the substance of the sacrament in that it is there so catholickly spoken of which booke this Author doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teaching doth improue it in that pointe So much is he contrary to him self in this worke and here in this place not caring what he saith reporteth such a teaching in the first parte of this difference as I haue not heard of before There wes neuer man of learning that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomack of the man that receaued and no further For that is written contra Stercoranistas is nothing to this teaching nor the speach of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholicke doctrine is that by the holy communion in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body which is a flesh geuing life And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in vs and attēpereth by heauēly nuriture our body and soule beyng partakers of his passion to be conformable to hys will and by such spirituall foode to be many more spirituall In the receauing of which foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duely communicate worke together in due order without other discussion of the mistery then God hath appointed that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to doe as God hath ordered knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer but to be most profitable vnto such as doe accustome worthely to receaue the same But to say that the church teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomacke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgement of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Now where this Author in the second parte by an aduersatiue with a But to make the comparison felleth what he and his say he telleth in effecte that which euery catholicke man must néedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christs most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthely they haue Christ dwelling in them who comforteth both body and soule which the church hath euer taught most plainly So as this comparison of difference in his two parties is made of one open vntruth and a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this Author and his which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is vsed in the matter Caunterbury IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to tearm the true catholicke faith for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papisticall faith which I haue tearmed none otherwise then I learned of their own tearming and therfore if my tearming please you not as in deede it ought to please no man yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inuentoures of that tearming and not in me that against them do vse their owne tearmes tearming the matter as they doe them selfe because they should not finde faulte with me as you doe that I tearme their teaching at my pleasure And as for receauing of the body of Christ with our mouthes truth it is that S. Augustine Ambros Chrysostome and other vse such speaches that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes see hym with our eyes feele hym with our handes breake hym teare hym with our teeth eate him and dygest him which speach I haue also vsed in my catechisme but yet these speeches must be vnderstand figuratiuely as I haue declared in my fourth booke the eyght chapiter and shall more fully declare hereafter for we doe not these thinges to
the very body of Christ but to the bread wherby hys body is represented And yet the booke of common prayer neyther vseth any such speach nor geueth any such doctrine nor I in no poynt improue that godly booke nor varye from it But yet glad I am to heare that the sayd booke lyketh you so well as noe man can mislike it that hath anye godlinesse in hym ioyned with knowledge But nowe to come to the very matter of this article it is maruell that you neuer redde that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke of that man that receaueth and no further being a lawyer and seing that it is written in the glose of the law De-consecrat dist 2. Tribus gradibus in these wordes It is certayne that assone as the formes be torne with the teeth so sone the body of Christ is gone vp into heauen And in the chapiter Non iste is an other glose to the same purpose And if you had redde Thomas de Aquino and Bonauenture great clearkes and holy Sainctes of the Popes own making and other schoole authors then should you haue knowne what the Papistee do say in this matter For some say that the body of Christ remayneth so long as the forme and fashion of bread remayneth although it be in a dog mouse or in the iakes And some say it is not in the mouse nor sakes but remayneth onely in the person that eateth it vntill it be digested in the stomacke and the fourme of bread be gone Some say it remayneth no longer then the Sacrament is in the eating and may be felt seene and tasted in the mouth And this besides Hugo sayth Pope Innocentius hym selfe who was the best learned and the chiefe doer in this matter of all the other Popes Red you neuer none of these authors and yet take vpō you the full knowledge of this matter Will you take vpon you to defend the Papistes and knowe not what they say Or do you know it and now be ashamed of it and for shame will deny it And seing that you teache that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes I pray you tell whether it go any further then the mouth or no and how farre it goeth that I may know your iudgement herein and so shall you be charged no further then with your own saying and the reader shall perceiue what excellent knowledge you haue in this matter And where you say that to teach that we receaue Christ at our mouth he goeth into our stomack and no further commeth out of the mouth of thē that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Here like vnto Caiphas you prophecy the truth vnwares For this doctrine commeth out of the mouth of none but of the Papistes which fight against the holy catholicke truth of the aūcient Fathers saying that Christ tarrieth no longer then the proper formes of bread and wine remaine which can not remain after perfect digestion in the stomacke And I say not that the Church teacheth so as you fayne me to say but that the Papistes say so Wherfore I should wish you to reporte my words as I say and not as you imagine me to say least you heare agayne as you haue heard heretofore of your wonderfull learning and practise in the Deuils Sophistrye Now as concerning the second parte of this comparison here you graūt that my saying therein is true and that euery Catholick man must needes and doth confesse the same By which your saying you must also condemne almost all the schoole authors and Lawiers that haue written of this matter with Innocent the third also as men not Catholick because they teach that Christ goeth no further nor taryeth no longer then the formes of bread and wine goe and remayn in their proper kinde And yet now your doctrine as farre as I can gather of your obscure wordes is this That Christ is receaued at the mouth with the formes of bread and wine and goeth with them into the stomack And although they goe no further in their proper kinds yet there Christ leaueth them and goeth him selfe further into euery parte of the mannes body and into his soule also which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange For I haue many times heard that a soule hath gone into a body but I neuer heard that a body went into a soule But I weene of all the Papistes you shal be alone in this matter and finde neuer a fellow to say as you doe And of these thinges which I haue here spoaken I may conclude that this comparison of difference is not made of an open vntruth and a truth disguised except you wil confesse the Papisticall doctrine to be an open vntruth Now the wordes of my third comparison be these They say that Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine We say that he is receaued in the hart and entreth in by faith Winchester Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on both sides and therfore here is by the Author in this comparison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauing of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is both with mouth and harte both in facte and faith After which sorte Saynte Peter in the laste Supper receaued Christes body where as in the same Iudas receaued it with mouth and in facte onely wherof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise Non dicuns ista nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt sicut Tetrus non iudicium sicut Indas tamē ipsa vtrique fuit vina sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi non erant vnum Which wordes be thus much to say That they say not so as was before intreated but such as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgement as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in them both bycause they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued which being receaued with the mouth only and Christ entring in mysterie onely doth not sanctifie vs but is the stone of stumbling and our iudgement and condemnation but if he be receaued with mouth and body with hart and fayth to such he bringeth lyfe and nourishment Wherfore in this comparison the author hath made no difference but with diuers tearmes the Catholicke teaching is deuided into two membres with a But fashioned neuertheles in another phrase of spéech then the church hath vsed which is so common in this Author that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte But let vs goe further Caunterbury THere is nothing in this comparyson worthy to be answered for if you can finde no difference therein yet euery indifferent Reader can For when I reporte the Papistes teaching that they
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
so no certayntie of any true body to be in Christ This reason had been more fitte to be made by a man that had lost both his witte and reason For in this place Tertullian must needes be so vnderstand that by the body of Christ is vnderstand the figure of his body because Tertullian so expoundeth it him selfe And must it be always so bicause it is here so Must euer Christes body be taken for a figure bicause it is here taken for a figure as Tertullian sayth Haue you so forgotten your Logike that you will make a good argument à particulari ad vniuersale By your owne manner of argumentation bicause you make a naughty argumēt here in this place shall I conclude that you neuer make none good Surely this place of Tertullian as you haue handled it is neither secret nor manifest poynt eyther of learning witte or reason but a meere sophistication if it be no worse What other papistes haue aunswered to this place of Tertullian I am not ignoraunt nor I am sure you be not so ignoraunt but you know that neuer none aunswered as you do But your answer varieth as much from all other papists as yours theyrs also do varie from the truth Here the reader may note by the way how many fowle shiftes you make to auoyd the saying of Tertullian First you say that bread was a figure in the prophets mouth but not in Christes wordes Second that the thing which the prophet spake of was not that which Christ spake of Third that other haue aunswered this place of Tertullian before Forth that you call this matter but a wrangling argument Fift that if Tertulian call bread a figure yet he termeth it not onely figure These be your shiftes Now let the reader looke vpon Tertullians playn wordes whyche I haue rehearsed in my booke and then let him iudge whether you meane to declare Tertullians mynd truely or no. And it is not requiset for my purpose to proue that bread is onely a figure for I take vpon me there to proue no more but that the bread is a figure representing Christes body and the wine his bloud And if breade be a figure and not onely a figure than must you make bread both the figure and the truth of the figure Now heare what other authors I do here alleadge And saynt Ciprian the holy marter sayth of this matter that Christs bloud is shewed in the wine and the people in the water that is mixt with the wine so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spirituall commixtion and ioyning of vs vnto Christ. By which similitude Ciprian ment not that the bloud of Christ is wine or the people water but as the water doeth signifie and represent the people so doeth the wine signify and represent Christs bloud and the vniting of the water and wine together signifieth the vniting of Christian people vnto Christ himselfe And the same saynt Ciprian in an other place writing here of sayth that Christ in his last supper gaue to his apostles with his owne handes bread and wine which he called his flesh and bloud but in the crosse he gaue his very body to be wounded with the handes of the souldiours that the apostles might declare to the world how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and bloud of Christ. And the manner he straight wayes declareth thus that those things which do signifye and those thinges which be signified by them may be both called by one name Here it is certain by saynt Ciprians mind wherfore and in what wise bread is called Christes flesh and wine his bloud that is to say because that euery thing that representeth and signifieth an other thing may be called by the name of thing which it signifieth And therfore Saynt Iohn Chrisostom sayth that Christ ordayned the table of his holy supper for this purpose that in that sacramēt he should dayly shew vnto vs bread and wine for a similitude of his body and bloud Saynt Hierom likewise sayth vpon the gospell of Mathew that Christ took bread which comforteth mans hart that he mght represent thereby his very body and bloud Also Saynt Ambrose if the booke be his that is intituled De his qui misterijs initianter sayth that before the consecration an other kind is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified Christ sayd his bloud beefore the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration is signified the bloud of Christ. And in his booke De sacramentis if that be also his he writeth thus Thou doost receiue the sacrament for a similitud of the flesh and bloud of Christ but thou doost obtayne the grace and vertue of his true nature And receiuing the bread in that foode thou art partaker of his godly substaunce And in the same booke he sayth As thou hast in baptisme reciued the similitude of death so likewise dost thou in the sacramēt drink the similitude of Christes precious bloud And agayne he sayeth in the sayd booke The priest sayth Make vnto vs this oblation to be acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ. And vpon the epistle of Saynt Paule to the Corinthians he sayth that in eating and drinking the bread and wine we doe signifie the flesh and bloud which were offered for vs. And the olde tastament he sayeth was instituted in bloud because that bloud was a witnes of gods benefite in signification and figure wherof we take the mistical cup of his bloud to the tuitiō of our body soule Of these places of saynt Chrisostom saynt Hierom and saynt Ambrose it is cleare that in the sacramentall bread and wine is not rially and corporally the very naturall substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ but that the bread and wine be similitudes misteries and representations significations sacramentes figures and signes of his body and bloud and therfore be called and haue the name of his very body flesh and bloud Winchester Ciprian shal be touched after when we speake of him agayn Chrisostom shall open himselfe hereafter playnly Saynt Hierom speaketh here very pithely vsing the word represent which signifieth a true reall exhibision for saynt Hierom speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an onely figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure the inuisible part is a truth which saynt Hierom sayth is here represented that is to say made present which onely signification doth not Saynt Ambrose shall after declare himselfe and it is not denied but the authors in speaking of the sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude token but those speaches exclude not the veritie and truth of the body and bloud of Christ for no approued author hath this exclution to say an onely signe an only token an
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
significations and sacraments of that holines which almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holines which almighty god by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holynes as the water in baptisme is called aqua sanctificans Vnda regenerans Halowing or regenerating water because it is the sacrament of regeneration and sanctification Now as concerning Chrisostomes saying that Christ is in our hands Chrisostome saith as I haue rehearsed in my book not onely that he is in our hands but also that we se him with our eyes touch him him feele him and grope him fixe our teeth in his flesh tast it breake it eat it and digest it make red our tongues and dye them with his bloud c. which thinges cannot be vnderstand of the body and bloud of Christ but by a figuratiue speech as I haue more at large declared in my iiii book the viii Chapter And therfore S. Augustine De verbis Domini sermone xxxiij saith cleane cōtrary to Chrisostome that we touch not Christ with our hands Non tangi mus Dominum saith he This speech therfore of Chrisostome declareth not the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible sacrament but signifieth what God worketh inwardly in true beleuers And whereas you say that my notes be Descant voluntary without the Tenour part I haue named both the booke and chapter where S. Dyonyse telleth how the priest when he commeth to the receauing of the sacraments he deuideth the bread in peeces and distributeth the same to all that be present which one sentence contayneth sufficiently all my three notes So that if you be disposed to call my notes Descant there you may finde the playne song or tenor part of them And it is no maruel that you cannot iudge well of my Descant when you see not or will not see the Plain song wherupon the descant was made Now followeth Tertullian of whom I write thus Furthermore they do alledge Tertullian that he constantly affirmeth that in the sacrament of the alter we do eat the body and drinke the bloud of our sauiour Christ. To whom we graūt that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread wine which be called the body bloud of Christ because as Tertullian saith they do represent his body and bloud although they be not really the same in very deed And we graunt also that our soules by fayth do eat his very body drink his bloud but that is spiritually sucking out of the same euerlasting life But we deny that vnto this spirituall feeding is requiring any reall and corporall presence And therfore this Tertullian speaketh nothing against the truth of our catholick doctrine but he speaketh many things most playnly for vs and agaynst the Papists and specially in three poynts First in that he sayth that Christ called bread his body The second that Christ called it so because it representeth his body The third in that he sayth that by these wordes of Christ This is my body is ment This is a figure of my body Winchester Of Tertullian I haue spoken before and so hath this author also forgottē here one notable thing in Tertullian where Tertullian sayth that Christ made the bread his body not only called it so as appeare by Tertullians words reported by this author before This note that I make now of Tertullian maketh agaynst this authors purpose but yet it maketh with the truth which this author should not impugne The second note gathered of Tertullian by this author is not true for Christ called it his body and made it his body as Tertullian sayth Aud the third note of this author is in controuersy of reading and must be so vnderstanded as may agrée with the rest of Tertullians sayings which after my reading doth euidētly proue and at the least doth not improue the catholick doctrine of Christes church vniuersally receiued although it improueth yet which this author calleth here our catholique doctrine most imprudently and vntruely reporting the same Canterbury I Desire no more but that the reader will looke vpon the place of Tertullian before mentioned and see what you speak there what is mine answere therto and so confer them togither and iudge And that the reader will note also that here couertly you haue granted my first note that Christ called bread his body but so slyely that the reader should not by your will perceaue it And where you deny my second note vpon Tertullian that Christ called it his body because it represented his body the words of Tertulliā be these that Christ reproueth not bread wherin he representeth his owne body As for my third note yet once agayne reader I beseech thee turne back and looke vpon the place how this lawyer hath expounded Tertulliā if thou canst with patience abide to here of so foolish a glose And where he sayth that this author Tertullian must be so vnderstād as may agrée with the rest of his sayings would to God you would so do not onely in Tertullian but also in all other authors for then our controuersy should be soone at a poynt And it is a most shameles impudency of you to affirme that the catholick church vniuersally teacheth that Christ is really sensibly corporally naturally carnally and substantially present in the visible formes of bread and wine seing that you cannot proue any one of these your sayings either by scripture or by the consent of the catholick church but onely by the Papisticall church which now many yeres hath borne the whole swinge Now followeth Origen to whom I aunswere thus Moreouer they alleage for them Origen because they would seme to haue many auncient authors fauorers of their erronius doctrine which Origen is most clearely agaynst them For although he do say as they alleage that those things which before were signifyed by obscure figures be now truely indeede and in their very nature and kind accōplished fulfilled And for the declaratiō therof he bringeth forth three exāples One of the stone that floweth water an other of the sea and cloud and the third of Manna which in the olde testament did signify Christ to come who is now come indeed and is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly in his word in the sacrament of regeneration and the sacraments of bread and wine Yet Origen ment not that Christ is corporally either in his word or in the water of baptisme or in the bread and wine nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne agayne or eat Christes flesh and bloud For our regeneration in Christ is spirituall and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding which kind of regeneration and feeding requireth no reall and corporall presence of Christ but onely his presence in spirit grace and effectuall operation And that Origen thus ment
creatures of bread and wine be much bound vnto you and can no lesse do then take you for their sauior For if you can make them holy and godly then shall you glorifie them and so bryng them to eternall blisse And then may you aswell saue the true laboring bullocks and innocēt shepe and lambes and so vnderstand the prophet Homines iumenta saluabis domine But to admonish the reader say you how the bread and wine haue no holynes this fortune of spech not vnderstand of the people engendreth some scruple that nedeth not By which your saying I cannot tel what the people may vnderstand but that you haue a great scruple that you haue lost your holy bread And yet S. Paule speaketh not of your holy bread as you imagine being vtterly ignoraunt as appeareth in the scripture but he speaketh generally of all manner of meates which christian people receaue with thankes giuing vnto God whether it be bread wine or water fish flesh white meat herbes or what manner of meat and drinck so euer it be And the sanctified bread which S. Augustine writeth to be geuen to them that be catechised was not holy in it selfe but was called holy for the vse and signification And I expresse S. Cyprians minde truely and not a whit discrepant from my doctrine here when I say that the diuinitye may be sayd to bee powred or put sacramentally into the bread as the spirite of God is sayd to be in the water of baptisme when it is truely ministred or in his word when it is syncerely preached with the holy spirite working mightely in the hartes of the hearers And yet the water in it selfe is but a visible element nor the preachers word of it self is but a sound in the ayre which as soone as it is hard vanisheth away and hath in it selfe no holines at all although for the vse ministery therof it may be called holy And so likewise may be sayd of the sacramentes which as S. Augustine sayth be as it were Gods visible word And whereas you reherse out of my wordes in an other place that as hoat and burning yron is yron still yet hath the force of fyre so the bread and wine be tourned into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud you neyther report my words truly nor vnderstād thē truely For I declare in my booke vertue to be in them that godly receaue bread and wine and not in the bread and wine And I take vertue there to signifie might and strength or force as I name it which in the greeke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which sence we say that there is vertue in herbs in words and in stones and not to signify vertue in holynes which in greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wher of a person is called vertuous whose fayth and conuersation is godly But you sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word vertue to an other significatiō then I mēt to approue by my words your own vayne error that bread should be vertuous holy making in your argument a fallax or craft called equiuocation For where my meaning is that the death of Christ and the effusion of his bloud haue effect and strength in them that truely receaue the sacrament of his flesh and bloud you turne the matter quite as though I should say that the bread were godly and vertuous which is very frantick and vngodly opiniō and nothing pertaining to mine application of the similitude of yron But this is the mother of many errors both in interpretation of scriptures and also in vnderstandyng of old auncient writers when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered But the similitude is applied vnto other matters then the meaning was Which fault may be iustly noted in you here when you reason by the similitude of hoat burning yron that bread may conceiue such vertue as it may be called vertuous and holy For my onely purpose was by that similitude to teach that yron remayning in his proper nature substance by conceauing of fire may work an other thing thē is the nature of yrō And so likewise bread remaynyng in is proper nature and substaunce in the ministration of the sacrament hath an other vse then to feed the body For it is a memoriall of Christes death that by exercise of our fayth our soules may receaue the more heauenly food But this is a strange maner of spech which neither scripture nor approued author euer vsed before you to cal the sacrametal bread vertuous as you doe But into such absurdities men do cōmonly fall when they will of purpose impugne the euident truth But was there euer any man so ouersene say you as this author is Who seeth not S. Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first Was there euer any man so destitute of reason say I but that he vnderstandeth this that when bread is balled bread it is called by the proper name as it is in deed and when bread is called the body of Christ it taketh the name of a thing which it is not in deed but is so called by a figuratiue spech And calling say you in the words of Christ signifieth making which if it signifieth when bread is called bread then were calling of bread a making of bread And thus is aunswered your demaund why this word call in the one signifieth the trueth and in the other not because that the one is a playne speche and the other a figuratiue For els by our reasoning out of reason when the cup which Christ vsed in his last supper was called a cup and when it was called Christes bloud all was one calling and was of like trueth without figure so that the cup was Christes bloud in deed And likewise the stone that flowed out water was called a stone and when it was called Christ the arke also when it was called the arke when it was called god all these must be one spech and of like trueth if it be true which you here say But as the arke was an arke the stone a stone bread very bread and the cup a cup playnely without figuratiue spech so whē they be called God Christ the body and bloud of Christ this can not be alike calling but must needes be vnderstād by a figuratiue spech For as Christ in the scripture is called a lambe for his innocency meeknes a Lyon for his might and power a doore and way wherby we enter into his fathers house wheat corne for the property of dying before they ryse vp bring increase so is he called bread and bread is called his body wine his bloud for the propertie of feedyng nourishing So that these al like speches where as one substaūce is called by the name of an other substaunce diuers and distinct in
not learned And whosoeuer misreporteth hym and hath neuer heard him may not be called so well Momus as Sicophanta whose property is to mysreporte thē whome thy neither see nor knowe Now resteth onely Damascene of whome I write thus But here Iohn Damascen may in no wise be passed ouer whome for is anctoritie the aduersaries of Christes trew naturall body do recken as a stout champion sufficient to defende all the whole matter alone But neither is the authorite of Damascene so greate that they may oppresse vs therby nor his wordes so playne for them as they boast and vntruly pretende For he is but a yong new author in the respecte of those which we haue brought in for our partie And in diuers poyntes he varieth from the most auncient authors if he meane as they expound him as when he sayeth that the bread and wine be not figures which all the olde authors call figures and that the bread and wyne consume not nor be auoyded downward which Origen and S. Augustine affirme or that they be not called the examples of Christes body after the consecration which shall manefestly appeare false by the Lyturgy ascribed vnto S. Basyll And moreouer the sayd Damascene was one of the Byshop of Romes chief proctours agaynst the Emperours and as it were his right hand to set abroad all idolatrye by his owne hand writing And therfore if he lost his hande as they say he didde he lost it by Goddes most righteous iudgemente whatsoeuer they fayne and fable of the myraculous restitution of the same And yet whatsoeuer the sayd Damescen writeth in other matters surely in this place which the aduersaries do alleadge he writeth spiritually and godly although the Papists eyther of ignoraunce mistake him or els willingly wrast him and writh him to theyr purpose cleane contrary to his meaning The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this That as Christ being both God and man hath in him two natures so hath he two natiuities one eternall and the other temporall And so likewise we being as it were double men or hauing euery one of vs two men in vs the new man and the old man the spirituall man and the carnall man haue a double natiuitie One of our first carnall father Adam by whome as by auncient inheritaūce cometh vnto vs maledictiō and euerlasting damnation and the other of our heauenly Adam that is to say of Christ by whome we be made heires of celestiall benediction and euerlasting glory and imortalitie And bicause this Adam is spirituall therfore our generation by him must be spirituall and our feeding must be likewise spirituall And our spirituall generation by him is playnly set forth in baptisme and our spirituall meat and food is set forth in the holy communion and supper of the Lord. And because our sightes be so feeble that we cannot see the spirituall water wherwith we be washed in baptisme nor the spirituall meat wherwith we be fed at the Lordes table Therfore to help our infermities and to make vs the better to see the same with a pure fayth our sauiour Christ hath set forth the same as it were before our eyes by sensible signes and tokens which we be dayly vsed and accustomed vnto And bycause the common custome of men is to wash in water therfore our spirituall regeneration in Christ or spirituall washing in his bloud is declared vnto vs in baptisme by water Likewise our spirituall norishmēt feeding in Christ is set before our eyes by bread wine bicause they be meates and drinkes which chiefly vsually we be fedde withal◠that as they feede the body so doth Christ with his flesh bloud spiritually feed the soule And therfore the bread and wine be called examples of Christes flesh and bloud and also they be called his very flesh and bloud to signifie vnto vs that as they feed vs carnally so doe they admonish vs that Christ with his flesh and bloud doth feed vs spiritually and most truely vnto euerlasting lyfe And as almighty God by his most mighty word and his holy spirite and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the beginning and euer sithens hath preserued them euen so by the same word and power he worketh in vs from tyme to tyme this meruailous spirituall generation and wonderfull spirituall nourishment and feeding which is wrought onely by God and is comprehended and receaued of vs by fayth And as bread and drincke by naturall nourishment be chaunged into a mannes body and yet the body is not chaunged but is the same that it was before so although the bread and wine be sacramētally changed into Christes body yet his body is the same and in the same place that it was before that is to say in heauen without any alteration of the same And the bread and wine be not so changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ that they be made one nature but they remayne still distinct in nature so that the bread in it selfe is not his flesh and the wine his bloud but vnto them that worthely eare and drincke the bread and wine to them the bread and wine be his flesh and bloud that is to say by things naturall and which they be accustomed vnto they be exaulted vnto things aboue nature For the sacramentall bread and wine be not bare and naked figures but so pithy and effectuous that who soeuer worthely eateth them eateth spiritually Christes flesh and bloud and hath by them euerlasting life Wherfore whosoeuer commeth to the Lordes table must come with all humilitie feare reuerence and puritie of lyfe as to receaue not onely bread and wine but also our sauiour Christ both God and man withall his benefites to the reliefe and sustentation both of theyr bodyes and soules This is briefly the summe and true meaning of Damascene concerning this matter Wherfore they that gather of him eyther the naturall presence of Christes body in the Sacraments of bread and wine or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament or that after the consecration there remayneth no bread nor wine nor other substaunce but onely the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ eyther they vnderstand not Damascene or els of wilfull frowardnes they will not vnderstād him which rather seemeth to be true by such colections as they haue vniustly gathered and noted out of him For although he say that Christ is the spirituall meat yet as in baptisme the holy ghost is not in the water but in him that is vnfaynedly baptised so Damascene ment not that Christ is in the bread but in him that worthely eateth the bread And though he say that the bread is Christes body and the wine his bloud yet he ment not that the bread considered in it selfe or the wine in it selfe being not receaued is his flesh and bloud but to such as by vnfayned fayth worthely receaue the bread and wine to such the bread and wine
are called by Damascene the body and bloud of Christ bicause that such persons through the working of the holy ghost be so knitte and vnited spiritually to Christes flesh and bloud and to his diuinite also that they be fedde with them vnto euerlasting life Furthermore Damascene sayth not that the sacrament should bee worshiped and adored as the Papists terme it which is playne idolatrye but that we must worship Christ God and man And yet we may not worship him in bread and wine but sittyng in heauen with his father and being spiritually within our selues Nor he sayth not that there remayneth no bread nor wine nor none other substaunce but only the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ but he sayth playnly that as a burning coale is not wodde only but fier and wodde ioyned together so the bread of the Communion is not bread only but bread ioyned to the diuinite But those that say that there is none other substaunce but the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ do not onely deny that there is bread and wine but by force they must deny also that there is either Christes diuinitie or his soule For if the flesh and bloud the soule and diuininitie of Christ be foure substances and in the sacrament be but two of them that is to say his flesh and bloud than where is his soule and diuinitie And thus these men diuide Iesus seperating his diuinitie from his humanitie Of whome S. Iohn sayth Whosoeuer deuideth Iesus is not of God but he is Antichrist And moreouer these men do so separate Christes body from his members in the sacramēt that they leaue him no mans body at all For as Damascene sayth that the distinctiō of members pertayne so much to the nature of mans body that where there is no such distinctiō there is no perfect mans body But by these papists doctrine there is no such distinction of members in the sacrament for either there is no head feete handes armes legges mouth eyes and nose at all or els all his head all feete all handes all armes all legges all mouth all eyes and all nose And so they make of Christes body no mans body at all Thus being confuted the Papists erroures aswell concerning Transubstanciation as the real corporal and naturall presence of Christ in the sacrament which were two principall poyntes purposed in the beginning of this worke Now it is tyme some thing to speake of the third errour of the papistes which is concerning the eating of Christes very body and drinking of his bloud Winchester Last of all the author bussieth himselfe with Damascene and goeth about to aunswer hym by making of a summe which summe is so wrong accompted that euery man that readeth Damascene may be auditour to controule it And this will I say Damascene writeth so euidently in the matter that Peter Martyr for a shift is fayne to finde fault in his iudgement and age and yet he is .viii. C. yeares olde at the least and I say at the least because he is relieued of summe halfe as old agayne And what so euer his iudgement were he writeth as Melancton sayth his testimony of the fayth of the Sacrament as it was in his time I would write in here Damasceus wordes to compare them with the summe collected by this author wherby to disproue his particulars playnly but the wordes of Damascene be to be redde translated already abrode As for the foure substances which this author by accompte numbreth of Christ myght haue bene left vnreckened by tale because amonge them that be faythfull and vnderstand truely wher soeuer the substaunce of Christes very body is there is also vnderstanded by concomitaunce to be present the substaunce of his soule as very man and also of the Godhead as very God And in the mater of the sacrament therfore contending with hym that woulde haue the substaunce of bread there it may be sayd there is in the Sacrament the onely substaunce of Christes bodye because the worde onely thus placed excludeth other straunge substaunces and not the substances which without contention be knowen and confessed vnite with Christes body And so a man may be sayd to be alone in his house when he hath no straungers although he hath a number of his owne men And Erasmus noteth how the euangilest writeth Christ to haue prayed alone and yet certayne of his disciples were there And if in a contention raysed whether the father and sonne were both killed in such a field or no I defended the father to haue bene onely killed there and therupon a wager layd should I lose if by profe it appeared that not onely the father but also three or fower of the fathers seruauntes were slayne but the sonne escaped And as in this speache the worde onely serued to exclude that was in contention and not to reduce the number to one no more is it in the speach that this author would reproue and therfore neded not to haue occupyed him selfe in the matter wherin I heard him once say in a good audiēce hym selfe was satisfied In which mynde I would he had continued and hauing so sclender stuffe as this is and the truth so euident agaynst him not to haue resuscitate this so often reproued vntruth wherin neuer hitherto any one could preuayle Caunterbury AS for Damascene needeth no further aunswer then I haue made in my former booke But I pray the reader that he will diligently examine the place and so to be an indifferent auditour betwixt vs two Now when you be called to accompt for the number of substaunces in the Sacramēt I perceaue by your wrangling that you be somewhat moued with this audite for bycause you be called to accompt And I can not blame you though it somewhat greeue you for it toucheth the very quicke And although I my selfe can right well vnderstand your numbers that when you name but one you meane fower yet you should haue considered before hand to whome your booke was written You wrote to playne simple people in the english tongue which vnderstande no further but one to be one and fower to be fower And therfore when you say there is but one and meane fower you attemper not your speach to the capacities of them to whome you write Now haue I aunswered to all your friuilous cauilations agaynst my thyrd booke and fortified it so strongly that you haue spent all your shotte and powder in vayne And I trust I haue eyther broken your peeces or pegged them that you shall be able to shoote no more Or if you shoote the shotte shall be so faynte that it shall not be able to perce through a paper leafe And the life I trust to doe to all the munition and ordinaunce layde agaynst my fourth booke THE CONFVTATION OF the fourth booke THus hauing perused the effect of the third booke I will likewise peruse the fourth and then shall follow
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
say the change in mans soule by Baptisme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in deede or els graunt the true catholique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures into the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise not in figure and signification but truly really and indeede And for the thing changed as the soule of man mans inward nature is chaunged so the inward nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken away which this author vseth in an other place of Sacramentall change which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth the age of Emissene and I note with all how playnly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teaching who indeede bicause of his auncient and playne writing for declaration of the matter in forme of teaching without contention is one whose authority the church hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in the truth of the presence of Christes very body or Transubstantiation for the speaking of the inward change doth poynt as it were the change of the substance of bread with resembling therunto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one author not being of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in the allegation after this manner corrupt might suffice for to conclude all brabling agaynst the Sacrament Caunterbury WHere I haue corrupted Emissene let the reader be iudge But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration change and turning of a man from the congregation of the wicked vnto the congregation of Christ which he calleth the body of the church and from the childe of death vnto the child of God this must be made a matter of scoffing to turne light fellowes out of the chancell into the body of the church Such trifling now a dayes becometh gayly well godly Bishoppes what if in the steede of turning I had sayd skipt ouer as the word transilisti signifieth which although peraduenture the bookes be false and should be transisti I haue translated turning should I haue so escaped a mocke trow you You would then haue sayd he that so doth goeth not out at the chancell dore into the body of the church but skippeth ouer the stalles But that Emissene ment of turning is cleare aswell by the wordes that go before as those which go after which I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader But forasmuch as you would perswade men that this author maketh so much for your purpose I shall set forth his minde playnly that it may appeare how much you be deceaued Emissenes mynd is this that although our sauiour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodely sight Yet we see him by fayth and by grace he is here present with vs so that by him we be made new creatures regenerated by him and fedde and nourished by him which generation and nutrition in vs is spirituall without any mutation appearing outwardly but wrought within vs inuisibly by the omnipotent power of God And this alteration in vs is so wonderfull that we be made new creatures in Christ grafted into his body and of the same receaue our nourishment and encreasing And yet visibly with our bodely eyes we see not these thinges but they be manifest vnto our fayth by gods worde and sacraments And Emissene declareth none other reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and bloud then in the Sacrament of baptisme but spiritually by fayth to be present in both And where Emissene speaketh of the conuersion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ he speaketh that aswell of baptisme as of the lordes supper as his owne wordes playnly declare If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vppon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme And yet he ment not that the water of baptisme in it selfe is really turned into the substance of Christ nor likewise bread and wine in the Lordes supper but that in the action water wine and bread as sacraments be sacramentally conuerted vnto him that duely receaueth them into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramentall conuersion is in the Sacraments and the reall conuertion is in him that receaueth the sacraments which reall conuertion is inward inuisible and spirituall For the outward corporall substances aswell of the name as of the water remayne the same that they were before And therfore sayth Emissene Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly In these wordes hath Emissene playnly declared that the conuersion in the sacraments wherof he spake when he sayd that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ is to be vnderstand in the receauours by their fayth and that in the sayd conuersion the outward substance remayneth the selfe same that was before And that Emissene ment this as well in the sacrament of the lordes supper as in the sacrament of baptisme his own wordes playnly declare So that the substance of Christ as well in baptisme as the Lordes supper is seene not with our eyes but with our fayth and touched not with our bodies but with our mindes and receaued not with our hands but with our hartes eaten and drunken not with our outward mouthes but with our inward man And where Emissene sayth that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heauen and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through fayth he doth vs to vnderstand that he is not present in the formes of bread and wine out of the ministration except you will say that fayth and grace be in the bread when it is kept and hanged vp but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christes institution then to them that so eate and drincke the bread and wine is the body and bloud of Christ according to Christes wordes Edite hoc est corpus meum Bibite hic est calix senguinis mei And therfore in the booke of the holy communion we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and bloud of Christ but that they may be to vs the body and bloud of Christ that is to say that we may so eate them and drincke them that we may be partakers of his body crucified and of his bloud shed for our redemption Thus haue I declared the truth of Emissenes mynd which is agreable to Gods word and the olde
it is not taken for the substance as you would fayne haue it but for the property For the substance of bread still remayning in them that duely receaue the same the property of carnall nourishment is changed into a spirituall nourishment as more largely in myne answer to you in that place shall be declared And where you would somewhat releue your selfe by certayne words of Chrisostome which immediatly follow the sentence by me alleadged which wordes be these that the bread after consecration is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne of God vpon which wordes you would gather your Transubstantiation how effectuall your argument is in this matter may appeare by an other like Steuen Gardiner after he was consecrated was called the byshop of Winchester and not two byshoppes but one bishop ergo Steuen Gardiner was transubstantiate And a counter layd by an Auditour for a thousand poundes is not then called a counter but a thousand poundes ergo it is transubstantiated And the man and wife after mariage be called but one body ergo there is Transubstantiation This must be the fourme of your argument if you will proue Transubstantiation by these wordes of Chrisostome Now come we to S. Ambrose At the same tyme was S. Ambrose who declareth the alteration of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ not to be such that the nature and substance of bread and wine be gone but that thorough grace there is a spirituall mutation by the mighty power of God so that he that worthely eateth of that bread doth spiritually eate Christ and dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him For sayth S. Ambrose speaking of this change of bread into the body of Christ if the word of God be of that force that it can make thinges of nought and those thinges to be which neuer were before much more it can make thinges that were before still to be also to be changed into other thinges And he bringeth for example here of the change of vs in baptisme wherin a man is so changed as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebius that he is made a new creature and yet his substance remayneth the same that was before Winchester Saynt Ambrose doth not as this Author would haue it impugne Transubstantiation but confirmeth it most playnly bicause he teacheth the true presence of Christes body in the sacrament which he sayth is by change and thinges still remayning and that may be verefied in the outward visible matter that is to say the accidents remayning with their proper effects which therfore may worthely be called thinges And here I would aske this Author if his teaching as he pretendeth were the catholike fayth and the bread onely signified Christes body what should nede this force of Gods word that S. Ambrose speaketh of to bring in the creation of the world wherby to induce mans fayth in this mistery to the belefe of it As for the example of Baptisme to show the change in mans soule wherof I haue spoken declaring Emissene serueth for an induction not to leane to our outward sences ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther bycause we see none outward experience of it but els it is not necessary that the resemblance shall answere in equality otherwise then as I sayd afore each part answering his conuenient proportion and as for their comparison of resemblance Baptisme with the sacrament this author in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thinke deny but man by regeneration of his soule in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth that it is not partaker of holines by this consecration but howsoeuer this author in his owne doctrine snarleth him selfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the consecration the body of Christ which is an vndoubted affirmation then to be no bread howsoeuer the accidents of bread do remayne Caunterbury SAynt Ambrose teacheth not the reall and corporall presence of Christs body in the sacrament as I haue proued sufficiently in my former booke the 64. 81. and 82. leaues and in myne answere vnto you in this booke But agaynst Transubstantiation he teacheth playnly that after consecration not onely thinges remayne but also that the thinges changed still remayne And what is this but a flatte condemnation of your imagined Transubstantiation For if the thinges changed in the sacrament do still remayne and the substances of bread and wine be changed then it followeth that theire substances remayne and be not transubstantiated so that your vntrue and crafty shift will not releeue your matter any whit when you say that the accidence of bread is bread wherin all the world knoweth how much you erre from the truth And better it had bene for you to haue kept such sayings secret vnto your selfe which no man can speake without blushing except he be past all shame than to shew your shamefull shiftes open vnto the world that all men may see them And specially when the shewing therof onely discouereth your shame and easeth you nothing at all For the accidences be not changed as you say your selfe but the substances And then if the thinges that be changed remayue the substance must remayne and not be transubstantiated And S. Ambrose bringeth forth to good purpose the creation of the world to shew the wonderfull worke of God aswell in the spirituall regeneration and spirituall feeding and nourishing of the liuely members of Christes body as in the creation and conseruation of the world And therfore Dauid calleth the spirituall renouation of man by the name of creation saying Cor mundum crea in me Deus O God create in me a new hart And as for any further answer here vnto Ambrose nedeth not but bicause you referre you here to Emissene they which be indifferent may read what I haue answered vnto Emissene a little before and so iudge Now let vs examine S. Augustine And S. Augustine about the same tyme wrote thus That which you see in the alter is the bread and the cup which also your eyes do shew you But fayth sheweth further that bread is the body of Christ the cupper his bloud Here he declareth two thinges that in the sacrament remayneth bread and wine which we may discerne with our eyes and that the bread and wine be called the body and bloud of Christ. And the same thing he declareth also as playnly in an other place saying The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thinges of the visible kind of the element and of the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ both of the sacrament and of the thinge signified by the sacrament Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man forasmuch as he is very God and very man For euery thing cōteineth in it the very nature of those thinges wherof it consisteth
obstinately bent to peruert the true doctrine of this holy Sacrament you would neuer haue vttered this sentence That there was neuer man ouerturned his owne assertions more euidently then this Author doth For I am well assured that my doctrine is sound and therfore do trust that I shall able to stand by myne assertions before all men that are learned and be any thing indifferent and not bent obstinately to mayntayne errors as you be when you tumbling and tossing your selfe in your filthy fantasies of Transubstantiation and of the reall and carnall presence of Christes body shal be ashamed of your assertiōs But I meruayle not much of your stout bragging here bicause it is a common thing with you to dashe me in the teeth with your owne faultes And it is vntrue that you say that the sacrifice is parfited before the perfection For if the sacrifice be parfited before the perception it is parfited also before the consecration For betwene the consecration and perception was no sacrifice made by Christ as appeareth in the Euangelistes but the one followed immediately of the other And although Christ being in heauen be one of the partes wherof the sacrifice consisteth be present in the sacrifice yet he is not naturally there present but sacramentally in the sacrament and spiritually in the receauours And by this which I haue now answered I haue wrastled with you so in the matter of Christes presence that I haue not fallen vpon my back my selfe to pull you ouer me but I standing vp right my selfe haue geuen you such a fall that you shall neuer be able to recouer And now that I haue brought you to the ground although it be but a small peece of manhoode to strike a man when he is downe yet for the truthes sake vnto whome you haue euer bene so great an aduersary I shall beate you with your Transubstantiation as they say both backe and bone Now say you syr is whitenes or other colours the nature of bread and wine for the colours be onely visible by your doctrine or be they elements or be accidents the bodely matter Lye still ye shall be better beaten yet for your wilfulnes Be the accidents of bread substances as you sayd not long before And if they be substances what manner of substances be they corporall or spirituall If they be spirituall then be they soules deuils or angels And if they be corporall substances eyther they haue life or no life I trust you will say at the least that bread hath life bicause you sayd but euen now almost that the substance of bread is the soule of it Such absurdities they fall into that mayntayne errours But at length when the similitude of the two natures in Christ remayning both in their proper kindes must needes be answered vnto then commeth in agayne the cuttill with his colours to hide him selfe that he should not be seene bicause he perceaueth what danger he is in to be taken And when he commeth to the very nette he so stoutly striueth wrangleth and wresteth as he would breake the nette or els by some craft wind himselfe out of it but the net is so strong and he so surely masted therein that he shall neuer be able to gette out For the olde catholike Authors to declare that two natures remayne in Christ togither that is to say his humanity and his diuinity without corruption or wasting of any of the sayd two natures do geue two examples therof one is of the body and soule which both be in a man togither and the presence of the one putteth not away the other The other example is of the Lordes Supper or ministration of the Sacrament where is also togither the substaunce and nature of bread and wine with the body and bloud of Christ and the presence of the one putteth not away the other no more then the presence of Christes humanitie putteth away hys diuinitie And as the presence of the soule driueth not away the body nor the presence of the fleshe and bloud of Christ driueth not away the bread and wine so doth not the presence of Christes humanity expell his diuinitie but his diuinitie remayneth still with his humanitie as the soule doth with the body and the body of Christ with the bread And then if there remayne not the nature and substaunce of bread it must follow also that there remaineth not the diuine nature of Christ with his humanity or els the similitude is clearely dissolued But yet say you we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality but onely haue respect to the end wherfore the resemblance is made And do you not see how this your saying taketh away your owne argument of the reall presence in the sacrament and neuerthelesse setteth you no whitte more at liberty concerning Transubstantiation but masteth you faster in the nette and maketh it more stronger to holde you For the olde Authors make this resemblance onely to declare the remayning of two natures not the manner and forme of remayning which is farre diuers in the person of Christ from the vnion in the Sacrament For the two natures of Christ be ioyned togither in vnity of person which vnity is not betwene the Sacrament and the body of Christ. But in that poynt wherein the resemblance is made there must needes be an equality by your owne saying And for as much as the resemblance was made onely for the remayning of two natures therfore as the perfite natures of Christes manhod godhead do both remayne and the perfite nature of the soule and the body both also remayne so must the perfite nature of Christes body and bloud and of bread and wine also remayne But for as much as the similitude was not made for the manner of remayning nor for the place therfore the resemblance requireth not that the body and bloud of Christ should be vnited to the bread and wine in person or in place but onely that the natures should remayne euery one in his kind And so be you cleane ouerthrowen with your transubstantiation except you will ioyne your selfe with those Heretikes which denied Christes humanity diuinity to remayne both togithers And it seemeth that your doctrine varieth very little from Ualentine and Martion if it vary any thing at all when you say that Christes flesh was a spirituall flesh For when S. Paule speaking of Christes body sayd we bee members of his body of his fleshe and of his bones he ment not of a spirituall body as Ireneus sayth for a spirite hath no flesh nor bones but of a very mans body that is made of flesh sinewes and bones And so with striuing to gette out of the nette you roll your selfe faster in it And as for the wordes of S. Augustine make nothing for the reall presence as I haue before declared So that therin I neyther haue foyle nor trippe but for all your bragges hookes and crookes you haue such
a fall as you shall neuer be able to stand vpright agayne in this matter And my shaftes be shot so straight agaynst you and with such a force that they perse through shilde haburgen in such sort that all the harnes you haue is not able to withstand them or to make one arrow to start backe although to auoyde the stroke you shift your place seeking some meane to flye the fight For when I make mine argument of Transubstantiation you turne the matter to the reall presence like vnto a surgeon that hath no knowledge but when the head is wounded or sore he layth a playster to the heele Or as the prouerbe sayth Interrogatus de alijs respondet de caepis when you be asked of garlicke you answer of onions And this is one prety sleight of sophistry or of a subtill warrier when he seeth him selfe ouermatched and not able to resist then by some policy quite to put of or at the least to delay the conflict and so do you commonly in this booke of Transubstantiation For when you be sore pressed therin than you turne the matter to the reall presence But I shall so straytly pursue you that you shall not so escape For where you say that the fathers which vsed the examples of the Sacrament and of the body and bloud of Christ to shew the vnity of two natures in Christ did beleue that as really and as truely the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the Sacrament the fathers neither sayd nor beleued as you here report but they taught that both the Sacrament and the thing therby represented which is Christes body remayne in their proper substaunce and nature the signe being here and the thing signified being in heauen and yet of these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church But it is not required that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the signe and figure as the soule is in the body bicause there is no such vnion of person nor it is not required in the soule and body that they should be euer togither for Christes body and soule remayned both without eyther corruption or Transubstantiation when the soule was gone downe into hell and the body rested in the sepulcher And yet was he than a perfect man although his soule was not than really present with the body And it is not so great a meruayle that his body should be in heauen and the sacrament of it here as it is that his body should be here and his soule in hell And if the Sacrament were a man and the body of Christ the soule of it as you dreame in your traunse then were the Sacrament not in a traunse but dead for the tyme whilest it were here and the soule in heauen And like scoffing you might make of the Sacrament of Baptisme as you doe in the Sacrament of Christes body that it lyeth here in a traunse when Christ being the life therof is in heauen And where you thinke that my second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of me when I minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Trāsubstantiation onely you haue no probatiō of your thought but still you remayne in your dreames traunses and vayne phantasies which you haue vsed throughout your booke so that what so euer is in the bread and wine there is in you no Transubstantiation nor alteration in this thing at all And what auayleth it you so often to affirme this vntruth that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament as the soule of man is present in the body except you be like to them that tell a lye so often that with often repeating they think men beleue it and sometyme by often telling they beleue it them selues But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soule of man to proue therby the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament but to proue the two natures of the godhead and the manhoode in the person of Christ. Lette vs now discusse the minde of Chrisostome in this matter whome I bring thus in my booke S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth against the pestilēt errour of Apolinaris which affirmed that the Godhead and manhod in Christ were so mixed and confounded togither that they both made but one nature Agaynst whome S. Iohn Chrisostome writeth thus When thou speakest of God thou must consider a thing that in nature is single without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with such like And when thou speakest of man thou meanest a nature that is weake subiect to hunger thirst weeping feare sweating and such like passions which can not be in the diuine nature And when thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures togither in one persone who is both passible and impassible Passible as concerning his flesh and impassible in his deite And after he concludeth saying Wherfore Christ is both God and man God by his impassible nature and man bicause he suffered He himselfe being one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned togither which be not of one substance but ech of them hath his properties distinct from the other And therfore remayneth there two natures distinct and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord although the nature of the bread remayne still in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of Gods sonne so likewise here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of S. Chrisostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecration the nature of bread remayneth still although it haue an higher name and be called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eate the supernaturall bread of the body of Christ who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sitteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Winchester S. Chrisostomes wordes in deede if this author had had them eyther truely translated vnto him or had taken the paynes to haue truly translated them himselfe which as Peter Martyr sayth be not in print but were found in Florence a copy wherof remayneth in the archdeacon or Archbishop of Caunterburies handes or els if this author had reported the wordes as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyrs booke wherin some poynt the translator in English semeth to haue attayned by gesse the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr vttereth it himselfe if eyther of this had bene done the matter should haue seemed for so much the more playne But
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
nature of bread as he tooke the nature of man and so ioyned it to his substance And than as we haue God verely incarnate for our redemption so should we haue him Impanate Thou maist consider good reader that the rest of their reasons be very weake and feeble when these be the chiefe and strongest Truth it is in deede that Christ should haue bene impanate if he had ioyned the bread vnto his substance in vnity of person that is to say if he had ioyned the bread vnto him in such sort that he had made the bread one person with himselfe But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally there followeth no Impanation therof no more than the holy Ghost is Inaquate that is to say made water being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme Nor he was not made a doue when he tooke vpon him the forme of a doue to signifie that he whome S. Ihon did baptise was very Christ. But rather of the errour of the Papistes them selues as one errour draweth an other after it should follow the great absurdite which they speake vppon that is to say that Christ should be Impanate and Inuinate For if Christ doe vse the bread in such wise that he doth not adnihilate and make nothing of it as the Papistes say but maketh of it his owne body than is the bread ioyned to his body in a greater vnity than is his humanity to his Godhead For his Godhead is adioyned vnto his humanity in vnity of person and not of nature But our Sauiour Christ by their saying adioyneth bread vnto his body in vntie both of nature and person So that the bread and the body of Christ be but one thing both in nature and person And so is there a more entier vnion betwene Christ and bread than betwene his Godhead and manhod or betwen his soule and his body And thus these arguments of the Papistes returne like riuited nayles vpon their owne heades Winchester The solution to the second reason is almost as fondly handled alluding from Impanation to Inaquation although it was neuer sayd in scripture This water is the holy ghost but in baptisme to be water and the holy Ghost also And of the doue is not sayd This is the holy Ghost but the holy Ghost descended as in the resemblance of a done The substance of bread is not adnihilate bicause Gods worke is not adnihilation who geueth all being and adnihilation is a defection of the creature from God and yet Christes body is not augmented by the substance of bread in which body it endeth by conuersion as in the better without adnihilation which is a changing by miracle And when this Author knoweth this or should haue knowen it or hath forgotten it he writeth like one that were ignorant and had read nothing in the matter as it were to make himselfe popular to ioyne himselfe in ignorāce with the rude vnlearned people Caunterbury AS for my solution to the second reasō it is able to stand agaynst your confutation therof and to ouerthrow it quite For no more is Christ in the bread and wine in the Lordes supper then the holy Ghost is in the water of baptisme And therfore if the holy Ghost be not inaquate no more is Christ impanate And when the scripture sayth Upon whome soeuer thou shalt see the Ghost coming downe And also when S. Iohn sayd I saw the holy Ghost come downe like a doue did he see any thing but the doue And yet that which he sawe the scripture there as well by the voyce of God as by the wordes of S. Ihon calleth the holy Ghost Wherfore the scripture calleth the doue the holy Ghost For the speach was as much to say as this which I see come downe is the holy Ghost and yet was that the doue which he saw And that the doue which he saw was the holy ghost was as true a speach as we looking vpon the bread which we see do say This is the body of Christ. And yet as that speach meaneth not that the holy Ghost is made a doue so this speach meaneth not that the body of Christ is impanate No more then these wordes of Christ spoken vnto his mother Mary and to S. Ihon loe thy sonne And loe thy mother meane not that Ihon was made Christ nor that Mary his mother was made Ihons naturall mother But of your saying it followeth that the bread is humanate or incarnate For if these wordes of Christ This is my body meane as you say that bread is made Christes flesh then as Verbum caro factum est The word was made flesh concludeth that Christ was incarnate So Panis caro factus est The bread is made flesh concludeth that the bread is incarnate seing as you say it is not adnihilate But of adnihilation you write so strangely that it seemeth you haue written what you dreamed in your slepe rather then what you learned of any author catholike or infidele For who euer heard that adnihilation could be wrought but by the onely power of God For the gentill philosophers write according to the nature that Sicut exnihilo nihil sit Ita nihil in nihilum redigitur Asnothing can be made of nought so nothing can be tourned into nought So that as it is the worke of God onely to make of nought so it can be but onely his worke also to turne thinges into nought And what man beeing neuer so rude or popular hauing any discretion at all would define adnihilation as you do that a defection of a creature from God should be adnihilatiō and tourning into nothing For so should all the angels that fell from God be adnihilate and so should likewise all apostatase and all other that by sinne relinquishe the army of God and follow his aduersary the deuill and all Papistes that abandoning Christ as Iudas did runne to Antechrist to whome it were better to be adnihilate or neuer to be borne then eternally to remayne in gods indignation Now followeth the last reason Yet a third reason they haue which they gather out of the sixt of Ihon where Christ sayth I am liuely bread which came from heauen If any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer And the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world Then reason they after this fashion If the bread which Christ gaue be his flesh than it can not also be materiall bread and so it must needes follow that the materiall bread is gone and that none other substance remayneth but the flesh of Christ onely To this is soone made answer that Christ in that place of Ihon spake not of the materiall and sacramentall bread nor of the sacramentall eating for that was spoken two or three yeares before the sacrament was first ordayned but he spake of spirituall bread many times repeating I am
the bread of life which came from heauen and of spirituall eating by fayth after which sorte he was at the same present tyme eaten of as many as beleued on him although the sacrament was not at that tyme made and instituted And therfore he sayd Your fathers did eate Manna in the desert and dyed but he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Therfore this place of S. Ihon can in no wise be vnderstande of the sacramentall bread which neither came from heauen neither giueth life to all that eate Nor of such bread Christ could haue then presently sayd This is my flesh except they will say that Christ did than consecrate so many yeares before the institution of his holy Supper Winchester A third reason this author frameth himselfe wherby to take occasion to affirme how the vi chapiter of S. Ihon should not appertayne to the Sacramentall manducation the contrary wherof appeareth aswell by the wordes of Christ in that vi chapiter saying I will geue not I doe giue which promise was fulfilled in the supper as also by the catholique writers and specially by Cirill and therfore I will not further striue with this author in that matter but see how he can assoyle the authorities wherunto he entreth with great confidence Caunterbury THe third reason I framed not my selfe as you say I did but had it ready framed out of your owne shoppe in your booke of the Diuels sophistry And as for the vi chapiter of Ihon I haue sufficiently shewed my mind therin in my answere to Doctor Smithes preface which shall suffice also for aunswere to you in this place And as for Cirill is clearly agaynst you who declareth that when Christ sayd I will geue my flesh for the life of the world he fulfilled not that promise in his supper but in the crosse For if Christ had geuen to vs life in his supper what should he haue needed after to dye for the same purpose The wordes of Cirill be these vpon the wordes of Christ Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Morior inquit pro omnibus vt permeip sum omnes viuificem caro mea omnium redemptio fiat morietur euim mors morte mea Which wordes meane thus much in English I will dye for all that by my death I may geue life to all and that my flesh may be the redemption of all for death shall dye by my death Thus expoundeth Cirill the wordes of Christ that when he sayd I will geue he did not fulfill that promise in his spuper but in the crosse giuing vs life by his death not by eating and drinking of him in his supper as you most ignorantly say And yet all men may iudge how much I beare with you when I call it but ignorance Now followeth myne answere to the authors wrested by the papistes Now that I haue made a full direct and playne answer to the vayne reasons and cauilations of the Papists order requireth to make likewise answer vnto their sophisticall allegations and wresting of authors vnto their phantasticall purposes There be chiefely three places which at the first shew seeme much to make for their intent but when they shall be throughly wayed they make nothing for them at all The first is a place of Ciprian in his sermon of the Lords supper where he sayth as is alledged in the Detection of the deuils Sophistry This bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples changed in Nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotency of gods word made flesh Here the Papists sticke tooth and nayle to these wordes Changed in nature Ergo say they the nature of the bread is changed Here is one chiefe poynt of the diuels sophistry vsed who in the allegation of Scripture vseth euer eyther to adde therto or to take away from it or to alter the sence therof And so haue they in this author left out those wordes which would open playnly all the whole matter For next the wordes which be here before of them recited do follow these wordes As in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity was hid euen so did the diuinity ineffably put it selfe into the visible sacrament Which wordes of Ciprian do manifestly shew that the sacrament doth still remayne with the diuinity and that sacramentally the diuinity is poured into the bread and wine the same bread wine still remayning like as the same diuinity by vnity of person was in the humanity of Christ the same humanity still remayning with the diuinite And yet the bread is changed not in shape nor substance but in nature as Ciprian truly sayth not meaning that the naturall substance of bread is cleane gone but that by Gods word there is added therto an other higher propertie nature and condition farre passing the nature and condition of common bread that is to say that the bread doth shew vnto vs as the same Ciprian sayth that we be partaker of the spirite of God and most purely ioyned vnto Christ and spiritually fead with his flesh and bloud so that now the sayde misticall bread is both a corporall food for the body and a spirituall foode for the soule And likewise is the nature of the water changed in baptisme for as much as beside his common nature which is to wash and make cleane the body it declareth vnto vs that our soules be also washed and made cleane by the holy ghost And thus is answered the chiefe authoritie of the doctours which the Papists take for the principall defence of their errour But for further declaration of S. Ciprians mind herein reade the place of him before recited fol. 320. Winchester First in Ciprian who speaketh playnly in the matter this author findeth a fault that he is not wholy alleadged wherupon this author brought in the sentence following not necessary to be rehersed for the matter of Transubstantiation and handsome to be rehersed for the ouerthrowe of the rest of this authors new catholique fayth and whither that now shall be added was materiall in the matter of Transubstantiation I require the Iudgement of thee O reader The first wordes of Ciprian be these This bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples changed in nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotencye of gods word made flesh These be Ciprians wordes and then follow these As in the persone of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden euen so the diuinite ineffably infused it selfe into the visible Sacrament Thus sayth Ciprian as I can English him to expresse the word Infudit by Latin English not liking the English word shed bicause in our English tongue it resembleth spilling euacuation of the whole and much lesse I can agree to vse the word powring although Iufundo in Latine may in the vse of earthly thinges signifie so bicause powring noteth a successiue working
the bread and body of Christ to nothing in deed For the abstraction of accidentes from their proper substaunces and of substances frō their proper accidentes as you truely say in that poynt can not be practised in experience but is a corruptiō or adnihilatiō of both And where to excuse this absurdity that accidentes in the sacramental bread should be broken alone without any substaunce you bring in an other absurdity that in common bread the substaunce is not broken at all this is no taking away of the first absurdity but of one absurdity to make two as once I knew a man that when he had made a lye and perceiued that he was suspected by and by he would make two or three much greater lyes to excuse the first withall But if you should say that we break not the substaunce of bread at all it were no more vnlearnedly said in Philosophy then it is vntruely sayd in diuinity And where you say that you haue probable matter for you and I haue none for me it is cleane contrary For you haue vtterly nothing for you but all the whole world agaynst you if you say that the substaunce of common bread is not broken at all And I haue for me the very playne wordes of Christ of the Apostle of the Euangelistes The bread which wee breake sayth S. Paule And Christ took bread and brake it say the three Euangelistes But there is no bread say you nor no substaunce of bread is broken And this probable matter haue you for your selfe if men will beleue your selfe alone better then the Apostle and the Euangelistes And what should you talke in vayn of substaunce alone to dasle the eies of the ignoraunt when there is no such thing nor neuer was sithens the world began and seing your question in that place is of common breade where the substaunce is neuer alone without accidentes And if the substaunce of bread might be alone yet your reason agaynst the breaking of it is so far from all reason that it should proue aswell that the substaunce ioined to the quantity and accidentes cannot be broken as the substaunce alone For in euery peece of bread is a whole substaunce and then by your argument it cannot be broken And where you graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges but it is done by a spiritual miracle this is but a cloud to darken the light For accidents to be without substaunces is not onely agaynst the cōmon course of natural things but also against the very nature of accidentes which haue none other being but in substaunces as they be defyned accidentis esse estinesse and is also against all philosophy reason and working of god sithens the world begā For God neuer created nor made with miracle nor without miracle substaunces without accidentes nor accidents without substaunces as some vaynely phantasy de materia prima It is agaynst also the doctrine of the old catholicke authors for neuer none wrote that accidentes were without substaunces vntill the Bishop of Rome with his Monkes and Fryers defyned the contrary But note well here good reader the end of wit when it is not stayd by Gods word but shooteth at rouers or runneth at large as it were a young colte without a bridle That nothing is broken but the accidentes this is denied Then would I fayne learne of this great wise man that so well can disseuer substaunces from accidentes what substaunce it is that is broken Not the body of Christ sayth he for that is whole in euery part nor the bread is not broken sayth he for our fayth teacheth vs contrary then must it be either Christes diuinity or soule that is broken or els is some other substance there which neuer man heard of before Note also good reader how well this author agreeth with himselfe which within a little compasse denieth so many thinges and affirmeth the same agayne For first he sayth that to seperate substaunces from the accidentes is to bring it to nothing and yet he seperateth from their accidents as well the substaunces of bread and wine as of the body of Christ. Before he sayd that nothing was broken but the accidēts now he denieth it Before he sayth the body of Christ is not broken and shortly after he sayth that which is broken is no bread but the body of Christ. And here it appereth how falsehood neyther agreeth with truth nor with it selfe And where you alleadge that in the booke of Common prayer it is set forth how in ech part of that is brokē of the consecrated bread is the whol body of our sauiour Christ what coulde you haue alleadged more agaynst your selfe For if the consecrated bread bee broken in partes how can you aunswere truely by fayth as a beleuing man which aunswere you make streight wayes after that that which is broken is no breade And if you would aunswere as you be wont to doe that the accidentes of bread bee called bread yet that collusiō will not serue you in this place For seing that this place speaketh of consecrated bread aūswere me to this whether the substaunce or accidence be consecrated And if you say the accidentes then for as much as consecration by your doctrine is conuertion it must follow that the accidents of bread bee conuerted and not the substaunce and so should you call it Transaccidentation and not Transubstantiation and if you say that the substaunce of bread is consecrated then for asmuch as that which is consecrated is deuided into partes and in euery part is the whole body of Christ you must confesse that the substaunce of bread remaineth with the partes thereof wherein is receiued the body of Christ. But yet will you say peraduenture that although this make agaynst Transubstantiation yet it proueth the reall presence of Christes body seeing that it is whole in euery part of the bread It is whole in deed in euery part of the bread deuided as it is in the whole bread vndeuided which is sacramentally not really corporally carnally and naturally as you fayne and imagine would cōstrayn other to beleue And fayth denieth not the bread but teacheth it to remayne as a sacrament And calling of it Christs body is not making of it to be really so no more then the calling of the blessed virgin Iohns mother made not her to be naturally so in deed nor him to be her sonne For although Christs words effectually spokē be an effectuall making yet his wordes sacramentally and figuratiuely spoken declare not the figure or sacrament to be indeed the thing that is signified And if the rude and simple people vnderstand not substaunce from accidentes as you here affirme then this thing they may at the least wise vnderstand how little they be beholden to you Papysts that would bynd them to beleue vnder perill of damnation such thinges as they bee not able to vnderstand making articles of theyr
moreouer that Christ him selfe commeth downe vpon the child apparelleth him with his own selfe And as at the Lordes holy Table the Priest distributeth wine bread to feede the body so we must thinke that inwardly by fayth we see Christ feedyng both body and soule to eternall lyfe What comfort can be deuised any more in this world for a Christē man And on the other side what discomfort is in your papisticall doctrine what doubtes what perplexities what absurdities what iniquities what auayleth it vs that there is no bread nor wyne or that Christ is really vnder the formes and figures of bread and wyne and not in vs or if he be in vs yet he is but in the lippes or the stomacke and tarieth not with vs. Or what benefite is it to a wicked man to eate Christ and to receaue death by him that is lyfe From this your obscure perplex vncertaine vncomfortable deuilish and Papisticall doctrine Christ defend all his and graunt that we may come often and worthely to Christes holy Table to comfort our feeble and weake fayth by remembraunce of his death who onely is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sinnes and our meate drinke and foode of euerlastyng lyfe Amen Here endeth the Aunswere of the most Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury c. vnto the crafty and Sophisticall cauillation of Doct. Steuen Gardiner deuised by him to obscure the true sincere and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST THE Aunswere of Thomas Archebishop of Caunterbury c. agaynst the false calumniations of doctour Richard Smith who hath taken vpon him to confute the defence of the true catholik doctrine of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. I Haue now obtayned gentle reader that thing which I haue much desired which was that if all men would not imbrace the truth lately set forth by me concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ at the least some man would vouchsafe to take penne in hand and write against my booke bicause that therby the truth might both better be serched out and also more certaynly knowen to the world And herein I hartely thanke the late Bishop of Winchester and doctor Smith who partely haue satisfied my long desire sauing that I would haue wished aduersaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures more exercised in the olde auncient ecclesiasticall authors and hauing a more godly zeale to the triall out of the truth than are these two both being crafty sophisters the one by art and the other by nature both also being drowned in the dregges of papistry brought vp and confirmed in the same the one by Duns and Dorbell and such like Sophisters the other by the Popish Canon law wherof by his degree taken in the uniuersity he is a professor And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester I will declare his craftye Sophistications in myne aunswere vnto his booke But doctour Smith as it appeareth by the title of his preface hath craftely deuised an easy way to obtayne his purpose that the people being barred from the serching of the truth might be stil kept in blindnes and errour as wel in this as in al other matters wherin they haue bene in times past deceaued He seeth full well that the more diligently matters be serched out and discussed the more clearly the craft and falsehode of the subtill Papistes will appeare And therfore in the preface to the reader he exhorteth all men to leaue disputing and resoning of the fame by learning and to giue firme credite vnto the church as the title of the sayd preface declareth manifestly As who should say the truth of any matter that is in question might be tryed out without debating and reasoning by the word of God wherby as by the true touchstone all mens doctrines are to be tryed and examined But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light and to be tryed to the vttermost For as pure golde the more it is tryed the more pure it apeareth so is all manner of truth Where as on the other side all maskers counterfayters and false deceiuors abhorre the light and refuse the triall If all men without right or reason would geue credite vnto this Papist and his Romish church agaynst the most certayne word of God and the olde holye and Catholicke Churche of Christ the matter should be soone at an end and out of all controuersie But for as muche as the pure word of God and the first church of Christ from the beginning taught the true catholike fayth and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the cleane contrary the chaffe can not be tryed out from the pure corne that is to say the vntruth discerned from the very truth without threshing windowing and fanning serching debating and reasoning As for me I ground my beleefe vpon gods word wherin can be no errour hauing also the consent of the primatiue church requiring no man to beleue me further then I hane gods word for me But these Papistes speake at their pleasure what they lift and would be beleeued without godes word bicause they beare men in hand that they be the church The church of Christ is not founded vpon it selfe but vppon Christ and his word but the Papistes build their church vpon them selues deuising new articles of the fayth from tyme to tyme without any scripture and founding the same vpon the Pope and his cleargy monkes and fryers and by that meanes they be both the makers and Iudges of their fayth themselues Wherfore this Papist like a politike man doth right wisely prouide for himselfe and his church in the first entry of his booke that all men should leaue searching for the truth and sticke hard and fast to the church meaning himselfe and the church of Rome For from the true catholike church the Romish church which he accomteth catholike hath varied and dissented many yeares passed as the blindest that this day do liue may well see and perceaue if they will not purposely winke and shut vp their eyes This I haue written to answere the title of his preface NOw in the beginning of the very preface it selfe when this great doctor should recite the wordes of Ephesine counsell he translateth them so vnlearnedly that if a young boy that had gone to the grammer schole but thre yeres had done no better he should scant haue escaped some scholemasters handes with sixierkes And beside that he doth it so craftily to serue his purpose that he cannot be excused of wilfull deprauation of the wordes calling celebration an offering and referring the participle made to Christ which should be referred to the word partakers and leauing out those wordes that should declare that the sayd counsell spake of no propiciatory sacrifice in the Masse but of a sacrifice of laud and thankes which christen people geue vnto God
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the
declaration of his will wherby we might be the more assured of the effect of his death which he suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption of the world with a most perfect oblatiō and satisfaction for the sinnes of the world exhibited and offered by him to God the father for the reconciliation of mannes nature to Gods fauor and grace And this I write because this author speaketh so precisely how Christ offred himselfe neuer but once Wherby if he mean by once offering the hole action of our redemption which was consummate and perfected vpon the crosse All must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption by the oblation of Christ on the crosse to haue béene absolutely finished and so once offered for all But there is no Scripture whereupon we might conclude that Christ did in this mortall life but in one particular moment of time offer himselfe to his Father For S. Paul describeth it to the Philippians vnder the word of humiliation to haue continued the wholl time of Christes conuersation here euen to the death the death of the crosse And that this obedience to God in humilitie is called offering appeareth by S. Paule when he exhorted vs to offer our bodies which meaneth a continuall obedience in the obseruation of Gods will and he calleth oblationem gentium to bringe them to the faith And Abrahams willing obedience ready at Gods commaundement to offer Isaac is called the offering of Isaac and is in very deede a true offering And euery man offereth himself to God when he yealdeth to Gods calling and presenteth himselfe ready to doe Gods will and commaundement who then may be said to offer his seruice that is to say to place his seruice in sight and before him before whom it should be done And because our Sauiour Christ by the decrée of the wholl Trinity tooke mannes nature vpon him to suffer death for our redemption which death in his last Supper he declared plainly he would suffer We reade in S. Ciprian how Christ offered himselfe in his supper fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech who by the offring of bread wine signified that high mistery of Christs Supper in which Christ vnder the forme of bread and wine gaue his very body bloud to be eaten and dronken and in the geuing therof declared the determination of his glorious passion and the fruit and effect therof Which doing was a swéete and pleasant oblation to God the Father conteyning a most perfect obedience to Gods will and pleasure And in the mistery of this Supper was written made and sealed a most perfect testimony for an effectuall memory of Christes offering of him selfe to his Father of his death and passion with the fruite therof And therfore Christ ordayned this Supper to be obserued and continued for a memory of his comming So as we that saw not with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion may in the celebration of the Supper be most surely ascertayned of the truth out of Christes own mouth who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church This is my body that is betrayed for you This is my bloud that is shead for you in remission of sinne and therewith maketh his very body and his precious bloud truely present to be taken of vs eaten and dronken Whereby we be assured that Christ is the same to vs that he was to them and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them offereth himselfe to his Father for vs as well as for them declareth his will in the fruite of his death to pertayne as well to vs as to them Of which death we be assured by his own mouth that he suffred the same to the effect he spake of and the continuall feding in this high mistery of the same very body that suffred and féeding of it without consumption being continually exhibited vnto vs a liuing body and a liuely bloud not onely our soule is specially and spiritually cōforted our body therby reduced to more cōformable obedience to the soule but also we by the participation of this most precious body bloud be ascertained of the resurrection and regeneration of our bodies and flesh to be by Gods power made incorruptible and immortall to liue and haue fruition in God with our soules for euer Wherefore hauing this mistery of Christes Supper so many truthes in it the Church hath celebrate thē all and knowledged them all of one certainty in truth not as figures but really and in déede that is to say as our bodies shal be in the generall resurrection regenerate in déede so we beléeue we feede here of Christes body in deede And as it is true that Christes body in déede is betrayed for vs so it is true that he geueth vs to eate his very body in déede And as it is true that Christ was in earth did celebrate this Supper so it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrated by vs till he come And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotent and very man so it is true that he could doe that he affirmed by his word him selfe to doe And as he is most sincéere truth so may we be truly assured that he would and did as he said And as it is true that he is most iust so it is true that he assisteth the doing of his commaundement in the celebration of the holy Supper And therfore as he is author of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and bloud so is he the maker of it and is the inuisible priest who as Emissene saith by his secret power with his word changeth the visible creatures into the substance of his body bloud Wherin man the visible priest and minister by order of the church is onely a dispencer of the mistery doing and saying as the holy ghost hath taught the church to doe and say Finally as we be taught by faith all these to be true so when wanton reason faith being aslepe goeth about by curiositie to empaire any one of these truthes the chain is broaken the linkes sparckle abroad and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at Truthes haue béene abused but yet they be true as they were before for no man can make that is true false and abuse is mannes fault not the thinges Scripture in spéeche geueth to man as Gods minister the name of that action which God specially worketh in that mistery So it pleaseth God to honor the ministery of man in his Church by whom it also pleaseth him to worke effectually And Christ said they that beleue in me shall doe the workes that I doe and greater When all this honor is geuen to man as spiritually to regenerate when the minister saith I baptise thée and to remitte sinne to such as fall after to be also a minister in consecration of Christes most precious body with the ministration of other Sacramentes benediction
wherupoÌ„ we might coÌ„clude that Christ did in this mortal life but in one particular momeÌ„t of time offer him self to the father to what purpose you bring forth this momeÌ„t of time I caÌ„not tell for I made no meÌ„tâ—on therof but of the day of his death the scripture saith plainly that as it is ordained for euerye man to dye but once so Christe was offered but once And saith further that sinne is not forgeueÌ„ but by effusioÌ„ of bloud therefore if Christ had ben offered many times he should haue dyed many times And of any other offering of Christes body for sin the scripture speaketh not For although S. Paul to the PhillippiaÌ„s speaketh of the humiliatioÌ„ of Christ by his incarnatioÌ„ so to worldly miseries afflictioÌ„s eueÌ„ vnto death vpoÌ„ the crosse yet he calleth not euery humiliatioÌ„ of Christ a sacrifice oblatioÌ„ for remissioÌ„ of sin but onely his oblatioÌ„ vpoÌ„ good Fryday which as it was our perfect redeÌ„ptioÌ„ so was it our perfect recoÌ„ciliatioÌ„ propitiatioÌ„ satisfactioÌ„ for sinne And to what purpose you make here a long processe of our sacrifices of obedience vnto Gods coÌ„mauÌ„demeÌ„ts I caÌ„not deuise For I declare in my last booke that all our whole obedience vnto Gods will a commauÌ„demeÌ„ts is a sacrifice acceptable to God but not a sacrifice propitiatory for the sacrifice Christ onely made and by that his sacrifice all our Sacrifices be acceptable to God without that none is acceptable to him And by those sacrifices al christeÌ„ people offer theÌ„selues to God but they offer not Christ again for sin for that did neuer creature but Christ him self alone nor he neuer but vpoÌ„ good Fryday For although he did institute the night before a remeÌ„brance of his death vnder the SacrameÌ„ts of bread wine yet he made not at that time the sacrifice of our redeÌ„ptioÌ„ satisfaction for our sinnes but the next day following And the declaration of Christ at his last supper that he would suffer death was not the cause wherfore Ciprian sayd that Christ offered himselfe in his supper For I reade not in any place of Ciprian to my remeÌ„brance any such wordes that Christ offered himselfe in his supper but he saith that Christ offered the fame thing whiche Melchisedech offered And if Ciprian say in any place that Christ offered himself in his supper yet he sayd not that Christ did so for this cause that in his supper he declared his death And therfore here you make a deceitful fallax in sophistry pretending to shew that thing to be a cause which is not the true cause in deede For the cause why Ciprian and other olde authors say that Christ made an oblation and offering of him selfe in his last supper was not that he declared there that he would suffer death for that he had declared many times before but the cause was that there he ordained a perpetuall memory of his death which he would all faithfull christeÌ„ people to obserue froÌ„ time to time remembring his death with thankes for his benefites vntill his comming again And therfore the memoriall of the true sacrifice made vpon the crosse as S. Augustine saith is called by the name of a sacrifice as a thing that signifyeth an other thing is called by the name of the thing which it signifyeth although in very deede it be not the same And the long discourse that you make of Christes true presence and of the true eating of him and of his true assisting vs in our doing of his commaundement all these be true For Christes flesh bloud be in the sacrament truely present but spiritually and sacramentally not carnally and corporally And as he is truely present so is he truely eaten and dronken and assisteth vs. And he is the same to vs that he was to them that saw him with their bodely eyes But where you say that he is as familiare with vs as he was with theÌ„ here I may say the French terme which they vse for reuerence sake Saue vostre grace And he offered not him selfe then for them vpon the crosse and now offereth himself for vs daily in the Masse but vpon the crosse he offered him selfe both for vs and for them For that his one sacrifice of his body than onely offered is now vnto vs by fayth as auailable as it was then for them For with one sacrifice as S. Paul saith he hath made perfect for euer them that be sanctifyed And where you speake of the participation of Christes flesh and bloud if you meane of the sacramentall participatioÌ„ onely that therby we be ascertayned of the regeneration of our bodies that they shall liue and haue the fruition of God with our soules for euer you be in an horrible errour And if you meane a spirituall participation of Christes body and bloud then all this your processe is in vaine and serueth nothing for your purpose to proue that Christes flesh and bloud be corporally in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine and participated of them that be euill as you teach which be no whit therby the more certain of their saluation but of their damnation as S. Paul saith And although the holy supper of the Lord be not a vain or phantasticall supper wherein thinges should be promised which be not performed to them that worthely come thereunto but Christes flesh and bloud be there truely eaten and dronken in deede yet that misticall supper can not be without misteries and figures And although wee feede in deede of Christes body and drinke in deed his bloud yet not corporally quantitatiuely and palpably as we shal be regenerated at the resurrection and as he was betrayed walked here in earth and was very man And therfore although the thinges by you rehearsed be all truely done yet all be not done after one sort and fashion but some corporally and visibly some spiritually and inuisibly And therfore to al your comparisons or similitudes here by you rehearsed if there be geuen to euery one his true vnderstanding they may be so graunted all to be true But if you will linke all these together in one sort and fashioÌ„ and make a chaine thereof you shall farre passe the bondes of wanton reason making a chaine of golde and copper together confounding and mixing together corporall and spiritual heauenly and earthly thinges and bring all to very madnes and impiety or plaine and manifest heresy And because one single error pleaseth you not shortly after you linke a number of errors almost together in one senteÌ„ce as it were to make an whole chaine of errors saying not onely that Christes body is verely present in the celebratioÌ„ of the holy supper meaning of corporal presence but that it is also our very sacrifice and sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world and that it is the onely sacrifice of the church and that it is the pure aud cleane
suffice for that point of the similitude where this auctor woulde haue Christe none otherwise present in the Sacrament then he promised to be in thassemble of such as be gathered together in hys name it is a playne abolition of the mistery of the sacrament in the wordes whereof Christes humayne body is exhibite and made present with hys very fleshe to féede vs and to that singuler and speciall effect the other presence of Christ in thassemble made in in hys name is not spoken of and it hath no apparaunce of learning in scriptures to conclude vnder one consideration a specialitie a generalitie And therfore it was well answered of hym that sayd If I could tell reason there were no fayth If I could shew the like it wer not singuler Which doth be notable in this sacrament where cōdēyning all reason good men both constantly beleue that Christe sitteth on the right hand of hys father very God and man and also without chaunge of place doth neuerthelesse make himselfe by hys power present both God and man vnder the forme of bread and wine at the prayer of the Churche and by the ministery of the same to geue life to suche as with fayth do according to his institution in hys holy supper worthely receyue hym and to the condemnation of such as do unworthely presume to receaue hym there For the worthy receyuing of whom we must come indued with Christ and clothed with hym semely in that garment to receiue his most precious body and bloud Christe whole God and man wherby he then dwelleth in vs more aboundantly confirming in vs the effectes of hys Passion establishing our hope of resurrection then to enioy the regeneration of our body with a full redemption of body and soule to lyue with God in glory for euer Caunterbury IN this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come so neare together for you be almost right hartely welcome home and I pray you let vs shake handes together For we be agreed as me seemeth that Christs body is present and the same body that suffered and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence For you say that the body of Christ is not present but after a spirituall maner and so say I also And if there be any difference betweene vs two it is but a little and in this point only That I say that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the Sacrament and you say that he is but after a spiritual maner in the Sacrament And yet you say that he is corporally in the Sacrament as who should say that there were a difference betweene spiritually and a spirituall maner And that it were not all one to say that Christ is there onely after a spirituall maner and not onely spiritually But if the substance of the Sonne be here corporally present with vs vpon earth then I graunt that Christes body is so likewise So that he of vs two that erreth in the one let him be taken for a vaine man and to erre also in the other Therfore I am content that the reader iudge indifferently betweene you and me in the corporal presence of the sonne and he that is found to erre and to be a foose therin let him be iudged to erre also in the corporall presence of Christes body But now maister Bucer help this man at need For he that hath euer hitherto cryed out against you now being at a pinch driuen to his shiftes crieth for helpe vpō you And although he was neuer your frend yet extēd your charity to helpe him in his necessity But maister Bucer saith not so much as you do and yet if you both said that the beames of the sonne be of the same substāce with the sonne who would beleue either of you both Is the light of the candle the substance of the candle or the light of the fire the substance of the fire Or is the beames of the sonne any thing but the cleere light of the sonne Now as you said euen now of me if you erre so farre from the true iudgement of natuarll thinges that all men may perceiue your error what maruaile is it if you erre in heauenly thinges And why should you be offended with this my saying that Christ is spiritually present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name And how can you conclude hereof that this is a plaine abolitiō of the mistery of the Sacrament because that in the celebration of the Sacrament I say that Christ is spiritually present Haue not you confessed your self that Christ is in the Sacrament but after a spirituall manner And after that maner he is also among them that be assembled together in his name And if they that say so doe abolish the mistery of the Sacramēt then do you abolish it your selfe by saying that Christ is but after a spirituall maner in the sacrament after which maner you say also that he is in them that be gathered together in his name as well as I doe that say hee is spiritually in both But he that is disposed to pick quarrels and to calumi ate all thinges what can be spoken so plainly or ment so sinceerely but he will wrast it into a wrong sence I say that Chist is speritually and by grace in his supper as he is when two or three be gathered togither in his name meaning that with both he is spiritually and with neither corporally and yet I say not that there is no difference For this difference there is that with the one he is sacramētally and with the other not sacramentally except they be gathered together in his name to receaue the Sacrament Neuerthelesse the selfe same Christ is present in both nourisheth and feedeth both if the Sacrament be rightly receiued But that is onely Spiritually as I say and onely after a Spirituall maner as you say And you say further that before we receiue the Sacrament we must come indued with Christ and seemely cloathed with him But whosoeuer is indued and cloathed with Christ hath Christ present with him after a spirituall maner and hath receaued Christ whole both God man or els he could not haue euerlasting life And therfore is Christ present as well in Baptisme as in the Lordes Supper For in Baptisme be we indued with Christ and seemely cloathed with him as well as in his holy Supper we eate and drink him Winchester Thus I haue perused these differences which well considered me thinke sufficient to take away and appease all such differences as might be moued against the Sacrament the faith wherof hath euer preuayled against such as haue impugned it And I haue not read of any that hath written against it but somewhat hath against his enterprise in his wrytinges appeared wherby to confirme it or so euident vntruthes affirmed as wherby those that be as indifferent to the truth as Salomon was in
it as appered by the Capharnaites who murmured at it And therfore because onely faythful men can by fayth vnderstand this mistery of the eatyng of Christes flesh in the Sacrament in which we eat not the carnall flesh of a common man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God mā as fayth teacheth It is in that respect well noted for a figuratiue spéech for that it hath such a sence in the letter as is hidden from the vnfaythfull So as the same letter being to faythfull men spirite and life who in humility of fayth vnderstandeth the same is to the faythfull a figure as contayning such a mistery as by the outward barke of the letter they vnderstand not vpon which consideration it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mistery of the Sacrament wherein is a worke of God ineffable such as the Ethnike eares could not abide they termed it a figure not therby to deminish the truth of the mistery as the proper and special name of a figure doth but by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecy apt only to be vnderstanded of men beleuing and therefore the sayd fathers in some part of theyr works in playn words expresse and declare the truth of the mistery the plain doctrine therof according to the Catholick fayth and in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure which consideration in S. Augustines writings may be euidently gathered for in some place no man more playnly openeth the substance of the Sacrament then he doth speaking expressely of the very body and bloud of Christ contayned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not thereby to contrary his other playne sayings and doctrine but meaning by the word figure to signify a secret déep mistery hidden from carnall vnderstanding For auoyding and expelling of which carnallity he geueth this doctrine here of this text Except ye eat c. which as I sayd before in the bare litterall sence implyeth to carnal iudgement other carnall circumstāces to attayne the same flesh to be eaten which in that carnall sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeying of Christes commaundement in the institution of his supper when he himself deliuereth his body and bloud in these misteryes biddeth Eat and drink there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth and therefore S. Augustins rule pertaineth not to Christs supper wherin when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded without carnall thought or murmuring in our sensuall deuise how it can be so And S. Augustin in the fame place speaking De communicando passionibus Christi declareth playnely he meaneth of the Sacrament Caunterbury IF thou takest not very good heed reader thou shalt not perceiue where the cuttill becometh He wrappeth himself so about in darcknesse and he commeth not neere the net by a myle for feare he should be taken But I will draw my net nearer to him that he shall not escape I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud were spoken by a figure and he would auoyd the matter by saying that those words haue a spirituall mistery in them which is most true and nothing contrary to my saying but confirmeth the same For the words of eating and drinking be figuratiue speches because they haue a secret and hid spirituall mistery in them and cannot be taken otherwise then in that spiritual mistery which is a figure And moreouer you plainly here confesse that to eat Christes flesh and to drinke his bloud be figuratiue speches But you trauesse the cause wherfore they be figuratiue speches which is not materiall in this place where my processe is onely to proue that they be figuratiue speches Aud forasmuch as you graūt here all that I take vpon me to proue which is that they be figuratiue speches what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words when we agree in the matter which is here in question And as for the cause of the figure you declare it far otherwise then S. Augustine dooth as the words of S. Augustine do playnely shew to euery indifferent reader For the cause say you is this that in the Sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a commō man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God and man and in that respect it is well noted for a figuratiue spech In which one sentence be three notable errors or vntruthes The first is that you say the letter soundeth than we eat the carnall flesh of a common man which your saying the playne words of the gospell do maniestly reproue For Christ seperating himself in that spech from all other men spake onely of himself saying My flesh is very meat and my blood is very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him The second is that you call the flesh of Christ a spirituall flesh as before you sayd that he is spiritually eaten And so by your doctrine his flesh is spirituall and is spiritually eaten and all is spirituall which hath need of a fauorable interpretation if it should be counted a sound and Catholick teaching And if all be spirituall done spiritually what meaneth it then that in other places you make so often mention that he is present and eaten carnally corporally and naturally The third is that you say the spech of Christ is noted figuratiue in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man which is vtterly vntrue For the authors note not the figuratiue spech in that respect but as christ spake of his owne flesh ioyned vnto his diuinity wherby it geueth lyfe euen so do the authors note a figuratiue spech in respect of Christes owne flesh and say therof that the letter can not be true without a figure For although Christ be both God and man yet his flesh is a very mans flesh and his bloud is truely mans blond as is the flesh bloud of his blessed mother and therfore can not be eaten and drunken properly but by a figure For he is not meat and drink of the body to be eatē corporally with mouth and teeth and to be dygested in the stomack but he is the meat of the soule to be receaued spiritually in our harts minds and to be chawed and digested by fayth And it is vntrue that you here say that the proper and speciall name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mistery For then Christ in vayne did ordayne the figures if they diminish the misteries And the Authors terme it here a figure not therby to couer the mistery but to open the mistery which was in deed in Christs words by fyguratiue speches vnderstand
eares be vij yeares The scripture sayth not signifieth vij yeares And vij kine be seuen yeares and many other like And so sayd saynt Paule that the stone was Christ and not that it signified Christ but euen as it had ben hee indede which neuerthelesse was not Christ by substaunce but by signification Euen so sayth saynt Augustine bicause the bloud signifieth and representeth the soule therfore in a sacrament or signification it is called the soule And contra Adamantium he writeth much like saying In such wise is bloud the soule as the stone was Christ and yet the Apostle sayth not that the stone signified Christ but sayth it was Christ. And this sentence Bloud is the soule may be vnderstand to be spoken in a signe or figure for Christ did not stick to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here S Augustine rehearsing diuers sentences which were spoken figuratiuely that is to say when one thing was called by the name of an other and yet was not the other in substance but in signification As the bloud is the soule vij kyne be vij yeares vij eares be vij yeares the stone was Christ. Among such maner of speaches he reherseth those wordes which Christ spake at his last supper this is my body Which declareth playnly Saynt Augustines mind that Christ spake those wordes figuratiuely not meaning that the bread was his body by substance but by signification And therfore S. Augustine sayth contra Maximinum that in the sacramentes we must not consider what they be but what they signifie for they be signes of thinges being one thing and signifiyng another Which he doeth shew specially of this sacrament saying the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh by some maner of speach is called Christes body when in very deede it is the sacrament of his body And that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes is called Christes passion death and crucifiyng not in very dede but in a misticall signification Winchester As for saynt Agustine ad Bonifacium the author shall perceiue his fault at Martyne Bucers hand who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarations of the gospels reherseth his mind of Saynt Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi Corpus Christi sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secundum quem modum Vt significet tantum corpus sanguinem Domini absenta Absit Honorari enim percipi in simbolis visibilibus corpus sanguinem Domini idem passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saynt Augustine writeth the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certayn maner the body of christ the sacramēt of the bloud of christ the bloud of christ but after what maner that it should signifie onely the body and bloud absent Absit In no wise for the same Saynt Augustine writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored and to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not saynt Augustine to say the sacrament of Christes body to be Christes body after a certayn maner of speach as this author doth nor S. Augustine hath no such wordes but onely secundum quendam modum after a certayne maner wherunto to put of speach is an addition more then truth required of necessitie In these wordes of Bucer may apeare his whole indgement concerning S. Augustine who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament which truth established in the matter the calling it a signe or a token a figure a similitude or a shewing maketh no matter when we vnderstand the thing really present that is signified Which and it were not in dede in the Sacrament why should it after Bucers true vnderstanding of S. Augustine be honored there Arguing vpon mens speaches may be without end the authors vpon diuers repsectes speake of one thing diuersly Therfore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter and see what they say in expounding the speciall place without contention and not what they vtter in the heat of their disputation ne to search their dark and ambiguous places wherwith to confound that they speake openly and playnly Canterbury WHat nede you to bring Martine Bucer to make me answer if you could answer your selfe but bicause you be ashamed of the matter you would thrust Martine Bucer in your place to receaue rebuke for you But in this place he easeth you nothing at all for he sayth no more but that the body and bloud of Christ be exhibited vnto the worthy receiuers of the sacrament which is true but yet spiritually not corporally And I neuer sayd that Christ is vtterly absent but I euer affirmed that he is truly and spiritually present and truly and spiritually exhibited vnto the godly receiuours but corporally is he neither in the receiuors nor in or vnder the fourmes of bread or wine as you do teach clearly with out the consent of master Bucer who writeth no such thing And where I alleadge of Saynt Augustine that the sacrament of Christes body is called Christes body after a certayn maner of speach and you deny that saynt Augustine ment of a certayne maner of speach but sayth onely after a certayne maner Read the place of saynt Augustin who will and he shall find that he speaketh of the maner of speach and that of such a maner of speach as calleth one thing by the name of an other where it is not the very thing in dede For of the maner of speach is all the processe there as apeareth by these his wordes a day or two before good Friday we vse in common speach to say to morowe or this day two dayes Christ suffered c. Likewise vppon Easter day we say this day Christ rose And why do no men reproue vs as lyars whan we speake in this sort And we call those dayes so by a similitude c. And so it is called that day which is not that day in dede And sacramentes commonly haue the name of the thinges wherof they be sacramentes Therfore as after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is Christes body so likewise the sacramēt of fayth is fayth And likewise sayth Saynt Paule that in baptisme we be buried he sayth not that we signifie buriall but he sayth playnly that we be buried So that the sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the thing All these be S. Augustines wordes shewing how in the common vse of speach one thing may haue the name of another Wherfore when Doctor Gardiner sayth that S. Augustine spake not of that maner of speach thou mayst beleue him hereafter as thou shalt see cause but if thou trust his wordes to much thou shalt soone be deceiued As for the reall presence of Christ
doubt not but the priest would haue absteined from ministration vnto more opportunitie and more accesse of Christian people as he would haue done likewise in saying of mattens and preaching Wherfore in your case I might well answer you as S. Hierom answered the argument made in the name of the heretike Iouinian which myght be brought agaynst the commendation of virginitie What if all men would liue virgines and no man marry How should then the world be mayntayned What if heauen fall sayd S. Hierom What if no man will come to the church is your argument for all that came in those dayes receaued the communion What if heauen fall say I For I haue not so euill opinion of the holy church in those dayes to think that any such thing could chaunce among them that no one would come when all ought to haue come Now when you come to your issue you make your case to straight for me to ioyne an issue with you bynding me to the bare and onely wordes of Clement and refusing vtterly his mynd But take the wordes and the mynd together and I dare aduenture an Issue to passe by any indiferent readers that I haue proued all my three notes And where you say that vpon occasion of this epistle I speake more reuerently of the sacrament then I do in other places if you were not giuen all together to calumniate and depraue my words you should perceaue in all my booke thorough euen from the beginning to the end therof a constant and perpetuall reuerence giuen vnto the sacramentes of Christ such as of dutie all Christian men ought to giue Neuerthelesse you interpret this word Wherin farre from my meaning For I meane not that Christ is spiritually eyther in the table or in the bread and wine that be sette vpon the table but I meane that he is present in the ministration and receauing of that holy supper according to his owne institution and ordinaunce Like as in baptisme Christ and the holy ghost be not in the water or fonte but be giuen in the ministration or to them thāt be duly baptised in the water And although the sacramental tokens be onely significations and figures yet doth almighty God effectually work in them that duely receaue his sacramentes those deuine and celestiall operations which he hath promised and by the sacramentes be signified For else they were vayne and vnfrutfull Sacramentes as well to the godly as to the vngodly And therfore I neuer sayd of the whole supper that it is but a significatiō or a bare memory of Christes death but I teach that it is a spirituall refreshing wherein our soules be fedde and nourished with Christes very flesh and bloud to eternall life And therfore bring you forth some place in my booke where I say that the Lordes suppper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same or else eate your wordes agayne and knowledge that you vntruly report me But heare what followeth further in my book Here I passe ouer Ignatius and Ireneus which make nothing for the papists opinions but stand in the commendation of the holy Communion and in exhortation of all men to the often and godly receauing therof And yet neither they nor no man else can extoll and commend the same sufficiently according to the dignitie therof if it be godly vsed as it ought to be Winchester This author sayth he passeth ouer Ignatius and Ireneus and why Bicause they make nothing he sayth for the Papistes purpose With the word papist the author playth at his pleasure But it shal be euident that Irene doth playnly confound this authors purpose in the deniall of the true presence of Christes very flesh in the sacramēt who although he vse not the wordes reall and substanciall yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speach of the sacrameut the vertue aud strength of those wordes And for the truth of the sacrament is Ireneus specially alleaged in so much as Melanghton when he writeth to Decolampadius that he will alleage none but such as speake playnly he alleageth Ireneus for one as apeareth by his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius And Decolampadius himselfe is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape any manner of euasion as to answer Ireneus in whome he notably stumbleth And Peter Martyr in his work graunteth Irene to be specially alledged to whome when he goeth about to answer a man may euidently see how he masketh him selfe And this author bringeth in Clementes epistle of which no great count is made although it be not contemned and passeth ouer Ireneus that speaketh euidently in the matter and was as old as Clement or not much yonger And bicause Ignatius was of that age and is alleadged by Theodorete to haue written in his epistle ad Smirnenses whereof may apeare his fayth of the mistery of the sacrament it shall serue to good purpose to write in the wordes of the same Ignatius here vpon the credite of the sayd Theodoret whome this author so much commendeth the wordes of Ignatius be these Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit Which wordes be thus much in english they do not admitte Eucharistias and oblations bycause they do not confesse Eucharistiam to be the flesh of our sauiour Iesu Christ which flesh suffered for our sinnes which flesh the father by his benignitie hath stirred vp These be Ignatius wordes which I haue not throughly englished bicause the word Eucharistia can not be well englished being a word of mistery and signifieng as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacrament heauenly and earthly visible and inuisible But in that Ignatius openeth his fayth thus he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our sauiour Christ that suffered for vs he declareth the sence of Christes wordes This is my body not to be figuratiue onely but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there giuen and therfore Ignatius sayth Eucharistia is the flesh of our sauior Christ the same that suffered and the same that rose agayne Which wordes of Ignatius so pithely open the matter as they declare therwith the fayth also of Theodoret that doth alleage him so as if the author would make so absolute a worke as to peruse all the fathers sayinges he should not thus leape ouer Ignatius nor Irene neither as I haue before declared But this is a color of rethorik called Reiection of that is hard to answer and is here a prety shift or slaight wherby thou reader mayst consider how this matter is handled Caunterbury IT shall not nede to make any further answer to you here as cōcerning Ireneus but onely to note one thing that if any place of Ireneus had serued for your purpose you would
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
any reall and corporall conuersion of bread and wine vnto Christs body and bloud nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same but he speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wine and of a spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptisme as the same Eusebius playnly there declareth as he is in the Lordes table Which is not carnally and corporally but by fayth and spiritually But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstatiation Winchester This author sayth that Emissen is shortly aunswered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he sayth as Hylary was aunswered and Cyrill But els there can no short or long aunswere confound the true playne testimony of Emissen for the common true faith of the church in the Sacrament Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saying thus This is my bodye And aâ—ayne repeating the same sanctificatioÌ„ This is my bloud Wherfore as at the beck of him commauÌ„ding the heightes of heauens the depenes of the floudes and largenes of landes were founded of nothing by like power in spirituall Sacraments where vertue commaundeth the effect of the trueth serueth These bee Emissenes wordes declaring his fayth playnely of the Sacrament in such termes as can not be wrested or writhed who speaketh of a turning conuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body bloud he sayth not into the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud whereby he should meane a only sacramental conuersion as this author would haue it but he sayth into the substance of Christs body bloud to be in the sacrameÌ„t For the words substance and truth be of one strength shew a difference froÌ„ a figure wherein the truth is not in dede preseÌ„t but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle this Emissen represseth mans carnall reason and socoureth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of this world which were brought forth out of tyme by Emissene if Christes bodye were not in substaunce present as Emissenes wordes bee but in figure onely as this author teacheth And where this authour coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in eyther he putteth himselfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these misteries be both great and mans regeneration in baptisme is also a mistery and the secret worke of God and hath a great meruayle in that effect yet it differeth from the mistery of the sacrament touching the maner of Christes presence and the working of the effect also For in baptisme our vnion with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole Trinitie there working as author in whose name the sacrament is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body indede but in hope onely that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in baptisme bene buried with christ so we be assured to be partakers of his resurection And so in this sacrament we be vnite to Christes manhod by this deuinite But in the sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie which mistical vnion representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorification wherin body and soule shall in the generall resurection by a maruailous regeneration of the body be made both spirituall the speciall pledge wherof we receaue in this sacrament and therfore it is the sacrament as Hilary sayth of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious then the body and the nature of the godhead in Christ more excellent then the nature of man in him glorified and in baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passion and bloud Christes godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respectes the excelency of baptisme is great yet bicause the mistery of the sacrameÌ„t of the alter where Christ is present both man and God in the effectuall vnitie that is wrought betwene our bodies our soules and Christes in the vse of this sacrament signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurection which shall be the end and consumatioÌ„ of all our felicitie This sacrament of perfect vnitie is the mistery of our perfect estate when body and soule shal be all spirituall and hath so a degre of excelencie for the dignitie that is estemed in euery end and perfection wherfore the word spirituall is a necessary word in this sacrament to call it a spirituall foode as it is indede for it is to worke in our bodyes a spirituall effect not onely in our soules and Christes body and flesh is a spirituall body and flesh and yet a true body and very flesh And it is present in this sacrament after a spirituall maner graunted and taught of all true teachers which we should receaue also spiritually which is by hauing Christ before spiritually in vs to receaue it so worthely Wherfore like as in the inuisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnall but all spirituall taking the word carnall as it signifieth grossely in mans carnall iudgement So where the receiuers of that foode bring carnall lustes or desires carnall fansies or imaginations with them they receaue the same preciens foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condemnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christian fayth of the very presence of Christes body And this sufficeth to wipe out that this Author hath spoken of Emissen agaynst the truth Caunterbury I Haue so playnly aunswered vnto Emissene in my former booke partly in this place and partely in the second parte of my booke that he that readeth ouer those two places shall see most clearly that you haue speÌ„t a greate many of wordes here in vayne and nede no further answer at all And I had then such a care what I sayd that I sayd nothing but according to Emissenus owne mind and which I proued by his owne wordes But if you finde but one word that in speach soundeth to your purpose you sticke to that word tooth and nayle caring nothing what the authors meaning is And here is one great token of sleight and vntruth to be noted in you that you write diligently euery word so long as they seme to make with you And when you come to the very place
where Emissene declareth the meaning of his wordes there you leaue all the rest out of your booke which can not be without a great vntruth and fraud to deceaue the simple reader For when you haue recited these wordes of Emissene that the inuisible priest by the secret power with his word tourneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud and so further as serueth to your affection when you come euen to the very place where Emissen declareth these words there you leaue and cut of your writing But because the reader may know what you haue cut of and thereby know Emissens meaning I shall here rehearse Emisenes words which you haue left out If thou wilt know sayth Emissene how it ought not to seeme to thee a thing new and impossible that earthly and incorruptible things be tourned into the substance of Christ looke vpō thy self which art made new in baptisme When thou wast far from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast dead yet sodenly thou beganst an other new life in Christ and wast made new by holesome misteries and wast tourned into the bodye of the church not by seing but by beleuing of the child of damnatiō by a secret purenes thou wast made the sonne of God Thou visibly didst remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any encrease of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was mā made the sonne of Christ and Christ formed in the mind of man Therefore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receiue a new dignity not feling any chaunge in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not seene with thine eyes but beleued in thy minde so likewise when thou doost goe vp to the reuerend aulter to feed vpon the spirituall meat in thy fayth looke vpon the body and blud of him that is thy God honour hym touch him with thy minde take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man These be Emissens own wordes Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleadged For where you bring in these wordes that Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud straightwaies in these wordes by me now rehearsed he sheweth what maner of turning that is after what maner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ euē so saith he as it is in baptisme wherin is no Transubstantiation So that I gather his meaning of his own playne words and you gather his meaning of your own imagination deuisyng such phantasticall things as neither Emissen sayth nor yet be catholike And this word truth you haue put vnto the wordes of Emissen of your own head which is no true dealing For so you may proue what you lift if you may adde to the authors what words you please And yet if Emissē had vsed both the wordes substaunce and trueth what should that helpe you For Christ is in substaunce and truth present in baptisme aswell as he is in the Lords supper and yet is he not there carnally corporally and naturally I will passe ouer here to aggrauate that matter how vntruely you adde to my wordes this word onely in an hundred places where I say not so what true and sinsere dealing this is let all men iudge Now as concerning my coupling togither of the ii sacraments of baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ Emissene himself coupleth thē both together in this place sayth that the one is like the other without putting any difference euen as I truely recited him So that there appereth neither malice nor ignorāce in me but in you adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not to deceaue the simple reader and adding such your own inuentions as be neither true nor catholick appereth much shift and craft ioyned with vntruth and infidelity For what christian man would say as you do that Christ is not inded which you call really in baptisme Or that we be not regenerated both body and soule as well in baptisme as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ Or that in baptisme we be not vnited to Christes diuinity by his manhood Or that baptisme represēteth not to vs the high state of our glorification and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurrection In which thinges you make difference betweene baptisme and the sacrament as you call it of the aultare Or what man that were learned in gods word would affirme that in the general resurrection our bodies and soules shal be all spirituall I know that S. Paule sayth that in the resurrection our bodies shal be spirituall meaning in the respect of such vilenes filthines sinne and corruption as we be subiect vnto in this miserable world Yet he sayth not that our bodies shal be all spirituall For not withstanding such spiritualnes as S. Paule speaketh of we shall haue all such substantiall partes and members as pertaine to a very naturall mans body So that in this part our bodyes shall be carnall corporall reall and naturall bodies lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect mens bodies And in the respect is the body of Christ also carnall and not spirituall And yet we bring none other carnall imaginations of Christes body nor meane none other but that Christes body is carnall in this respect that it hath the same flesh and naturall substaunce which was borne of the virgine Mary and wherin he suffered and rose agayne and now sitteth at the right hand of his father in glory and that the same his naturall body now glorified hath all the naturall partes of a mans body in order proportion place distinct as our bodies shal be in these respects carnall after our resurrection Which maner of carnalnes and diuersitie of partes and members if you take away now from Christ in heauen from vs after our resurrectiō you make Christ now to haue no true mās body but a phantasticall body as Martion Ualentine did as concerning our bodies you run into the error of Origen which phansied imagined that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual that women should be turned into men and bodies into soules And yet it is to be noted by the way that in your aunswere here to Emissene you make spiriturally and a spirituall manner all one Now followeth myne aunswere to S. Ambrose in this wise And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose which is alwayes in their mouthes Before the consecration sayth he as
learne vs And yet these sayd wordes limit not the mistery of the supper for as much as that mistery of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud extendeth further then the supper and continueth so long as we be liuely membres of Christes body For none feede nor be nourished by him but that be liuely members of his body and so long and no longer feede they of him then they be his true membres and receaue life from him For feeding of him is to receaue life But this is not that inuisible sacrament which you say S. Augustin speaketh of in sermone Domini in monte the iij booke For he calleth there the dayly bread which we continually pray for eyther corporall bread and meate which is our dayly sustenaunce for the body or els the visible sacrament of bread and wine or the inuisible sacrament of gods word and cōmaundementes of the which sacramentes gods word is dayly heard and the other is dayly seene And if by the inuisible sacrament of goddes word S. Augustine ment our norishment by Christes flesh and bloud than be we nourished with them as well by gods word as by the sacrament of the lordes supper But yet who so euer tolde you that S. Augustine wrote this in the iij. booke de sermone Domini in monte trust him not much hereafter for he dyd vtterly deceaue you For S. Augustine wrote no more but .ij. bookes de sermone Domine in monte and if you can make iij. of ij as you do here and one of iiij as you dyd before in the substances of Christ you be a meruailouse auditour and then had all men neede to beware of your accomptes least you deceaue them And you cannot lay the fault here in the Printer for I haue seen it written so both by your own hand and by the hand of your secretary Now when you haue wrangled in this matter as much as you can at length you confesse the truth that who so feedeth vpon Christ spiritually must needes be a good man for only good men be membres of Christes misticall body which spirituall eating is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessarelye to be good And therfore it must be and is a certaine conclusion that onely good menne doe eate and drinke the bodye and bloude of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to lyfe This you write in conclusion and this is the very doctrine that I teache and in the same tearmes marry I adde therto that the eating of Christes body is a spirituall eating and the drinking of his bloud is a spirituall drinkyng and therfore no euill man can eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud as this my forth booke teacheth and is necessary to be writen For although neither good nor euell men eate Christes body in the sacrament vnder the visible signes in the which he is not but sacramentally yet the good feede of him spiritually being inhabiting spiritually within them although corporally he be absent and in heauen but the euell men neither feede vpon him corporally nor spiritually from whom he is both the sayd wayes absent although corporally they eate and drinke with theyr mouthes the sacramentes of his body and bloud Now where you note here three manner of eatinges and yet but two manner of eatinges of Christ this your noting is very true if it be truly vnderstand For there be in dede three maner of eatinges one spirituall onely an other spiritual and sacramentall both together the third sacramentall only and yet Christ him selfe is eaten but in the first two manner of waies as you truely teache And for to set out this distinctiō somewhat more playnly that playne menne may vnderstand it it may thus be tearmed That there is a spirituall eating only when Christ by a true fayth is eaten without the sacrament Also there is an other eating both spirituall and sacramental when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth and Christ him selfe is eaten with a true fayth The third eating is sacramentall only when the sacrament is eaten and not Christ himselfe So that in the fyrst is Christ eaten without the sacrament in the seconde he is eaten with the sacrament and in the thirde the sacrament is eaten without him and therfore it is called sacramentall eating onely bycause onely the sacramente is eaten and not Christ himselfe After the two first maner of wayes godly men do eate who feede and liue by Christ the thirde manner of wayes the wicked do eate and therfore as S. Augustine sayth they neither eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud although euery day they eat the sacrament therof to the condemnation of theyr presumption And for this cause also S. Paule sayth not He that eateth Christes body and drinketh his bloud vnworthely shall haue condemnation and be gilty of the Lordes body but he sayth he that eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely shal be giltie of the Lordes body and eateth and drinketh his owne damnation bycause he estemeth not the Lordes body And here you committe two fowle faultes One is that you declare S. Paule to speake of the body and bloud of Christ when he spake of the bread and wine The other fault is that you adde to S. Paules wordes this word there and so buylde your worke vpon a foundation made by your owne selfe And where you say that if my doctrine be true neyther good men nor euill eate but the sacramentall bread it can be none other but very frowardnes and mere wilfulnes that you will not vnderstand that thinge which I haue spoken so playnly repeted so many tymes For I say that good men eat the Lordes body spiritually to theyr eternall nourishment where as euyl men eat but the bread carnally to their eternall punishment And as you note of S. Augustine that baptisme is very well called health and the sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in which God gyueth health and lyfe if we worthely vse them so is the sacramentall bread very well called Christes body and the wine his bloud as in the ministration wherof Christ geueth vs his flesh and bloude if we worthely receaue them And where you teach how the workes of God in them selues be alway true and vniforme in all men without diuersitie in good and euill in worthy and vnworthy you bring in this misticall matter here clearly without purpose or reason farre passyng the capacitie of simple readers onely to blinde their eyes withall By which kynde of teaching it is all one worke of God to saue and to damne to kill and to gyue lyfe to hate and to loue to elect and to reiect and to be short by this kinde of doctrine God and all his workes be one without diuersite eyther of one worke from an other or of his workes from his substaunce And by this meanes it is all one worke of God in baptisme and in the Lordes supper
all his misticall conuersation here in his flesh and his doctrine consisting of his whole life pertayning both to his humanitie and diuinitie wherby the soule is nourished and brought to the contemplation of thinges eternall Thus teacheth Basilius how we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud which pertayneth only to the true and faythfull members of Christ. S. Hierom also sayth All that love pleasure more then God eate not the flesh of Iesu nor drincke his bloud Of the which himselfe sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe And in an other place S. Hierom sayth that heritikes do not eate and drincke the body and bloud of the Lord. And more ouer he sayth that heretiks eat not the flesh of Iesu whose flesh is the meat of faythfull men Thus agreeth S. Hierom with the other before rehersed that heretikes and such as follow worldly pleasures eate not Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud bicause that Christ sayd He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting life And S. Ambrose sayth that Iesus is the bread which is the meat of sainctes and that he that taketh this bread dyeth not a sinners death For this bread is the remission of sinnes And in other booke to him intituled he writeth thus This bread of life which came downe from heauen doth minister euerlasting life and who soeuer eateth this bread shall not dye for euer and is the body of Christ. And yet in an other booke set forth in his name he sayth on this wise He that did eate Manne dyed but he that eateth this body shall haue remission of his sinnes and shall not dye for euer And agayne he sayth As often as thou drinckest thou hast remission of thy sinnes These sentences of S. Ambrose be so playne in this matter that there nedeth no more but onely the rehersall of them But S. Augustine in many places playnly discussing this matter sayth He that agreeth not with Christ doth neither eate his body nor drinke his bloud although to the condemnation of his presumption he receaue euery day the sacramēt of so hygh a matter And moreouer S. Augustine most playnly resolueth this matter in his booke De ciuitate Dei disputing agaynst two kindes of heretikes Wherof the one sayd that as many as were Christned and receaued the sacramēt of Christes body and bloud should be saued how so euer they liued or beleeued bycause that Christ sayd This is the bread that came from heauen that who so euer shall eate therof shall not dye I am the bread of lyfe which came from heauen who so euer shall eate of this bread shall liue for euer Therfore sayd these heretikes all such men must nedes be deliuered from eternall death and at length be brought to eternall life The other sayd that heretikes and scismatikes myght eate the sacrament of Christes body but not his very body bycause they be no members of his body And therfore they promised not euerlasting life to all that receaued Christes baptisme and the sacrament of his body but to all such as professed a true fayth although they liued neuer so vngodly For such sayd they do eate the body of Christ not onely in a sacrament but also in deede bycause they be members of Christes body But S. Augustine answering to both these heresies sayth That neither heretikes nor such as professe a true fayth in theyr mouthes and in theyr liuing shew the contrary haue eyther a true fayth which worketh by charitie and doth none euil or are to be counted among the members of Christ. For they can not be both members of Christ and members of the deuill Therfore sayth he it may not be sayd that any of them eate the body of Christ. For when Christ sayth he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him He sheweth what it is not sacramentally but indeed to eate his body and drincke his bloud which is when a man dwelleth so in Christ that Christ dwelleth in him For Christ spake those wordes as if he should say He that dwelleth not in me and in whom I dwell not let him not say or thincke that he eateth my body or drincketh my bloud These be the playne wordes of S. Augustine that such as liue vngodly although they may seme to eate Christes body bicause they eate the sacrament of his body yet in deed they neyther be members of his body nor do eate his body Also vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth that he that doth not eate his flesh and drincke his bloud hath not in him euerlasting lyfe And he that eateth his flesh and drincketh his bloud hath euerlasting lyfe But it is not so in those meates which we take to sustayne our bodyes For although without them we cannot liue yet it is not necessary that who so euer receaueth them shall liue for they may dye by age sicknes or other chaunces But in this meat and drincke of the body and bloud of our Lord it is otherwise For both they that eate and drincke them not haue not euerlasting lyfe And contrariwyse who so euer eate and drincke them haue euerlasting life Note and ponder well these wordes of S. Augustine that the bread and wine and other meates drinckes which nourish the body a man may eate and neuerthelesse dye but the very body and bloud of Christ no man eateth but that hath euerlasting life So that wicked men can not eate nor drincke them for then they must nedes haue by them euerlasting life And in the same place S. Augustine sayth further The sacramēt of the vnitie of Christes body bloud is takē in the Lordes table of some men to lyfe of some mē to death but the thing it selfe wherof it is a sacramēt is takē of all men to lyfe of no man to death And more ouer he sayth This is to eate that meate and drincke that drincke to dwell in Christ and to haue Christ dwelling in him And for that cause he that dwelleth not in Christ in whome Christ dwelleth not without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh nor drincketh his bloud although carnally and visibly with his teeth he byte the Sacrament of his body and bloud Thus writeth S. Augustine in the xxvj homely of S. Iohn And in the next homely following he sayth thus This day our sermon is of the body of the Lord which he sayd he would geue to eat for eternall life And he declared the maner of his gift and distribution how he would geue his flesh to eate saying He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him This therfore is a token or knowledge that a man hath eaten and drunken that is to say if he dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in him If he cleaue so to Christ that he is not seuered from him This therfore Christ
neuer be able for your part to bring any scripture that serueth for your purpose except you may be suffered to adde therto such wordes as you please Than come you to my questions wherin I write thus And now for corroboration of Cyrils saying I would thus reason with the Papistes and demaund of them Whan an vnrepentant sinner receaueth the sacrament whether he haue Christes body within him or no If they say no than haue I my purpose that euell men although they receaue the sacrament of Christes body yet receaue they not his very body If they say yea Than I would aske them further Whether they haue Christes spirite within them or no If they say nay than do they separate Christes body from his spirite and his humanitie from his diuinitie and be condemned by the Scripture as very Antichristes that diuide Christ. And if they say yea that a wicked man hath Christes spirit in him then the scripture also condemneth them saying that as he which hath not the spirite of Christ is none of his so he that hath Christ in him lyueth bycause he is iustified And if his spirite that raysed Iesus from death dwell in you he that raysed Iesus from death shall geue life to your mortall bodies for his spirites sake which dwelleth in you Thus on euery side the scripture condemneth the aduersaries of gods word And this wickednes of the Papistes is to be wondred at that they affirme Christes flesh bloud soule holy spirite and his deitie to be in a man that is subiect to sinne and a lim of the deuill They be wonderful iuglers and coniurers that with certayne wordes can make God and the diuell to dwell together in one man and make him both the temple of God and the temple of the Deuill It appeareth that they be so blind that they cānot see the light from darknes Beliall from Christ nor the table of the Lord from the table of diuels Thus is cōfuted this third intolerable error heresie of the Papists That they which be the limmes of the dyuell do eate the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud manifestly and directly contrary to the wordes of Christ him selfe who sayth Who soeuer eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe Winchester But to encounter directly with this author where he opposeth by interogation and would be answered whether an vnrepentant sinner that receaueth the sacrament hath Christes body within him or no. Marke reader this question which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament not as him selfe teacheth but as the true teaching is although he meane otherwise for els how could an vnrepentant sinner receaue Christes body but onely in the sacrament vnworthely and how could he receaue it vnworthely and it were not there but to answer to this question I answer no for it foloweth not he receaued him ergo he hath him in him for the vessel being not meet he departed from him because he was a sinner in whom he dwelleth not And where this author now become a questionist maketh two questions of Christes body and his spirite as though Christes body myght be deuided from his spirite he supposeth other to be as ignoraunt as him selfe For the learned man will aunswere that an euell man by force of Gods ordinance in the substance of the sacrament receaued in deed Christes very body there present whole Christ God and man but he taried not nor dwelled not nor fructified not in him nor Christes spirite entered not into that mannes soule bycause of the malice and vnworthines of him that receaued For Christ will not dwell with Beliall nor abide with sinners And what hath this author won now by his forked question wherin he seemeth to glory as though he had imbrased an absurditie that he hunted for wherin he sheweth onely his ignoraunce who putteth no difference betwene the entring of Christ into an euell man by Gods ordinance in the sacrament and the dwelling of Christes spirite in an euell man which by scripture can not be ne is by any catholike man affirmed For S. Paule sayth In him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation And yet S. Paules wordes playnly import that those dyd eate the very body of Christ which dyd eate vnworthely and therfore were gilty of the body and bloud of Christ. Now reader consider what is before written and thou shalt easely see what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the xcvii leafe as though the teaching were that the same man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell with other termes wherewith it liketh this author to refresh himselfe and fayneth an aduersary such as he would haue but hath none for no catholike man teacheth so nor it is not all one to receaue Christ to haue Christ dwelling in him And a figure therof was in Christes conuersation vppon earth who tarieth not with all that receaued him in outward apparaunce and there is noted a difference that some beleued in Christ and yet Christ committed not him selfe to them And the gospell prayseth them that heare the word of God and keep it signifiing many to haue the word of god and not to keep it as they that receaue Christ by his ordinaunce in the sacrament and yet bycause they receaue him not according to the entent of his ordinance worthely they are so much the worse therby through theyr owne malice And therfore to conclude this place with the author who soeuer eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud hath euerlasting lyfe with S. Paules exposition if he doth it worthely or els by the same S. Paule he hath condemnation Caunterbury HEre the reader shall euidently see your accustomed maner that whē you be destitute of answer and haue none other shyft then fall you to scoffing and scolding out the matter as Sophisters sometymes do at theyr problemes But as ignorant as I am you shall not so escape me First you byd the reader marke that I talke of the sacrament not as I teach my selfe But I would haue the reader here marke that you report my wordes as you list your selfe not as I speake them For you report my question as I should say that an vnrepentant sinner should receaue Christes body where as I speake of the receauing of the sacrament of the body and not of the very body it selfe Moreouer I make my question of the being of Christes body in an vnpenitent sinner and you turne being into abiding because being biteth you so sore Fyrst you confes that an vnrepentaunt sinner receauing the sacrament hath not Christes body within him and then may I say that he eateth not Christes body except he eate it without him And although it followeth not he receaued Christ eego he hath him in him yet it followeth necessarily he receaueth him ergo he hath him within him for the tyme of the receipt As a bottomleffe vessell although it keepe no licour
in heauen after which diuision likewise we receaue not in the sacrament Christes flesh that was crucified being so a visible and mortall flesh But Christes flesh glorified incorruptible and impassible a Godly and spirituall flesh And so that is but one in substance and alwayes so that same one is neuerthelesse for the alteration in the maner of the being of it deuided and so called not the same wherin S. Hierom and S. Augustine vsed both one maner of speaking and S. Hierom resembling the diuision that he reherseth of Christes flesh to the diuision of our flesh in the resurrection doth more playnly open how the same may be called not the same bicause we beleue certaynly the resurrection of the same flesh we walke in and yet it shall be by the garmēt of incorruptibility not the same in quality and so be verefied the scriptures that flesh shall not possesse heauen and I shal see God in my flesh and here I will note to the reader by the way S. Hierome writeth this distinction of Christes flesh as a matter agreed on and then in catholique doctrine receaued not of his inuention but in the catholique fayth as a principle established which declareth the belyfe to haue bene of that very godly and spiritual flesh geuen really in the sacrament for els to eate onely in fayth is specially to remember Christes flesh as it was visibly crucified wherin was accomplished the oblation for our sinne and S. Paule willeth vs in the supper to shew forth and professe the death of Christ for so Christ would haue his death continually expressed till his coming and if S. Hierome with other should haue ment of the eating of Christ as he sitteth in heauen reigning this destinction of Christes flesh were an idle matter and out of purpose to compare the distinction in it to be like distinction of oure flesh to enter into heauen and not to enter into heauen the same and not the same And thus I say that this place of S. Hierome sheweth so euedently both his and S. Augustines fayth that wrot at the same tyme as there cannot be desired a more euident matter Caunterbury TO what purpose you should bring in here this place of S. Hierome making much agaynst you and nothing for you I cannot conceaue For he declareth no more in this place but that as all men in this world haue passible bodyes subiect to much filthynes corruption and death and yet after our resurrection we shal be deliuered from corruption vilenes weakenes and death and be made incorruptible glorious mighty and spirituall so Christes body in earth was subiect vnto our infirmities his flesh being crucified and his bloud being shed with a spere which now as you truly say is glorified impassible incorruptible and a spirituall body but yet not so spirituall that his humanitie is turned into his diuinity and his body into his soule as some heretikes phantasy nor that the diuersity of his members be taken away and so left without armes and legges head and feete eyes and eares and turned into the forme and fashion of a bowle as the Papistes imagine The sunne and the mone the fier and the ayre be bodyes but no mans bodyes bycause they lacke hart and lungues head and feete flesh and bloud vaynes and sinewes to knit them togither When Christ was transfigured his face shyned like the sunne and with his mouth he spake to Moyses Helias And after his resurrection we read of his flesh and bones his handes and feete his side and woundes visible and palpable and with mouth tongue and teeth he did eate and speake and so like a man he was in all proportions and members of man that Mary Magdalene could not discerne him from a gardiner And take away flesh and skinne sinewes and bones bloud and vaynes and then remayneth no mans body For take away distinction and diuersitie of partes and members how shall Peter be Peter and Paule be Paule How shall a man be a man and a woman a woman And how shall we see with our eyes and heare with our eares grope with our handes and go with our feete For eyther we shal do no such thinges at all or see with euery part of our bodies and likewise heare speake and go if there be no diuersity of members This I haue spoken for this purpose to declare that S. Hierome speaking of Christes diuine and spirituall flesh excludeth not therby any corporall member that pertayneth to the substance of a mans naturall body but that now being glorified it is the same in all partes that it was before And that same flesh being fyrst borne mortall of the virgine Mary and now being glorifyed and immortall as well the holy fathers did eate before he was borne and his apostles and disciples whiles he liued with vs here in earth as we doe now when he is glorified But what auayleth all this to your purpose except you could proue that to a spirituall eating is required a corporall presence And where you say that S. Hierome and S. Augustine vse both one maner of speaking that is not true For S. Hierom speaketh of the diuersity of the body of Christ and S. Augustine of the diuersity of eating therof And yet here is to be noted by the way that you say we receaue not in the sacramēt Christes flesh that was crucified which your wordes seme to agree euill with Christes wordes who the night before he was crucified declared to his desciples that he gaue them the same body that should suffer death for them And the Apostles receaued the body of Christ yet passible and mortall which the next day was crucified and if we receaue not in the sacrament the body that was crucified then receaue we not the same body that the Apostles did And here in your idle talke you draw by force S. Hieroms wordes to the sacrament when S. Hierom speaketh not one word of the sacramēt in that place let the reader iudge And here for the conclusion of the matter you fantasy and imagine such nouelties and wrape them vp in such darke speaches that we had neede to haue Ioseph or Daniell to expound◠our dreames But to make a cleare answere to your darke reason The body of Christ is glorified and reigneth in heauen and yet we remember with thankfull myndes that the same was crucified and emptied of bloud for our redemption and by fayth to chaw and digest this in our 〈◊〉 is to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud But your brayne rolleth so in fantasies that you wot not where to get out and one of your sayinges impugneth an other For first you say that we receaue not in the sacrament the flesh that was crucified and now you say we receaue him not as he sitteth in heauen and is glorified and so must you nedes graunt that we receaue him not at all Winchester But to returne to S. Augustine touching adoration
doctrina Christiana where he geueth a rule of recapitulation as he calleth it when that is told after that was done afore and therfore we may not argue so firmely vpon the order of the tellyng in the speach S. Augustine bringeth an example that by order of tellyng Adam was in Paradise or any trée was brought forth for féedyng with diuers other wherewith I will not encomber the Reader The Euangelist rehearseth what Christ sayd and did simply and truely whiche story we must so place in vnderstandyng as we trifle not with the mysterie at staying and stoppyng of letters and sillables And therfore though the word take eate go before the wordes This is my body we may not argue that they tooke it and eate it afore Christ had told them what he gaue them all these often rehearsalles of bread with he tooke bread and breake bread and blessed bread and if ye will adde held bread all this induce no consequence that he therfore gaue bread For hee gaue that he had consecrate and gaue that he made of bread If Christ when he was tempted to make stones bread had taken the stones and blessed them and deliuered them saying This is bread had he than deliuered stones or rather that hee made of stones bread Such maner of reasonyng vseth Peter Martyr as this author doth whose folie I may well say he saw not to eschew it but as appeareth rather to follow it And yet not content to vse this fonde reasonyng this author calleth Papistes to witnes that they might laugh at it bicause the Euangelist telleth the story so as Christ sayd drinke and then told after what it was this author phantasieth that the Apostles should be so hasty to thinke ere Christ had told them what he gaue which and they had I thinke hee would haue stayed the cup with his hand or byd them tary whiles he had told them more I will no further trauaile with this reasoning which is pitie to heare in such a matter of grauitie of such consequence as it is both in body and soule We may not trifle with Christes wordes after this sort When S. Paule sayth we be partakers of one bread hee speaketh not of materiall bread but of Christes body our heauenly bread which to all is one and can not be consumed but able to féede all the world and if this author gyueth credite to Theodoreths whom he calleth an holyman then shall he neuer finde the Sacrament called bread after the sanctification but the bread of lyfe the like whereof should be in an Epistle of Chrisostome as Peter Martyr alledgeth not yet printed by whose authoritie if they haue any as in their place this author maketh much of them all these argumentes be all trifles for all the namyng of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other must be vnderstanded before the sanctification and not after And if thou Reader lookest after vpon Theodoretus that Epistle thou shalt finde true that I say whereby all this questionyng with the Papistes is onely a calying for this authors pleasure agaynst his owne authors and all learnyng Caunterbury WHere you say that the simplicitie of fayth in a Christen mans brest doth not so precisely marke and stay at the syllables of Christes wordes as I pretende here may the world see what simplicitie is in the Papistes For I do nothyng els but rehearse what the Papistes say that vntill these wordes be fully ended Hoc est Corpus meum there is bread and after those wordes be fully ended there is no more bread but onely Christ himselfe And the same simplicitie do you declare by and by to be in your selfe when you say that Gods worke is in one instance howsoeuer speach require in vs a successiue vtteraunce Then if God chaunge the bread into Christes body in one instaunce tell me I pray you in which instaunce For seyng that our promiticiation is by succession of tyme I thinke you will not say that the worke of God is done before the last syllable be pronounced for then Christes body should be there before the wordes of Cōsecration were fully finished nor I thinke you will not deny but whensoeuer the wordes of consecration be fully pronounced then is Christes body there Wherfore by your owne iudgemēt you vary not in this matter frō the other Papistes but must needes say that Gods secrete worke herein is measured after the prolation of our syllables and so it is none other person that teacheth to playe with syllables in this high mysterie but the Papistes onely And your selfe doe teach in this same place that it is a good lesson to say that in the instaunce of the last syllable Gods worke is to be accompted wrought And I finde it not in blynd Gloses but in the chief authors of the Papistes that the conuersion is not wrought before the whole sentence is finished Hoc est corpus meum And it is no direct aunswere but a meere cauillation and illusion to bryng in here the creation of the world when God sayd fiat lux to be a like matter vnto transubstantiation For Gods speach requireth no successiō of tyme as the speach of the Priest doth Therfore this is but a playeng to shew your subtill wit and craftie Rhetorike whereby your spirite may be iudged whether you go about clearely to set forth the truth or by darke colours and vnlike examples to hide and couer it And where you question with me going about by a subtill Sophisticall argumēt to proue that Christ sayd This is no bread I shall make an other argument of the same forme which shall shew how strong your argument is S. Iohn is not the sone of the virgin Mary Christ sayd to her This is thy sonne Ergo he sayd This is not Iohn The first part I am sure you will affirme in effect The second part is Christes wordes and as the second part in my argument is a figuratiue speach so is it in yours so that in euery point the argumentes be like And therfore as myne argument is nought so is yours also and all that you bring in to folow therof And if I lyst to dalye as you do in such a matter I could conclude directly agaynst you that in the Sacrament is not Christes body thus Christes body is not materiall bread S. Paule sayd it is bread Ergo he sayd it is not Christes body The first part you affirme the secōd part S. Paule affirmeth And therfore to auoyde this cōclusion the onely way is to say that Christes speach was a figuratiue speach when he sayd This is my body For els by the Catholicke doctrine S. Paule saying that it is bread saith in effect it is not the body of Christ. Thus may you see what auayleth your Sophistication when I am constrained Sophisticari cum Sophista vt ars deludatur arte And of like effect is your argument of yea and nay when you say euery
one vniforme consent agreed that accidences had none other being or remayning but in their substances And yet if the fayth of our religion taught vs the contrary then reason must yelde to fayth But your doctrine of Transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the playne wordes of scripture as it is agaynst the order of naturall reason And where you say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach that no earthly thing remayneth but that the visible forme of bread and wine remayneth the same in greatnes in thicknes in weight in sauour in tast in property also to corrupt putrify and nourish as it did before tell playnly I pray you what thing it is which you call the visible fourme of bread and wine whether it be an accidence or a substance and if it be an accidence shew whether it be a quantity or quality or what other accidence it is that all men may vnderstand what thing it is which as you say is the same in greatnes thicknes weight sauour and other properties And where you alleadge Emissen for the conuersion of the substaunce of bread and wine this conuersion as Emissene sayth and as I haue declared before is like to our conuersion in baptisme where outwardly is no alteration of substance for no sacramentall alteration maketh alteration of the substance but the meruaylous and secret alteration is inwardly in our soules And as the water in baptisme is not changed but sacramentally that is to say made a sacrament of spirituall regeneration which before was none so in the lordes supper neyther the substance nor accidences of bread and wine be changed but sacramentally but the alteration is inwardly in the soules of them that spiritually be refreshed and nourished with Christes flesh and bloud And this our fayth teacheth vs and naturall reason doth good seruice to fayth herein agaynst your imagined Transubstantiation So that you haue not gotten reasons good wil nor consent to your vayne doctrine of Transubstantiation although you had proued your reall presence Which hitherto you haue not don but haue taken greate payne to shoote away all your boltes in vayne missing quite and cleane both the pricke and the whole butte And yet in the end you take a good ready way for your owne aduantage like vnto a man that had shot all his shaftes cleane wide from the butte and yet would beare all men in hand that he had hitte the pricke And when other should go about the measure how farre his shaftes were wide from the butte he would take vp the matter himselfe and cōmaund them to leaue measuring and beleue his owne saying that his arrowes stacke all fast in the marke and that this were the nearest way to finish the contention Euen so do you in this matter willing all men to leaue searching of how in the mistery of Christes presence in the sacrament saying that to be the nearest way And it were a much nerer way for you in dede if all men would leaue searching of how and without ground or reason beleue as well your Transubstātiation as the corporall presence of Christes body onely bicause you do say it is so But S. Peter requireth euery christen man to be ready to render a reason of his fayth to euery one that asketh and S. Paule requireth in a christen Bishop that he should be able to exhorte by holsome doctrine and to conuince the gaynsayers and not to require other men to giue fayth vnto him without asking of how or why only because he sayth so himselfe The olde catholique Authors tell wherfore Christ called bread his body and how christen people fed of his body And the blessed virgine Mary asked how she should conceaue a child neuer hauing company with man And you tell yourselfe how Christ is in heauen how in vs and how in the sacrament declaring all to be but after a spirituall maner And what maner of men be you that we may not aske you how to render a reason of your Transubstantiation being a matter by you onely deuised clearly without Gods word But at length when you haue swette well fauoredly in answering to myne arguments of naturall reason and naturall operation you be fayne to confesse a great part to be true and to turne altogether into miracles and that into such kind of miracles as the old catholike writers neuer knowledged nor touched in none of their workes For besides the chief miracle which you say is in the conuertiō of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes body and of the wine into his bloud there be other miracles when the formes of wine tourue into viniger and when bread mouldeth or a man doth vomite it or the mouse eateth it or the fire burneth it or wormes breed in it and in all like chaunces God still worketh miracles yea euen in poysoning with the consecrated wine And the multitude of such miracles as you do iudge pertayneth to the excellency of the Sacrament where as among the schoole authors this is a common receaued proposition non esse ponenda miracula sine necessitate And where you say that I make my principall foundation vpon the arguments of the scholasticall writers although myne arguments deduced out of the scholasticall authors be vnto you insoluble and therfore you passe them ouer vnanswered yet I make no foundation at all vpon them but my very foundation is onely vpon Gods word which foundation is so sure that it will neuer fayle And myne arguments in this place I bring in onely to this end to shew how farre your imagined Transubstantiation is not onely from Gods word but also from the order and precepts of nature and how many and portentuous absurdities you fall into by meanes of the same Which it semeth you do confesse by holding your peace without making answere therto But now lette vs consider what is next in my booke The Papisticall doctrine is also agaynst all our outward senses called our fiue wits For our eyes say they see there bread and wine our noses smell bread and wine our mouthes tast and our handes fele bread and wine And although the articles of our fayth be aboue all our outward senses so that we beleue thinges which we can neyther see feele heare smell nor tast yet they be not contrary to our senses at the least so contrary that in such thinges which we from tyme to tyme do see smell fele heare and tast we shall not trust our fenses but beleue cleane contray Christ neuer made no such article of our fayth Our fayth teacheth vs to beleue thinges that we see not but it doth not bid vs that we shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eyes and heare with our eares and grope with our handes For although our senses can not reach so farre as our fayth doth yet so farre as the compasse of our sences doth vsually reach our fayth is not contrary to the same but
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
Now the sacrifice of the church coÌ„sisteth of two thinges of the sacrament and of the thing thereby signified that is to say the body of Christ. Therfore there is both the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament which is Christes body What can be deuised to be spoken more playnly agaynst the error of the Papistes which say that no bread nor wine remayneth in the sacrament For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures that is to say of his manhod and of his godhead and therfore both those natures remayne in Christ euen so sayth S. Augustine the sacrament consisteth of two natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures must nedes remayne in the sacrament For the more playne vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that there were certayne heretikes as Simon Menander Martion Valentinus Basilides Cerdon Manes Eutiches Manichaeus Apolinaris and Diuers other of like sortes which sayd that Christ was very God but not a very man although in eating drinking sleeping and all other operations of man to mens iudgementes he appeared like vnto a man Other there were as Artemon Theodorus Sabellius Paulus Samasathenus Marcellus Photinus Nestorius and many other of the same sectes which sayd that he was a very naturall man but not very God although in geuing the blind their sight the dumbe their speach the deafe their hearing in healing sodenly with his word all diseases in raysing to life them that were dead and in all other workes of God he shewed himselfe as he had bene God Yet other there were which seeing the scripture so plaine in those two matters confessed that he was both God and man but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation sayd they he was God onely and not man and after his incarnation he ceased from his Godhead and became a man onely and not God vntill his resurrection or ascension and then say they he left his manhod and was onely God agayne as he was before his incarnation So that when he was manne he was not God and when he was God he was not man But agaynst these vayne heresies the Catholike fayth by the expresse word of God holdeth and beleueth that Christ after his incarnation left not his diuine nature ' but remayned still God as he was before being togither at one tyme as he is still both perfect God and perfect man And for a playne declaration hereof the old auncient authors giue two examples one is of man which is made of two partes of a soule and of a body and ech of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that when the soule by the almighty power of god is put in to the body neither the body nor soule perisheth therby but therof is made a perfect man hauing a perfect soule and a perfect body remayning in him both at one tyme. The other example which the olde authors bring in for this purpose is of the holy Snpper of our Lord which consisteth say they of two partes of the sacrament or visible element of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receaue the sacrament the very natures of bread and wine ceasse not to be there but remayne there still and be eaten and drunken corporally as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually so likewise doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne still with his humanity Let now the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation that there remayneth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the Sacrament if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehersed that Christ is not God and man both togither But to proue that this was the mynd of the old authors beside the saying of S. Augustine here recited I shall also reherse diuers other Winchester In the 26. leafe this author bringeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which when this author wrote it is like he neither thought of the third or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare most euidently the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament affirming the same to be the sacrifice of the church wherby appeareth it is no figure onely In the first saying of S. Augustine is written thus how fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ now whatsoeuer fayth sheweth is a truth and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ which speach bread is the body of Christ is as much to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissene wrote by conuersion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ and as S. Augustine in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the flesh of Christ. As for the second saying of S. Augustine how could it with more playne wordes be written then to say that there is both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament which is Christes body calling the same the sacrifice of the church Now if Christes body be there it is truely there and in dede there which is really there as for there in a figure were as much to say as not there in truth and indede but onely signified to be absent which is the nature of a figure in his proper and speciall speach But S. Augustine sayth euen as the author bringeth him forth and yet he gaue his priuy nippe by the way thus It is sayd of S. Augustine there be two thinges in the sacrifice which be conteyned in it wherof it consisteth so as the body of Christ is conteined in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynd According whereunto S. Augustine is alleadged to say in the same booke from whence this author tooke this saying also these wordes following vnder the kindes of bread and wine which we see we honor thinges inuisible that is to say the flesh and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did before the consecration for we must faythfully confesse before the consecration to be bread and wine that nature formed and after consecration the flesh and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath consecrate Thus sayth S. Augustine as he is alleadged out of the booke which in deede I haue not but he hath the like sence in other places and for honoring of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the side and reall presence S. Augustine hath the like in his booke De Catâ—chisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader how this author concludeth himselfe in the fayth of the reall presence of Christes body by his owne collection of S. Augustine mynd which is as he confesseth in his owne wordes noting S. Augustine that as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures
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
if you deny you know whose spirite yon haue But your trust is altogither in obscure speaches wherwith you trust so to darken the matter that no man shall vnderstand it least that if they vnderstand it they must needes perceaue your ignorance and error But when you promise to come to the purpose as to say the truth all that you sayd before is clearly without purpose but when you promise I say now at length to come to the purpose your answere is nothing to the purpose of S. Chrisostoms mynd for he made not his resemblance as you say he did onely to shew the remayning of the accidents which you call the properties but to shew the remayning of the substances with all the naturall properties therof That as Christ had here in earth his diuinity and humanity remayning euery of them with his naturall properties the substance of his godhead being a nature single without composition without conuersion inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible and such like for these be Chrisostomes owne wordes and the substance of his humanity being a feble nature subiect to hunger thyrst weeping feare sweating and such passions so is it in the bread and Christes body that the bread after sanctification or consecration as you call it remayneth in his substance that it had before and likewise doth the body of Christ remayne still in heauen in his very true substance wherof the bread is a Sacrament and figure For els if the substance of the bread remayned not how could Chrisostome bring it for a resemblance to proue that the substance of Christes humanity remayneth with his diuinity Mary this that you say had bene a gay lesson for the Manichees to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents therof and yet is none in deede that then by this similitude they might say likewise that Christ appeared a man by all the accidences and properties of a man and yet he was none in deede And to make an ende of this author your vayne comment will not serue you to call the accidents of bread the nature of bread except you will alow the same in the Manichees that the nature of Christes body is nothing els but the accidences therof Now followeth Gelasius of the same matter Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius writing agaynst Eutiches and Nestorius of whome the one sayd that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other affirmed cleane contrary that he was very God but not man But agaynst these two heinous heresies Gelasius proueth by most manifest scriptures that Christ is both God and man and that after his Incarnation remayneth in him as well the nature of his Godhead as the nature of his manhod so that he hath in him two natures with their naturall properties and yet is he but one Christ. And for the more euident declaration hereof he bringeth two examples the one is of man who being but one yet he is made of two partes hath in him two natures remayning both togither in him that is to say the body the soule with their naturall properties The other example is of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which sayth he is a godly thing and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be there still Note well these wordes agaynst all the Papistes of our tyme that Gelasius which was Bishop of Rome more then a thousand yeares passed writeth of this Sacrament that the bread and wine cease not to be there still as Christ ceased not to be God after his incarnation but remayned still perfect god as he was before Winchester Now followeth to answere to Gelasius who abhorring both the hereses of Eutiches and Nestorius in his treatise agaynst the Eutichians forgetteth not to compare with theyr errour in extremity in the one side the extreame errour of the Nestorians on the other side but yet principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians with whome he was specially troubled These two heresies were not so grosse as the author of this booke reporteth them wherin I will write what Uigilius sayth Inter Nestorij ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non testoris se dissipatoris non pastoris sed praedatoris sacrilegum dogma Eutichetis ne foriam detestabilem sectam ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit vt vtrumque sine vtriusque periculo plerique vitare non possint dum si quis Nestorij per fidiam damnat Eutichetis puratur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietatem destruit Nestorij arguitur dogma erigere These be Uigilius wordes in his first booke which be thus much in English Betwene the abominable teaching of Nestorius sometyme not ruler but waster not pastor but pray searcher of the church of Constantinople and the wicked and detestable sect of Eutiches the craft of the deuils spoyling so facioned it selfe that men could not auoyd any of the secrets without danger of the other So as whiles any man condemneth the falsenes of Nestorian he may be thought fallen to the errour of the Eutichian and whiles he destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichian and whiles be destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichians heresie he may be challenged to releeue the teaching of the Nestorian This is the sentence of Uigilius by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtill conueyed without so playne contradiction as this author eyther by ignorāce or of purpose fayneth as though the Nestorian should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the Eutichian cleane contrary very God but not man For if the heresies had bene such Uigilius had had no cause to speake of any such ambiguity as he noteth that a man should hardly speake agaynst the one but he might be suspected to fauor the other And yet I graunt that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God bicause they would two distinct different natures to make also two distinct persons and so as it were two Christs the one onely man and the other onely God so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate nor as Gregory Nazianzene sayth man deitate for so he is termed to say The Eutichians as S. Augustine sayth reasoning agaynst the Nestorians became heretiques themselues and bicause we confesse truely by fayth but one Christ the sonne of God very God The Eutichians say although there were in the virgins wombe before the adunation two natures yet after the adunation in that mistery of Christes incarnation there is but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fansye transfused and so confounded wherupon by implication a man might gather the nature of humanity not to remayne in Christ after the adunation in the virgins wombe Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in his proces vttereth a catholike meaning against them both but he directeth speciall arguments of the two natures in man
one of the body and soule which the Church doth professe in Symbolo Athanasij of all receaued For Christ is one person of two perfite natures whereof the one was before the other in perfection and creation of the other the one impassible and the other passible Man is of the soule and body one two different natures but such as for their perfection required that vnitie wherof none was before other perfect of Christ we say he is consubstantiall to his Father by the substaunce of his Godhead and consubstantiall to man by the substaunce of his manhoode but we may not say man is consubstantiall by his soule to Aungels and consubstantiall in his body to beastes because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantiall beastes And thus I write to shew that we may not presse the exāple in euery part of it as the author of this booke noteth vpon Gelasius who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure Caunterbury I Pitie you to see how ye swinke and sweate to confounde this author Gelasius And yet his woordes be so playne agaynst your Papisticall Transubstantiation that you haue clearely lost all your paynes labours and costes For these be his wordes spoken of the Sacrament Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substaunce or nature of bread and wine ceasseth not to be But to auoyde and dalye away these wordes that be so cleare and playne must needes bee layd on loade of wordes the wit must be stretched out to the vtmost all fetches must brought in that cā be deuised all colours of Rethorike must be sought out all the ayre must be cast ouer with cloudes all the water darkned with the cuttyls ynke and if it could be at the least asmuch as may be all mens eyes also must be put out that they should not see But I would wish that you stode not so much in your owne conceite trusted not so much in your inuentions and deuise of wit in eloquence and in craftines of speach multitude of wordes looking that no mā should dare encounter you but that all men should thinke you speake well bicause you speake much that you shuld be had in great reputation among the multitude of them that be ignoraunt can not discerne perfectly those that folow the right way of truth from other that would lead them out of the way into errour blindnesse This standyng in your conceite is nothyng els but to stand in your owne light But where you say that these heresies of Nestorius Eutiches were not so grosse as I report that the one should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other should say cleane cōtrary that he was very God but not mā of the grossenes of these two heresies I will not much contēd For it might be that they were of some misreported as they were in deede if credite be to be giuen to diuers auncient hystories but this I dare say that there be diuers authors that report of them as I do write and consequently you graunt the same in effect For you report of the Eutichiās that they did pernitiously say that there was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature in Christ. And of the Nestorians you say that they denyed Christ to be conceiued God or borne God but onely man and than could not he be naturally God but onely man And therfore neither by ignoraunce nor of purpose do I report them otherwise than you confesse your selfe and then I haue learned of other that were before my tyme. For S. Augustine in the place which you do cite of him hath these wordes of Nestorius Dogmatizare ausus est Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum hominem tantum he presumed to teach sayth S. Augustine that our Lord Iesus Christ was but man onely And of Eutiches he sayth Humanitatis in Christo denegauit veritatem he denied the truth of Christes manhode And Gelasius writeth also thus Eutichiani dicunt vnam esse naturam id est diuinam ac Nestorius nihilominus memerat singularem The Eutichians say that there is but one nature in Christ that is to say the Godhead and also Nestorius sayth there is but one nature meanyng the manhode By which wordes of S. Augustine and Gelasius appeareth as playnly as can be spokē the playne contradiction betwene the Nestorians and the Eutichians that the one denyed the humanitie of Christ and the other his diuinitie as I haue writtē in my booke so that neither of ignoraunce nor of purpose haue I fayned any thyng but you either of malice or of your accustomed maner to calumniate and find faulte with euery thyng that misliketh you be it neuer so well seeke occasion likewise hereto carpe and reprehend where no fault is being like vnto Momus which when he could finde no fault with Uenus person yet he picked a quarell to her slipper And not in this place onely but throughout your whole booke you vse this fashiō that when you cā not aunswere to the principall matter thē you finde fault with some bye matter wherby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the Readers mynde that he should not see how craftely you cōuey your selfe frō direct aūsweryng of the chief poynt of the Argumēt which when you come vnto you passe it ouer slenderly aūsweryng either nothyng or very litle nothyng to the purpose But yet this bye matter which you bryng in of the grossenes of these two errours helpeth litle your intēt but rather helpeth to fortifie my saying agaynst your doctrine of transubstātiation that your doctrine herein maketh a playne way for the Nestorians the Eutichians to defend their errours For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures and after the cōsecration in that mysterie is but one nature and that is the body of Christ into which the nature of bread in your fantasie is transformed and confounded and if also this mysterie be an example of the mysterie of Christes incarnation as the old authours report why may not then the Eutichians say that before the adunation in the virgins wombe the Godhead manhode were two natures yet after the adunation in that mysterie of Christes incarnation there was but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fantasie transfused and confounded And thus haue you made by your transubstantiation a goodly paterne and example for the Eutichians to folow in maintenaunce of their errour And yet although the Eutichians sayd that the nature of God and of mā before their vniting were two yet I read not that they sayd that they were two in the virgines wombe as you report of thē which is no great matter but to declare how ignoraūt you be in the thing wherof you make so great boast or how litle you regard the truth that wittingly wil
tell an vntruth But to say my mynde frankely what I thinke of your declaration of these two heresies I thinke a great part thereof you dreamed in your sleape or imagined being in some traunce or rapt with some Sophisticall vision and part of your dreame agreeth neither with approued Authours and histories nor with it selfe For first as touchyng the Eutichians where you say that Gelasius directeth his Argumētes of the two natures in man of the two natures in the Sacramēt chiefly agaynst the Eutichians to proue the nature of man to remaine in Christ after the adunation whosoeuer readeth Gelasius shall finde otherwise that he directed his Arguments indifferently as well agaynst Nestorius as agaynst Eutiches and no more agaynst the one then agaynst the other Nor no more did the Eutichians abhorre alius and alius although some gathered so of their wordes then did the Nestorians which wordes signifie diuersitie of person as aliud and aliud signifie diuersitie of nature So as the body soule in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diuersitie of natures yet be they not alius and alius bycause that both together make but one person By meanes of which difference betwene alius and alius we say Alius pater alius filius alius spiritus sanctus and not Aliud pater aliud filius aliud spiritus sanctus for asmuch as they be three in persons and but one in nature and substaunce And bycause Christ is two in nature that is to say of his deitie and humanitie and but one in person therefore we say Aliud aliud est diuinitas humanitas but not Alius sed vnus est Christus And although Nestorius graunted two natures in Christ yet not as you say frō his natiuitie nor by adunation but by cohabitation or inhabitatiō so that he made but one Christ although some otherwise take him and not alium alium after which sorte the Godhead is also in other godly men whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly nature although by their naturall generatiō they be but mē without the diuine nature vnited in person but after obteined by adoption grace As by your example a man is made Bishop which by naturall generation is borne but a man And that this was Nestorius opinion that Christ from his Natiuitie was but mā onely had his godhead after by adoptiō or accession is euident of your own wordes when you say that the Nestoriās denied Christ cōceiued God or borne God that the Godhead was an accessiō to Christ afterward by merite and that he was cōceiued but onely man although shortly after you go from the same saying that both the Godhead manhode were alwayes in Christ such cōstācie is in your dreamed phātasies And where you haue written thus much as you say because it should appeare that Gelasius by his Argumentes of the Sacrament and of the two natures of man went abont to proue that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation you might haue bestowed your tyme better than to haue lost somuch labour to impugne the truth For although neither Nestorius nor Eutiches denyed the Godhead of Christ to remaine yet Gelasius went not about onely to confute thē but also to set out playnly the true catholicke faith that Christ being incarnated was perfect God and perfect man and how that might be both the sayd natures and substaunces remainyng with all their naturall proprieties and conditions without transubstantiation abolition or confusion of any of the two natures And this he declareth aswell by the example of the Sacrament as of the body and soule of man Wherfore as true as it is that the body and soule of man and Godhead and manhode of Christ remaine in their proper substaunces natures and properties without transubstantiation or perishyng of any of them so must it be in the Sacrament And in the sayd heresies as you say was some appearāce of the truth euery one hauyng Scripture which in sounde of wordes seemed to approue their errours whereby they deceiued many But as for your fayned doctrine of Transubstātiation it hath no pretēce nor appearance of truth by Gods word for you haue not one Scripture that maketh mētion therof where as I hane many playne manifest Scriptures that speaketh in playne termes that bread is eaten and wine is dronken And this Author Gelasius with diuers other learned men aswel Greekes as Latins of the old Catholicke Churche affirme in no doubtfull wordes that the bread and wine be not gone but remaine still From which Scriptures and Doctours who soeuer dissenteth declareth him selfe at the least to be ignoraūt wherby yet he may excuse him selfe of a greater blot infamy And this matter being so cleare neither your fine disguising nor your painted colours nor your gay Rhetorike nor witty inuentions can so hyde and couer the truth that it shal not appeare but the more you labour to striue agaynst the streame the more faynt shall you waxe and at lēgth the truth hath such a violence that you shall be borne cleane down with the streame therof In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyrill togethers alludyng as it seemeth to this contention betwene you and me which comparison if it be throughly considered hath no small resemblance although there be no litle diuersitie also Nestorius say you was a great archebishop and so say I was Ciril also Nestorius say you as apeareth had much learnyng but cloked his heresie craftily But the Histories of his tyme who should know him best describe him in this sorte that he was a man of no great learnyng but of an excellent naturall witte and eloquence and full of craft and subtiltie by meanes wherof he was so proude and glorious that he contemned all men in respect of him selfe and disdained the old writers thinkyng him selfe more wise then they all Now let the indifferent Reader Iudge whom he thinketh in this your illusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius And all this that you haue brought in here of these two heresies although it be to no purpose in the principall matter yet it serueth me to this purpose that men may cōiecture whose nature and witte is most like vnto the description of Nestorius also how loth you be to come to the matter to make a direct aunswere to Gelasius wordes who sayth in playne termes that substaūce or nature of bread wine remaineth Euē as glad you be to come to this as a Beare is to come to the stake seeking to runne out at this corner or that corner if it were possible But all will not helpe for you be so fast tyed in chaynes that will you nill you at length you must come to the stake although you be neuer so loth And Gelasius byteth so sore hath catched so hard hold of you that you cā neuer escape although you attempt all
the same as Gelasius sayth he be but sacramentally figuratiuely and significatiuely what perill is it to vs And what auayleth it vs his being in the sacrament and not in vs. And the two natures in the Sacrament which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ be bread and wine which as they remayne and that truely in their natures and substances so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine Sacraments of the terrestriall nature of Christ that is to say of his body and bloud but not of his celestiall and diuine nature as you imagine And they be called Sacraments bicause they be figures which if they were no figures they were no Sacraments But it is not required that the thing represented by the figure should be really and corporally present in the figure when the figures ordeyned to represent a thing corporally absēt the figure were in vayne as Lactansius sayth if the thing were present And at the least wise in this place Gelasius vseth the natures and substances of bread and wine which be Sacraments of Christes flesh and bloud to be images and similitudes in this poynt not of his flesh and bloud but of his diuine and humayne nature that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament remayne still in theire proper kindes without violation adnihilation confusion commixtion or Transubstantiation so is it in the two natures of Christes manhode and his godhead So that Gelasius vseth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ not for the consecration of the sacrament as you would peruert his meaning And bicause you would haue all your thinges strange as it were one that had come out of a strange cuntry where he had learned a strange fashion of speach neuer heard of before or rather deuised it himselfe you call the colours of bread and wine the matter of bread and wine bicause colours onely be visible after your teaching And then must the naturall property of colours be to signify our feeding spirituall by the body and bloud of Christ that as they feede vs spiritually so do the colours corporally And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis ad oppositum antecedentis as colours feede not our bodyes so Christ feedeth not our soules This is the conclusion of your goodly new deuised diuinity And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence bicause you were loth to commit but one horrible errour in one sentence that Gelasius calleth Christes body and bloud his diuine substance This is a goodly hearing for the Eutichians who say that in Christ is no moe natures but his diuine substance which by your interpretation must be true For if his godhead be a diuine substance and his body and bloud also a diuine substance why should Eutiches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than diuine substaunce And so shall we bring to passe that either Christ hath but one substaūce or two diuine substaunces although not of like sorte and so not one humaine substaunce And is it like that Gelasius who so long contēded agaynst Eutiches for two distinct substaūces in Christ humaine and diuine would in the conclusion of his disputation so much yeld vnto the hereticke to graunt that Christes humaine substaunce should be a diuine substaunce And it is worthy to be noted and double noted how you wrāgle with the wordes of Gelasius wrast them cleane out of tune For where Gelasius sayth that there remaineth the substaunce or nature of bread and wyne to declare thereby the remainyng of two natures in Christ you say that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last and not in the first that is to say that the nature of bread and wine remaineth And nature say you is there taken for the proprieties which you call accidentes And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher that should so ambiguously speake of two thyngs when he meaneth but of one For when he sayth that the substaunce or nature remayneth you say he meaneth that onely the nature remaineth And were this tollerable in a learned man when he meaneth the nature to remaine not the substaunce to expresse it by these termes The substaunce or nature remaineth And if Gelasius meane that the substaunce of bread and wine remaineth not but the natures and then if by nature he vnderstode the accidentes as you vntruely surmise of him and make them the Image and similitude to proue Christes two natures thē they proue no more but that the accidentes of Christes natures remayne and not the substaunce whiche saying whether it be a fauouryng of the Eutichians Nestorians Ualentiniās Martionistes Apolinaristes and other of that sort let the learned be iudge And although it be not necessary the exāples to be in all partes equall as you alledge of Rusticus Diaconus yet they must needes be like in that point wherfore they were takē to be examples for els they were none examples And therefore seyng that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought for examples of Christes two natures for this intēt to proue that the two natures of Christ remaine in their substaunce it must needes be so in the bread and wine or els they serued nothyng to that purpose And the transition that Gelasius ment of is in the persons that receaue the Sacramentes whiche be transformed into the diuine nature as Gelasius sayth by efficacie vertue represented by the Sacraments but the transition is not in the bread and wyne as you and your Thomas imagine of transition whiche remaine in the Sacrament without substāciall mutatiō conuersiō transitiō transelementatiō or trāsubstantiatiō For if in the mystery of the Sacrament were transition mutation conuersion and transelementation of the substaunce of bread and wine how could that mystery be an example of the principall mystery of Christes incarnation to proue thereby that there is no transition mutation conuersion or transelementation of the two substaunces of Christ in his incarnation Doth not the remainyng of substaunce in the Sacrament proue the remainyng of substaunce in the Incarnation For how can the not remainyng of substaunce be an example image and similitude to proue the remainyng of the substaunce But here appeareth what it is to wrastle agaynst the truth to defend an euell cause what absurdities wit eloquence be driuen vnto when they striue agaynst God and his word And where you think your selfe ouer sore pressed with this argument and similitude of bread and wine to the two natures in Christ I must needes presse the argument and wordes so farre as pertayneth to the remayning of the natures and substance for to that end was the image and similitude brought in by Gelasius And then by argument from the cause wherfore the resemblance was made if the substance and nature of the bread and wine remayne not in the Sacrament it followeth that the two natures and substance of
which this author teacheth vs in deede it is And thus It is in deede bread quoth this author but call it not so quoth this Theodoret It is not in deede the body of Christ quoth this author but yet in any wise call it so quoth Theodoret. Here is playne simulation and dissimulation both togither For by forbidding of the name of bread according to Theodorets teaching we dissemble and hide that it is by this authors teaching and by vsing the name of our Lordes body according to Theodorets teaching we fayne it to be that it is not by this authors teaching which sayth there is onely a figure and by this meanes in so high a mistery we should vse vntruthes on both sides in simulation and dissimulation which is a meruaylous teaching I deny not but thinges signifying may haue the name of that they signify by a figure of speach but we read not in any doctrine giuen that the thing signifying should haue the name by figure and be deliuered from the name of that it is in deede And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his new Catholike fayth ioyned with the teaching of Theodoret and the secret Epistle of S. Chrisostom as this author would haue them vnderstanded But those men Theodoret and Chrisostome in the sence they ment as I vnderstand them taught a true doctrine For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a reall naming of the body of Christ there present in deede and therfore a true perfect name which as S. Chrisostomes secret Epistle sayth the thing is worthy to haue declaring by that worthines the thing named to be there in deed And likewise I vnderstand the other name of bread worthely done away bicause the substance wherupon in reason the name was grounded is changed according to the true doctrine of Transubstantiation therfore that name of bread in their doctrine is truely layd away although Theodoret writeth the visible matter of bread and wine to be seene and felt as they were before and therfore sayth their substance which there signifieth the outward nature is séene and felt to remayne which termes with conuenient vnderstanding may thus agrée with the catholicke teaching of transubstantiation and so in the sacrament on euery part but in the heauenly and earthlye part to be a full whole and perfect truth as the high mystery being the sacrament of our perfect vnity in body and soule with Christ doth require Wherby in my iudgement as this author hath agaynst his owne determination in this enterprise vttered that confirmeth the truth of the reall presence of Christes most precious bodye in the sacrament which he doth in speciall entreating the wordes of S Augustine in the xxvii leafe of hys book besides that in diuers other places he doth the like so bringing vs forth this Theodoret and his secret epistle of S. Chrisostome he hath brought forth that may serue to conuince him in transubstantiation Howbeit as for transubstantiation Zuinglius taketh it truely for a necessary consequence of the trueth if there bee in the sacrament the reall presence of Christes body as there is in déed For as a carnall man not instruct by fayth aswell after consecration as before as he is of the earth speaketh and calleth it bread and asking him what it is will neuer aunswere otherwise and if one asked him whether it were the body of Christ would thinke the questioner mocked him so the faythfull spirituall man answering to that question what it is would after consecration according to fayth aunswere the body of Christ and thinke himself mocked if he were asked is it not bread vnles he had bene taught Christ to haue sayd it had bene both his body and bread As for calling it by the name of bread which it was he would not greatly stick and one thing may haue many names but one thing is but one substance whereby to aunswere to the question what it is sauing onely in the person of Christ wherein we know vnited the two substances of god and man And this matter I repeate and summarily touch agayne to leaue in the readers brest the principall poynt of our beliefe of this mistery to be of the reall presence that is to say vnfayned substantiall presence and therefore the true presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament which hath bene in al ages taught and bene as it is the Catholick fayth of Christendome as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages Caunterbury FOr the conclusion of al these questions when you see that you can make no aunswere but that you be driuen to so many absurdities and that I haue answered so playnely vnto euery one that there is left neither absurdity nor difficulty at al then you deuise the best way and most easy for your selfe to lay apart all questions and idle talke when all these questions and idle talke needed not if the papistes of their idle braines had not deuised their transubstantiation and thereupon moued this idle talke themselues which hath bene occasion not onely of much dissention in all Christian realmes but of the effusion also of much innocent bloud But when the Papistes like vnto Lucifer haue ascended into heauen and searched by vayne and arrogant questions the bowels and secrets of gods maiesty and his wisedome Yea euen whether God haue made the world so well as he might haue done theu they commaund other to keepe silence and not to enter into the bottomles secrecy of Gods misteries nor to seeke that is aboue their reach but to eudeuour themselues to doe that God commanndeth which counsaile as it is most godly and holesome so if the Papistes themselues had obserued in the beginning no man should haue needed to haue troubled his braynes with such fryuolous questions and idle talke But the Papists do like boyes in the schole that make rods to beat other aud when they should be beaten with the roddes which they made themselues then they wish that al rods were in the fier So the Papistes when they see themselues ouerthrowne in their owne questions which they first deuised themselues to be beaten with their owne rods then they cry peace hold hands and question no more But to aunswere the absurdityes layed vnto the Papistes charge you recompence me agayne with â—â— great huge absurdities One is that Christ is really but in heauen onely the other is that bread is stil bread Here thou mayst iudge gentle reader what errours I defend that am by force driuen to such two absurdities that I am fayne to say as I haue written in my booke and as the Apostles and Euangelistes sayd But beware I would aduise thee that thou say not as Gods word teacheth for if thou doost thou mayst be sure to be taken of the Papistes for an hereticke Fynally you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread the body and not the
thereunto in the same place And where you haue set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall man after your owne imagination you haue so well deuised the matter that you haue made ii extremities without any meane For the true faythfull man would answere not as you haue deuised but he would say according to the old catholick fayth and teaching of the Apostles Euangelists Martyrs and confessours of Christes Churche that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts the earthly and the heauenly The earthly is the bread and wine the other is Christ himselfe The earthly is without vs the heauenlye is within vs The earthlye is eaten with our mouthes and carnally feedeth our bodies the heauenly is eaten with our inward man and spiritually feedeth the same The earthly feedeth vs but for a tyme the heauenly feedeth vs for euer Thus would the true faythfull man answere without leaning vnto any extremity either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accideÌ„ces of bread but professing beleuing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heauen and yet spiritually to dwell in his faythfull people and they in him vnto the worldes ende This is the true catholicke fayth of Christ taught from the first beginning and neuer corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers And where you say that one thing is but one substaunce sauing onelye in the person of Christ your teaching is vntrue not onely in the person of Christ but also in euery man who is made of ij substaunces the body and soule And if you had beene learned in philosophy you would haue founde your saying false also in euery corporall thing which consisteth of ij substaunces of the matter and of the forme And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament So vntrue it is that you moste vainely boast here that your doctrine hath bene taught in all ages and bene the catholicke faith which was neuer the catholique but onely the Papisticall fayth as I haue euidentlye proued by holy scripture and the old catholick authors wherein truely and directly you haue not aunswered to one Winchester In whose particular words although there may be sometime cauillations yet I will note to the reader foure marks and tokens imprinted rather in those olde authors deeds then wordes which be certayne testimonies to the truth of their fayth of the reall presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguing vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacrament wherein I note not the particuler sentences which sometime be daungerous speches but their whole doinges As Irene who was in the beginning of the church argueth agaynst the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh whome Irene reproueth by the féeding of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified fleshe of Christ in the Sacrament which flesh and â—t be there but in a figure then it should haue proued the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratiuely And if the Catholicke fayth had not bene then certainely taught and constantly beleued without varience Christes very flesh to be indeede eaten in that mistery it would haue beene aunswered of the heretickes if had bene but a figure but that appeareth not and the other appeareth which is a testimony to the truth of matter indéed Hylary reasonyng of the naturall coniunction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to come to passe by the receiuyng truely the very flesh of our Lord in our Lordes meate and thereupon argueth agaynst the Arrians which Arrians if it had not bene so really in déede would haue aunswered but all was spiritually so as there was no such naturall and corporall Communion in déede as Hylary supposed but as this author teacheth a figure and it had bene the Catholicke doctrine so that argument of Hylary had bene of no force Saint Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to conuince the Appolinaristes and Eutichians which were none argument if Christes very body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the Godhead is in the person of Christ beyng the effect of the argument this that as the presence of Christes body in this mistery doth not alter the propertie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie which agaynst those heretickes serued for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous arguyng to be embraced of the Nestorians who would hereby haue furthered their heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they would haue sayd As the earthly and heauenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanitie and Godhead not vnited in Christ which is false and in the comparynges we may not looke that all should aunswere in equalitie but onely for the point that it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanitie by his Godhead and yet we may not say that as in the Sacrament be but onely accidents of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidentes of the humanitie For that mistery requireth the whole truth of maÌ„s nature and therfore Christ tooke vpon him the whole man body and soule The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidentes onely beyng the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ. And this I write to preuent such cauillations as some would search for But to returne to our matter all these argumentes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very body as the celestiall part of the Sacrament beyng the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remayneth in the former proprietie with the very presence of the celestiall thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke Caunterbury AS for your foure markes tokens if you marke them well you shall perceaue most manifestly your ignorauÌ„ce and errour how they note and appoint as it were with their fingers your doctrine to be erronious as well of Transubstantiation as of the reall presence And to begyn with your first marke Irenee in deede proued the resurrection of our bodyes vnto eternall lyfe bycause our bodyes be nourished with the euerlastyng foode of Christes body And therfore as that foode is euerlastyng so it beyng ioyned vnto his eternall deitie giueth to our bodies euerlastyng lyfe And if the beyng of Christes body in any creature should geue the same lyfe then it might peraduenture be thought of some fooles that if it were in the bread it should giue life to the bread But
neither reason learnyng nor fayth beareth that Christes body beyng onely in bread should gyue life vnto a man So that if it were an Article of our faith to beleue that Christ is present in the formes of bread and wine it were an vnprofitable Article seyng that his being in the bread should profit no man Irenee therefore meaneth not of the beyng of Christ in the bread and wyne but of the eatyng of him And yet he meaneth not of corporall eating for so Christ sayth him selfe that his flesh auayleth nothing but spirituall eatyng by fayth Nor he speaketh not of spirituall eatyng in receauyng of the Sacrament onely for then our lyfe should not be eternall nor endure no longer then we be eating of the sacrament for our spirituall life cōtinueth no lōger thē our spirituall feedyng And then could none haue lyfe but that receaue the Sacramēt and all should haue perished that dyed before Christes Supper and institutiō of the Sacrament or that dye vnder age before they receiue the Sacrament But the true meaning of Irenee Hilary Cyprian Cyrill and other that treated of this matter was this that as Christ was truely made man and crucified for vs and shed his bloud vpon the Crosse for our redemption now reigneth for euer in heauen so as many as haue a true fayth and belefe in him chawyng their cuddes and perfectly remembryng the same death and passion which is the spirituall eatyng of his flesh and drinkyng of his bloud they shall reigne in euerlastyng lyfe with him For they spiritually and truely by faith eate his flesh and drinke his bloud whether they were before the institution of the Sacrament or after And the beyng or not beyng of Christes body and bloud really and corporally in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine neither maketh nor marreth nor is to no purpose in this matter But for confirmation of this our fayth in Christes death and passion for a perpetuall memory of the same hath Christ ordeined this holy Sacrament not to be kept but to be ministred among vs to our singular comfort that as outwardly and corporally we eate the very bread and drinke the very wine and call them the body and bloud of Christ so inwardly and spiritually we eate drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally he is in heauen and shall be vntill the last Iudgement when he shall come to Iudge both the quicke and the dead And in the Sacrament that is to say in the due ministration of the Sacrament Christ is not onely figuratiuely but effectually vnto euerlastyng lyfe And this teachyng impugneth the heresies of the Ualentinians Arrians and other heretickes and so doth not your fayned doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine and that vngodly and wicked men eate and drinke the same which shall be cast away from the eternall lyfe and perish for euer And for further aunswere to Hilary I referre the Reader to myne other aunswere made to him before And for S. Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete if there be no bread and wine in the Sacrament their Argumentes serue for the heretickes purpose and cleane directly agaynst them selues For their entent agaynst the heretickes is to proue that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soule and a perfect body and to be perfect God and perfect man As to the full perfection of the Sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine and the perfect body and bloud of Christ. So that now turnyng the Argument if there be no perfect bread and wine as the Papistes falsely surmise then may the heretickes cōclude agaynst the Catholicke fayth and conuince Chrisostome Gelasius Theodorete with their own weapon that is to say with their own similitude that as in the Sacramēt lacketh the earthly part so doth in Christ lacke his humanitie And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine and yet is none in deede so shall they argue by this similitude that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and bloud and yet was there none in very deede And thus by your deuilish Trāsubstantiation of bread and wine do you trāsubstantiate also the body and bloud of Christ not conuincyng but confirmyng most haynous heresies And this is the conclusion of your vngodly fayned doctrine of transubstantiation And where you would gather the same cōclusion if Christes flesh and bloud be not really present it seemeth that you vnderstand not the purpose and intent of these Authors For they bring not this similitude of the Sacrament for the reall presence but for the reall beyng That as the Sacrament consisteth in two partes one earthly an other heauenly the earthly part beyng the bread and wine and the heauenly the body and bloud of Christ and these partes be all truely and really in deede without colour or simulation that is to say very true bread and wine in deede the very true body and bloud of Christ in deede euē likewise in Christ be two natures his humanitie and earthly substaunce and his diuinitie and heauēly substaunce and both these be true natures and substaunces without colour or dissemblyng And thus is this similitude of the Sacrament brought in for the truth of the natures not for the presence of the natures For Christ was perfect God and perfect man whē his soule went downe to hell and his body lay in the graue bycause the body and soule were both still vnited vnto his diuinitie and yet it was not required that his soule should be present with the body in the sepulture no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the Sacrament but as the soule was then in hell so is his body now in heauen And as it is not required that where so euer Christes diuinitie is there should be really and corporally his manhode so it is not required that where the bread and wyne be there should be corporally his flesh and bloud But as you frame the Argument agaynst the heretickes it serueth so litle agaynst them that they may with the same frame and engine ouerthrow the whole Catholicke Church For thus you frame the Argument As the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth not alter the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie Marke well now good Reader what foloweth hereof As the presence of Christes body in this mysterie doth not alter say you the proprietie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie But the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures as the Papistes say that the substaunces of bread and wyne be extinguished and there remayneth no substaūce but of the body of Christ Ergo likewise in the
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
we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie pag. 181. lin 8. Christes body and fleshe is a spirituall body and flesh and is present in the Sacrament after a spirituall maner and is spiritually receiued pag. eadem lin 26. 351. lin 19. In this Sacrament Christes humanitie and Godhead is really present and in Baptisme his Godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in whiche we be washed not requiryng any reall presence therof pag. 191. lin 35. Spirite and lyfe may fall vpon naughtie men although for their malice it taryeth not pag. 211. lin 17. Christes woordes were not figuratiue but true and proper when he sayd this is my body pag. 9. lin 1. pag. 257. lin 1. and. 14. Marcus Antonius fol. 24. fa. 1. All the namyng of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other must be vnderstand before sanctification and not after pag. 258. lin 15. When S. Paule sayd we be partakers of one bread he speaketh not of materiall bread pag. 258. lin 7. No mā knoweth the difference betwene the substaūce of bread cheese and ale pag. 271. lin 39. pag. 272. lin 23. pag. 339. lin 33. The accidentes of bread may be called the visible part of bread the outward kynde and forme of bread the appearaunce of bread a true sensible part of bread bread the nature of bread the matter of bread the visible matter of bread not that it is property bread but after the common speach and capacitie of men pag. 272. lin 16. and pag. 273. lin 25. pag. 283. lin 11. and pag. 289. lin 31. and. 290. lin 7. and. 292. lin 16. and pag. 396. lin 43. c. and. 305. lin 44. c. and pag .243 lin 45. pag. 359. lin 22. The accidentes of bread do corrupt putrifie and nourish pag. 273. lin 30. pag. 290. lin 7. and pag. 296. lin 48. and pag. 358. lin 28. The glorified body of Christ is of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable pag. 273. lin 40. In Baptisme the whole man is not regenerated but the soule pag. 286. lin 10. The soule onely of man is the substaunce of man Ibidem The soule onely is made the sonne of God pag. 286. lin 23. It is called meate bycause of the outward visible matter pag. 290. lin 9. As really and as truly as the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the sacrament pag. 296. lin 5. and pag. 396. lin 15. The sacrifice of the Churche is perfected before the perception pag. 396. lin 32. In the Sacrament beyng a mystery ordered to feede vs is the truth of the presence of the natures earthly and celestiall The visible matter of the earthly creature in his propertie and nature for the vse of signification is necessaryly required pag. 310. lin 44.48 This saying of Gelasius The substaunce or nature of bread and wyne cease not to be there still may be verified in the last and nature he taketh for the proprietie pag. 310. lin 50. Theodorets saying that the substaunce of bread remayneth seemeth to speak of substaunce after the common capacitie and not as it is truely in learnyng vnderstanded an inward inuisible and not palpable nature pag. 321. lin 2. Christ in his Supper fulfilled this promise Panis quem ego dabo c. pag. 329. lin 25. Accidentes in common vnderstandyng bee called substaunces pag. 339. lin 31. In common bread the substaunce is not broken at all Ibidem lin 39. Accidentes be broken without substaunce pag. 339. lin 6. c. All alteration is in accidentes and the corruption of accidentes in the generation of new accidentes pag. 355. lin 4. Substaunce in Theodorete signifieth the outward visible nature that is to say accidentes pag. 359. lin 20. One thyng is but one substaunce sauyng onely in the person of Christ. pag. 359. lin 41. Baptisme is not wondred at how the holy Ghost is there but the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures how they bee chaunged into the body and bloud of Christ whiche is wrought before we receiue the Sacrament pag. 366. lin 45. Priestes do offer dayly Christes flesh and bloud pag. 384. lin 26. Christ offered him selfe in his Supper pag. eadem lin 27. Otherwise then Christ did can not be now done pag. 384. lin 28. The dayly offeryng by the Priest is dayly offered for sinne bycause we dayly fall pag. eadem lin 30. That is done in the aultar is a sacrifice and the same that is offered once and dayly to be the same Uisible Priestes Ministers to our inuisible Priest offer the dayly sacrifice in Christes Church pag. 392. lin 46. The body and bloud of Christ is properly sacrificed by the Priestes and is there offered for the effect of increase of lyfe in vs as it was offered vpon the Crosse to atcheue lyfe vnto vs. pag. 390. lin 46. c. The same body is offered dayly vpon on the aultar that was once offered vpon the Crosse but the same maner of offeryng is not dayly that was on the aultar of the Crosse for the dayly offeryng is without bloudshedyng and is termed so to signifie that bloudshedyng once done to be sufficient pag. 391. lin 7. c. The sacrifice of the Church is propitiatory pag. 391. lin 8. The sacrifice of the Church is a sacrifice geuyng lyfe Ibidem lin 8. Our sacrifice of laude and thankes geuyng can not be sayd a pure and cleane sacrifice to fulfill the Prophecie of Malachie Ibidem lin 10. Certayne godly and fruitfull Letters of D. Cranmer late Archbishop of Caunterbury ¶ A Letter to Queene Mary IT may please your Maiesty to pardon my presumption that I dare be so bold to write to your highnes but very necessity constrayneth me that your Maiesty may know my minde rather by mine owne writing then by other mens reportes So it is that vpon Saturday being the 7. day of this moneth I was cited to appeare at Rome the lxxx day after there to make aunswere to such matters as should be obiected agaynst me vpon the behalfe of the King and your most excellent Maiesty which matters the Thursday following were obiected agaynst me by Doctor Martin and Doctor Story your maiesties Proctors before the Bishop of Bloucester sitting in iudgement by commission from Rome But alas it can not but greue the hart of any naturall subiect to be accused of the King and Queene of his owne Realme and specially before an outward iudge or by authority comming from any person out of this Realme where the king and Queene as if they were subiectes within theyr owne Realme shall complayne and require iustice at a straungers handes agaynst theyr owne subiect being already condemned to death by their owne lawes as though the King and Queene could not do nor haue iustice within their owne Realme agaynst their owne