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
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
death and to saue my life if it might be and that is all such Billes and papers which I haue written or signed with my hand since my degradation wherein I haue written many thynges vntrue And for as much as my hand offended written contrary to my hart my hand shall first bee punished therefore for may I come to the fire it shal be first burned And as for the Pope I refuse him as Christes enemy and Antichrist with all his false doctrine And as for the Sacrament I beleue as I haue taught in my booke agaynst the Byshop of Winchester the whiche my booke teacheth so true a doctrine of the Sacrament that it shal stand at the last day before the Iudgement of God where the Papisticall doctrine contrary thereto shal be ashamed to shew her face Here the standers by were all astonyed maruailed were amased did looke one vpon an other whose expectation he had so notably deceiued Some began to admonish him of his recantation and to accuse him of falshode Briefly it was a world to sée the Doctours beguiled of so great an hope I thinke there was neuer crueltie more notably or better in tyme deluded and deceiued For it is not to bee doubted but they looked for a glorious victorie and a perpetuall triumph by this mans retractation Who as soone as they heard these thynges began to let downe their eares to rage fret and fume and so much the more because they could not reuenge their grief for they could now no longer threaten or hurt him For the most miserable man in the world can dye but once where as of necessitie he must néedes dye that day though the Papistes had bene neuer so well pleased now beyng neuer so much offended with him yet could he not be twise killed of them And so whē they could do nothing els vnto him yet lest they should say nothyng they ceassed not to obiect vnto him his falsehode and dissimulation Unto which accusation he aunswered Ah my Maisters quoth he do not you take it so Alwayes since I liued hetherto I haue bene a hater of falsehode and a louer of simplicitie and neuer before this tyme haue I dissembled and in saying this all the teares that remained in his body appeared in his eyes And when hee began to speake more of the Sacrament and of the Papacie some of them began to cry out yalpe and baule and and specially Cole cried out vpon him stop the heretickes mouth and take him away And then Cranmer beyng pulled downe from the stage was led to the fire accompanied with those Friers vexyng troublyng and threatnyng him most cruellie What madnes say they hath brought thée agayne into this errour by which thou wilt draw innumerable soules with thée into hell To whom he aunswered nothyng but directed all his talke to the people sauyng that to one troublyng him in the way he spake and exhorted him to get him home to his study and apply his booke diligently saying if he did diligently call vpon God by reading more he should get knowledge But the other Spanish barker ragyng and fomyng was almost out of his wittes alwayes hauyng this in his mouth Non fecisti diddest thou it not But when he came to the place where the holy Byshops and Martyrs of God Hugh Latymer Ridley were burnt before him for the confessiō of the truth knéeling down he prayed to God and not long tarying in Prayers puttyng of his garmentes to his shirt hee prepared him selfe to death His shirt was made long downe to his féete His féete were bare Likewise his head when both his cappes were of was so bare that not one heare could bee sene vpon it His beard was long and thicke coueryng his face with marueilous grauitie Such a countenaunce of grauitie moued the hartes both of his frendes and of his enemies Then the Spanish Friers Iohn and Richard of whom mention was made before began to exhort him and play their partes with him a fresh but with vayne and lost labour Cranmer with stedfast purpose abidyng in the profession of his doctrine gaue his hand to certaine old men and other that stoode by biddyng them farewell And when he had thought to haue done so likewise to Ely the sayd Ely drew backe his hand and refused saying it was not lawfull to salute heretickes and specially such a one as falsely returned vnto the opinions that he had foresworne And if hee had knowen before that he would haue done so he would neuer haue vsed his companie so familiarly and chid those Sergeauntes and Citizens which had not refused to geue him their handes This Ely was a Priest lately made and Student in Diuinitie beyng then one of the Fellowes of Brasennose Then was an yron chayne tyed about Cranmer whom when they perceiued to be more stedfast then that he could be moued from his sentence they commaunded the fire to be set vnto him And when the wood was kindled and the fire began to burne neare him stretchyng out his arme he put his right hand into the flame whiche he held so stedfast and immouable sauyng that once with the same hand he wiped his face that all men might sée his hand burned before his body was touched His body did so abide the burnyng of the flame with such constancie and stedfastnesse that standyng alwayes in one place without mouyng of his body hee séemed to moue no more then the stake to whiche he was bound his eyes were lifted vp into heauen and often tymes he repeated his vnworthy right hand so long as his voyce would suffer him and vsing often the wordes of Stephen Lord Iesus receiue my spirite in the greatnesse of the flame he gaue vp the Ghost This fortitude of mynde whiche perchaunce is rare and not vsed among the Spaniardes when Frier Iohn saw thinkyng it came not of fortitude but of desperation although such maner examples whiche are of the like constancie haue bene common here in England ran to the Lord Williams of Lame crying that the Archbyshop was vexed in mynde and dyed in great desperation But he whiche was not ignoraunt of the Archbyshops constancie beyng vnknowen to the Spaniardes smiled onely and as it were by silence rebuked the Friers tollie And this was the end of this learned Archbyshop whom lest by euill subscribyng he should haue perished by well recantyng God preserued and lest he should haue liued longer with shame and reproofe it pleased God rather to take him away to the glory of his name and profite of his Churche So good was the Lord both to his Church in fortifying the same with the testimonie bloud of such a Martyr and so good also to the man with this Crosse of tribulation to purge his offences in his world not onely of his recantatiō but also of his standyng agaynst Iohn Lambert and M. Allen or if there were any other
body from his spirite affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite and in the communion but his flesh And that Christes spirit renueth our life but increaseth it not and that his flesh increceth our life but geueth it not And agaynst all nature reasō and truth you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christes body and bloud in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all And against scripture and all comformity of nature you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacrament that you leaue no distinction proportion nor fashion of mannes body at all And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother of the true doctrine of Christ that thus vnnaturally speaketh deuydeth and confoundeth Christes body If Salomon were aliue he would surely geue iudgement that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh so vnnaturally and so vnlike his mother and be geuen to the true church of the faithful that neuer digressed from the truth of Gods word nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body but speake according to the same that Christes body although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body occupying one place and being of a certayne height and measure hauing all members distinct and set in good order and proportion And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye is not only the beginning but also the contynuance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life By him we be regenerated by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature as Christ doth in his without mixtion or confusion This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother and like a true and right beleeuing christian man Marye of that doctrine which you teach I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof which in scripture is called Babilō because of commixtion or confusion Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth superstition with religiō godlines with hipocrisie scripture with traditions that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant to confound all the doctrine of Christ yea Christ him selfe shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother and the true naturall mother of Antichrist And for the conclusion of your matter here I doubt not but the indifferent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts sleightes shiftes obliquities manifest vntruthes it may be easely iudged that what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet nothing is lesse intended then that truth should ether haue victory or appeare and be seene at all Winchester And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes which this author is not afraid to vtter a matter wonderfull considering his dignity if he that is named be the author in déede which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth First I will note vnto the reader how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament to be the faith of the papistes which saying what foundacion it hath thou mayest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish defended stoutly the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in England in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gospels professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany where Hosiander is chiefe preacher in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the word truly is there and as Buter saith that is substancially Which Catechisme was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from the beginning alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene Ciprian Chrisostome Hillary Cirill Ambrose and Theophilacte which authors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to idle wittes with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estéemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is published abroad in printe wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse and that in it is dispensed the true body true bloud of Christ which is plainly the same in essence that is to say substāce and the same bloud in essence signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye taken for no papist among vs to much estéemed as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Ciprian Hilary Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basill Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iudgement he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words this is my body rehearsed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what
and manifest vntruth and that I vntruely charge you with the enuious name of a papisticall faith But in your issue you terme the wordes at your pleasure and reporte mee otherwise then I doe say for I doe not say that the doctrine of the reall presence is the papistes faith onely but that it was the papists faith for it was their deuise And herein will I ioyne with you an issue that the papisticall church is the mother of transubstantiation and of all the foure principall errors which I impugne in my booke Winchester It shal be now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the Sacrament which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the maiesty therof requireth in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of S. Iohn he beginneth a litle to low and passeth ouer that pertaineth to the matter and therfore should haue begun a litle higher at this clause and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde The Iewes therfore striued between themselues saying How can this man geue his flesh to be eaten Iesus therfore sayd vnto theÌ„ Uerely verely I say vnto you except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man drink his bloud ye haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life I will rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meat and my bloud very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the lyuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father Euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here is also a faulte in the translation of the text which should be thus in one place For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke In which speach the verbe that coupeleth the words flesh and meate together knitteth them together in their proper signification so as the flesh of Christ is verely meate and not figuratiuely meate as the author would perswade And in these wordes of Christ may appeare plainly how Christ taught the mistery of the food of his humanity which he promised to geue for food euen the same flesh that he sayd he would geue for the life of the world and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholy brought forth that is to say and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I shall geue for the life of the world and so is it plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sence that S. Iohn speaketh in saying The word was made flesh signifying by flesh the whol humanity And so did Cyril agrée to Nestorius when he vpon these textes reasoned how this eating is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitye to which nature in Christes person is properly attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man dispenced and geuen in the Sacrament And betwéene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstanding the misterye that Nestorius estéeming of ech nature in Christ a seuerall person as it was obiected to him and so dissoluinge the ineffable Unitie did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man seperate Cyrill maintayned the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseperable vnited to the Godhead and for the ineffable mistery of that Union the same to be a flesh that geueth life And then as Christ sayth If we eate not the fleshe of the Sonne of man we haue not life in vs because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and bloud to nourish such as be by his holy Spirite regenerate And as in Baptisme we receaue the Spirite of Christe for the renuinge of our lyfe so doe wer in this Sacrament of Christes most precious body and bloud receaue Christes very flesh and drinke his very bloud to continue and preserue increase and augment the life receaued And therefore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme that he speaketh here of the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud and in both Sacramentes geueth dispenseth and exhibiteth in déede those celestiall giftes in sensible elementes as Chrisostome sayth And because the true faithfull beléeuing men doe only by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnity of person the sonne of God so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ in one person the flesh of the Sonne of man is the proper flesh of the sonne of God Saint Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ Uerely verely vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. to be a figuratiue speach because after the bare letter it séemeth vnprofitable considering that flesh profiteth nothing in it self estemed in the own nature alone but as the same flesh in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature so is it as Christ sayd after Cyrilles exposition spirite and life not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therunto It is viuificatrix as Cyrill sayde and as the holy Ephcâ—ine Councell decreed A flesh geuing life according to Christes wordes Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the later day And then to declare vnto vs how in géeuinge this life to vs Christe vseth the instrument of his very humayne body it followeth For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly spirite so doth he sanctifie vs by his godly flesh and therefore repeteth agayn to inculcate the celestiall thing of this mistery and saieth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth to me and I in him which is the naturall and corporall vnion betwéene vs and Christ. Whereupon followeth that as Christ is naturally in his Father and his Father in him so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ he is by nature in Christ and Christ is naturally in him and the worthy receauer hath life increase augmented and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ. And because of the ineffable vnion of the two natures Christ sayd This is the food that came downe from heauen because God whose proper flesh it is came downe from heauen and hath an other vertue then Manna had because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it which Manna being but a figure thereof did not but being in this foode Christes very flesh inseparably vnited to the Godhead the same is of such efficacye as he that worthely eateth of it shall liue for euer And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the
because they be spoken by Christ hym selfe the auctor of all truth and by hys holy Apostle S. Paule as he receaued them of Christ so all doctrines contrary to the same be moste certaynly false and vntrue and of al Christen men to be eschued because they be contrary to Gods word And all doctrine concerning this matter that is more then this which is not grounded vpon Gods word is of no necessity neither ought the peoples heads to be busied or their consciences troubled with the same So that thinges spoken and done by Christ and written by the holy Euangelists and S Paule ought to suffice the fayth of Christian people as touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper and holy communion or sacrament of his body and bloud Which thing being well considered and wayed shall be a iust occasion to pacifie and agree both parties as well them that hetherto haue contemned or lightly esteemed it as also them which haue hetherto for lacke of knowledge or otherwise vngodly abused it Christ ordeyned the Sacrament to moue and stirre all men to frendshippe loue and concord and to put away all hatred variance and discord and to testifie a brotherly and vnfained loue between all them that be the members of Christ But the deuil the enemy of Christ and of all his members hath so craftely iugled herein that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy Sacrament God graunt that al contention set aside both the parties may come to this holy communiō with such a liuely faith in Christ and such an vnfained loue to all Christes members that as they carnallye eate with their mouthes this Sacramentall bread and drink the wine so spiritually they may eate and drink the very flesh and bloud of Christ which is in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of his father And that finally by his meanes they may enioy with him the glory and kingdome of heauen Amen Winchester Now let vs consider the tertes of the Euangelistes and S. Paul which be brought in by the Author as followeth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cuppe and when he had geuen thanks he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and said Take eate this is my body And taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruite of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingedome of God When the houre was come he sate downe and the twelue Apostles with him and he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer for I say vnto you henceforth I wil not eate of it any more vntill it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you for I say vnto you I wil not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntil the kingdome of God come And he tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body whith is geuen for you this doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he tooke the cup saying This cuppe is the new testament in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup. That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cup when supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherefore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cup vnworthely shall be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine himselfe and so eate of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you and many doe sléepe After these tertes brought in the author doth in the 4. chap. begin to trauers Christes intent that he intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receaue that worthely be members of Christes body The catholick church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man hath from the beginning of these textes of scripture confessed truely Christes intent and effectuall miraculous worke to make the bread his body and the wine his bloud to be verely meate and verely drinke vsing therin his humanitie wherewith to féede vs as he vsed the same wherewith to redéeme vs and as he doth sanctifie vs by his holy spirite so to sanctifie vs by his holy diuine flesh and bloud and as life is renued in vs by the gift of Christes holy spirite so life to be increased in vs by the gift of his holy flesh So as he that beléeueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beliefe which is Baptisme receaueth really Christes spirite And likewise he that hauing Christes spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud Doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes very body and bloud And therfore Christ in the institution of this Sacrament sayd deliuering that he consecrated This is my body c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud c. And although to mannes reason it séemeth straunge that Christ standing or sitting at the table should deliuer them his body to be eaten Yet when we remember Christ to be very God we must graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in our thoughtes all imaginations how it might be and consider Christes
intent by his will preached vnto vs by Scriptures and beleued vniuersally in his church But if it may now be thought séemely for vs to be so bold in so high a mistery to begin to discusse Christes intent What should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall signification as be rehearsed touching the mistery of this Sacrament First in the sixt of Iohn when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signifie beleeuing whereat was no murmuring that then he should enter to speak of geuing of his flesh to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say that he would geue a bread that is his flesh which he would geue for the life of the world In which wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therefore as we beleeue the gift of his flesh to the Iewes to be crucified so we must beléeue the gift of his flesh to be eaten and of that gifte liuery and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his promises faithfull as Christ is to be made in both And therefore when he sayd in his Supper Take eate this is my body he must néedes intend plainly as his words of promise required And these wordes in his Supper purporte to geue as really then his body to be eaten of vs as he gaue his body in deede to be crucified for vs aptly neuerthelesse and conueniently for ech effect and therefore in maner of geuing diuersly but in the substance of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare witnes the same and therefore sayd this is my body that shal be betraied for you expressing also the vse when he said take eate which words in deliuering of material bread had béen superfluous for what should men doe with bread when they take it but eate it specially when it is broaken But as Cyrill sayth Christ opened there vnto them the practise of that doctrine hée spake of in the sixt of S. Iohn and because he sayd he would geue his flesh for food which he would geue for the life of the world he for fulfilling of his promise sayd Take eate this is my body which wordes haue béen taught and beléeued to be of effect and operatory and Christ vnder the forme of bread to haue béen his very body According whereunto S. Paule noteth the receauer to be gilty when he doth not estéeme it our Lordes body wherewith it pleaseth Christ to féede such as be in him regenerate to the intent that as man was redéemed by Christ suffering in the nature of his humanitie so to purchase for man the kingdome of heauen lost by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitye geuing it to be eaten he ordayned it to nourish man and make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to enioy that kingdome And therefore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament and the same to be in déede deliuered Christ vsed playn wordes testified by the Euangelistes Saint Paule also rehearsed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the eleuenth to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuing as it were an exposition of the effect vseth the same proper wordes declaring the effect to be the communication of Christes body and bloud And one thing is notable touching the Scripture that in such notable spéeches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguity the Euangelists by some circumstance declared it or sometime opened it by playn interpretation as whē Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within thrée dayes build it agayne The Euangelist by and by addeth for interpretation This he sayd of the temple of his body And when Christ sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine The circumstaunce of the texte openeth the ambiguity But to shew that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the Euangelistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstaunces whereby to take away the proper signification of the wordes body and bloud so as the same might seeme not in déede geuen as the catholicke faith teacheth but in signification as the author would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ the Spirite geueth life the flesh profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ ech in their property a part considered but not as they be in Christs person vnited the mistery of which vniō such as beléeued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descention from heauen and after of his ascension thether agayn whereby they might vnderstand him very God whose flesh taken in the virgins wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs is as I haue before opened viuifike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes intent was to geue verely as he did in déede his precious body and bloud to be eaten and dronken according as he taught thē to be verely meate and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder forme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniētly and without horror of our nature receaue them Christ therein condescending to our infirmity As for such other wrangling as is made in vnderstanding of the words of Christ shall after he spoaken of by further occasion Caunterbury NOw we be come to the very pith of the matter and the chiefe pointe wherupon the wholl controuersie hangeth whether in these words this is my body Christ called bread his body wherin you and Smith agree like a man and a woman that dwelled in Lincolnshere as I haue heard reported that what pleased the one misliked the other sauing that they both agreed in wilfulness So do Smith and you agree both in this point that Christ made bread his body but that it was bread which he called his body when he sayd This is my body this you graunt but Smith denieth it And because all Smithes buildinges cleerely fall downe if this his chiefe foundation be ouerthrowen therfore must I first proue against Smith that Christ called the materiall bread his body the wine which was the fruite of the vine his bloud For why did you not prooue this my Lord sayth Smith would you that men should take you for a prophet or for one that could not erre in his sayinges First I alleadge against Smithes negation your affirmation which as it is more true in this point then his negation so for your estimation it is able to counteruail his saying if there were nothing els yet if Smith had well pondered what I haue written in the second chap. of my second booke and in the 7. and 8. chapters of my third book he should haue
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
which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine which was the doctrine of Luther but the true faith is that Christes most precious body and bloud is by the might of his word and determination of his will which he declareth by his word in his holy Supper present vnder forme of bread and wine The substance of which natures of bread and wine is conuerted into his most precious body bloud as it is truely beleeued taught in the Catholick church of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant So as the Author of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittingly against his conscience to say they teach calling them papists that Christ is in the bread and wine but they agrée in forme of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holy Communion in that it is there said the body and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wine And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong vntrue report of the faith of the Catholick Church made of this Author in the setting forth of this difference on that parte which it pleaseth him to name Papistes And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference such as no Catholick man would deny For euery Catholick teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament vnles he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him For otherwise such one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condemnation Christ cannot be receued worthely but into his own temple which be ye S. Paul saith and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him is not his As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecration in substance Wherefore appeareth how the Author of this booke in the lieu and place of a difference which he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholick man must néedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud or the bread and wine as this Author speaketh But as this Author would haue speaken plainly and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges he should in the second parte haue said from what contrary to that the Catholick Church teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaration of the second parte to say that repugneth not to the first matter and that no Catholicke man will deny considering the said two teachinges be not of one matter nor shoote not as one might say to one marke For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely as before is sayd which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy so both the differences thus taught make but one Catholick doctrine Let vs sée what the Author saith further Caunterbury NOw the craftes wiles and vntruthes of the first booke being partly detected after I haue also answered to this booke I shall leaue to the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answere I shall rehearse the wordes of mine owne thirde boke which you attēpt next out of order to impugne My words be these Now this matter of Transubstantiatiō being as I trust sufficiently resolued which is the first part before rehearsed wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth order requireth next to intreate of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacramēt thereof wherin is no lesse cōtentiō thē in the first part For a plain explication whereof it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people that our Sauiour Christ being perfecte God and in all thinges equall and coeternall with his Father for our sakes became also a perfect man taking flesh and bloud of his blessed mother and virgin Mary sauing sinne being in all thinges like vnto vs adioyning vnto his diuinity a most perfect soul of man And his body being made of very flesh and bones not onely hauing all members of a perfect mannes body in due order and proportion but also being subiect to hunger thirst labour sweate werines cold heate and all other like infirmities and passions of a manne and vnto death also and that the most vile and painfull vpon the crosse and after his death he rose againe with the self same visible and palpable body and appeared therewith and shewed the same vnto his Apostles and specially to Thomas making him to put his handes into his side and to feele his woundes And with the selfe same body he forsooke this world and ascended into heauen the Apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father there shall remaine vntill the last day when he shall come to iudge the quick dead This is the true Catholick faith which the Scripture teacheth and the vniuersall Church of Christ hath euer beleeued from the beginning vntill within these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares last passed that the Bishop of Rome with the assistance of his Papistes hath set vp a new faith and beleefe of their own deuising that the same body really corporally naturally and sensibly is in this worlde still and that in an hundred thousand places at one time being inclosed in euery pixe and bread consecrated And although we doe affirme according to Gods word that Christ is in all persons that truly beleeue in him in such sort that with his flesh and bloud he doth spiritually nourish and feede them and geueth them euerlasting life doth assure them thereof as well by the promise of his word as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper which he did institute for the same purpose yet we doe not a little vary from the hainous errors of the Papists For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine but we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the bread wine Here it pleaseth you to passe ouer all the rest of my sayinges and to aunswere onely to the difference betweene the Papists and the true Catholicke faith Where in the first ye finde fault that I haue vntruely reported the Papisticall faith which you
bloud signifying to theÌ„ that worthely do eat that bread drink that cuppe that they be inwardly and inuisibly fed with Christes flesh and bloud as they outwardly and visibly receaue the sacraments of them To be short here in this processe you vse plenty of words at your pleasure to make the reader beleue that I should suppose confusion monstrousnes absurditie and vnseemelinesse to be in Gods holy sacraments where as I do no more but tel what monstrous absurdities and errors the Papists do teach in the sacraments But if the reader take good heede to your talk he shall finde that you lacking good matter to aunswere this comparison do fall vnto railing and enforce your pen to inuent such stuffe as might bring me into hatred vndeserued which kind of rhetorick is called Canma facunda and is vsed onely of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their aduersary which is yet an other trick of the deuils sophistry And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred you couple me with Sabellius and Arrius whose doctrines as you say were facile and easy as here you confesse mine for to be But if all such expositions as make the Scriptures plain should by and by be slaunderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius then should all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger because that by their paines they haue made hard questions facile and easy And yet whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to vnderstand or not I cannot define but it seemeth so hard that you cannot vnderstand it except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulnes that you can and wil not vnderstaÌ„d it Now followeth the sixt comparison Furthermore the Papistes say that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ if they by chaunce doe eate the Sacramentall bread We say That no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ nor drink his bloud but onely man Winchester I haue red that some intreate these chances of dogges and cattes but I neuer heard any of that opinion to say or write so as a doctrine that a dogge or a catte eateth the body of Christ and set it forth for a teaching as this author most impudently supposeth and I maruell much that such a worde and such a reporte can come out of a christian maÌ„nes mouth and therefore this is by the author a maruelous surmise Whereupon to take occasion to bring the aduersatiue But for the Authors parte being such a saying on that side as all christendome hath euer taught that no creature can eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ but onely man But this abhominable surmysed no truth in the former parte of his comparison may be taken for a proofe whether such beastly asseuerations procéede from the spirite of truth or now And whether truth be there intended where such blasphemy is surmised But let vs see the rest Caunterbury YEt stil in these comparisons you grauÌ„t that part of the difference to be true which I affirme but you say that I reporte vntruely of the Papistes impudently bearing them in hand to say such abhominable beastly asseuerations as you neuer heard Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in deniall of that thing which either you know the Papists do say or you are in doubt whether they say or saying hauing not read what it is that they say For why doe they reiect the Master of the sentences in this point that he said a mouse or bruite beast receaueth not the body of Christ although they seeme to receau it Wherin if you say as the Master did that the mouse receiueth not the body of Christ looke for no fauor at the papists hands but to be reiected as the Master was unles they forbeare you vpon fauour and because that in other matters you haue bene so good a captayne for them they will pardon you this one faulte Aâ—d so is this first parte of the difference no vntrue surmise of me but a determination of the Papistes condemning who so euer would say the contrary And this is a common proposition among the schoole diuines that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the forme of the bread is remayning where so euer it be whereof your S. Thomas wryteth thus Quidam vero dixerunt quod quaÌ„ primum Sacramentum sumitur à mure vel cane desinit ibi esse corpus Christi Sed hoc deregat veritati huius Sacramenti Substantia enim panis sumpta à peccatore I am diu manet dion per calorem naturalem est in digestione igitur tam diu manet corpus Christi sub speciebus Sacramentalibus And Perin in his booke printed and set abroad in this matter for all men to read saith That although the mouse or any other beast doe eate the Sacrament yet neuerthelesse the same is the very and reall body of Christ. And he asketh what inconuenience it is against the verity of Christs reall body in the Sacrament though the impassible body lye in the mouth or maw of the beast Is it not therfore the body of Christ Yes vndoubtedly saith he So that now these abhominable opinions and beastly asseuerations as you truely terme them meaning thereby to bite me as appeareth be fitte termes and meete for the Papists whose asseuerations they be Now followeth the seuenth comparyson They say that euery man good and euill eateth the body of Christ. We say that both doe eate the Sacramentall bread and drink the wine but none do eate the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud but only they that be liuely members of his body Winchester In this comparison the former part speaking of such men as be by baptisme receiued into Christes church is very true confirmed by S. Paule and euer since affirmed in the church in the proofe whereof here in this booke I wil not trauell but make it a demurre as it were in law whereupon to fly the truth of the hole matter if that doctrin called by this author the doctrine of the Papistes and is in déede the Catholick doctrine be not in this point true let all be so iudged for me If it be true as it is most true let that be a marke whereby to iudge the rest of this authors vntrue asseuerations For vndoubtedly S. Augustine sayth We may not of mens matters estéeme the Sacraments they be made by him whose they be but worthely vsed they bring reward vnworthely handled they bring iudgement He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely and he that vseth it vnworthely lie not one but that thyng is one whether it be handled worthely or vnworthely so as if is neither better ne worse but life or death of them that vse it Thus saith S. Augustine and therefore be the receauers worthy or vnworthy good or euil the substance of Christs Sacrament is all one as beyng Gods worke
condemnatiō only And the learned mē in Christes church say that the ignoraunce and want of obseruation of these thrée maner of eatinges causeth the errour in the vnderstanding of the scriptures and such fathers sayinges as haue written of the sacrament And when the Church speaketh of these thrée maner of eatinges what an impudency is it to say that the church teacheth good men only to eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud when they receaue the Sacrament being the truth otherwise yet a diuersity ther is of eatyng spiritually only eating spiritually and sacramētally because in that supper they receue his very flesh bloud in deed with the effects of al graces gifts to such as receue it spiritually worthely wher as out of the supper when we eat only spiritually by fayth God that worketh without his sacramentes as semeth to him doth releaue those that beleue and trust in him and suffereth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them whereof we may not presume contemning the sacrament but ordenaryly seke God where he hath ordred himself to be sought and there to assure our selfe of his couenaunts and promyses which be most certaynly annexed to his sacramentes whereunto we ought to geue most certayne trust and confidence wherfore to teach the spirituall manducation to be equall with the spirituall manducation and sacramentall also that is to diminish the effect of the institutiō of the Sacrament which no Christen man ought to doe Caunterbury WHo is so ignoraunt that hath red any thing at all but he knoweth that distinction of thre eatinges But no man that is of learning and iudgement vnderstandeth the 3. diuerse eatings in such sort as you doe but after this manner That some eat only the sacrament of Christs body but not the very body it selfe some eat his body and not the Sacrament and some eat the Sacrament and body both togither The Sacramēt that is to say the bread is corporally eaten and chawed with the teth in the mouth The very body is eaten and chawed with faith in the spirite Ungodly men whē they receaue the Sacramēt they chaw in their mouthes like vnto Iudas the Sacramētal bread but they eat not the celestial bread which is Christ. Faithful Christian people such as be Christs true disciples continually frō tyme to tyme record in theyr myndes the beneficiall death of our Sauiour Christ chawing it by fayth in the cud of their spirit and digesting it in their harts feding and comforting themselues with that heauēly meat although they dayly receaue not the Sacrament thereof and so they eat Christs body spiritually although not the sacrament thereof But when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of eternall lyfe geuen vnto them by Christes death come vnto the Lords holy Table then as before ehey fed spiritually vpon Christ so now they feed corporally also vpon the sacramental bread By which sacramētal feeding in Christes promises their former spirituall feding is increased and they grow and wax continually more strōg in Christ vntill at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. This is the teaching of the true Catholick Church as it is taught by Gods word And therefore S. Paule speaking of them that vnworthely eat sayth that they eat the bread but not that they eat the body of Christ but their own damnation And where you set out with your accustomed rethorical colours a great impudencie in me that would report of the Papistes that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud only when they receaue the Sacramēt seyng that I know that the Papistes make a distinction of 3. maner of eatinges of Christes body whereof one is without the sacrament I am not ignoraunt in deed that the Papists graunt a spiritual eating of Christs body without the sacrament but I mean of such an eating of his body as his presēce is in the Sacrament and as you say he is there eatē that is to say corporally Therefore to expresse my mind more plainely to you that list not vnderstand let this be the comparison They say that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacramēt and there eaten so good men eat his body and bloud only when they receaue the sacrament so doe they eat drink and feed vpon him continually so long as they be members of his body Now the Papists say that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament and is so eaten only when men receaue the sacrament But we say that the presence of Christ in his holy supper is a spirituall presence and as he is spiritually present so is he spiritually eaten of all faythfull christian men not only when they receaue the sacrament but continually so long as they be members spirituall of Christes misticall body And yet this is really also as you haue expounded the word that is to say in deed and effectually And as the holy ghost doth not only come to vs in Baptisme and Christ doth there eloth vs but they doe the same to vs continually so long as we dwell in Christ so likewise doth Christ feed vs so lōg as we dwell in him and he in vs and not only when we receaue the sacrament So that as touching Christ himself the presence is all one the clothing all one the feeding al one although the one for the more comfort and consolation haue the sacramēt added to it and the other be without the sacrament The rest that is here spoken is contentious wrangling to no purpose But now commeth in Smith with his 5. egs saying that I haue made hete 5. lyes in these comparisons The first lie is saith he that the Papists doe say that good men do eat and drink Christs body and bloud only when they receaue the sacrament which thing Smyth saith the Papists do not say but that they then onely do eat Christs body and drinke his bloud corporally which sufficeth for my purpose For I mean no other thing but that the Papistes teach such a corporall eating of Christes body as indureth not but vanisheth away and ceaseth at the furthest within few houres after the Sacramēt is receaued But for as much as Smith agreeth here with you the answere made before to you wil serue for him also And yet Smith here shall serue me in good stede against you who haue imputed vnto me so many impudent lyes made against the Papistes in the comparisons before rehearsed and Smith saith that this is the first lye which is in the 8. comparison And so shal Smith being mine aduersary and your frend be such a witnes for me as you cannot except against to prooue that those thinges which before you said were impudent lies be no lies at all For this is the first lye saith Smith and then my sayinges before must be all true and not impudent lies Now to the ninth
And yet it is not to be denied but that Christ is truely eaten as he was truly born but the one corporally and without figure and the other spiritually and with a figure Now followeth my 11 comparison They say that the body of Christ is euery day many tymes made as often as there be Masses sayd and that then and there he is made of bread and wine We say that Christes body was neuer but once made and then not of the nature substance of bread and wine but of the substance of his blessed mother Winchester The body of Christ is by Gods omnipotency who so worketh in his word made present vnto vs at such tyme as the church praye it may please him so to doe which prayer is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayer now set foorth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ which they can not be vnlesse God worketh it and make them so to be In which mistery it was neuer taught as this author willingly misreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that order exhibited and made preset vnto vs by conuersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine but a new presence of the body that is neuer old made present there where the substāce of bread and wine was before So as this comparison of difference is meere wrangling and so euident as it needeth no further aunswere but a note Lo how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter and without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in sclander if it were possible May not this be accompted as a part of Gods punishmēt for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part Caunterbury Christ is present when so euer the church praieth vnto him and is gathered togither in his name And the bread and wine be made vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ as it is in the book of common praier but not by chaunging the substaunce of bread and wine into the substance of Christes naturall body and bloud but that in the godly vsing of thē they be vnto the receauers Christes body and bloud As of some the Scripture saith that their riches is their redemption and to some it is their damnatiō And as Gods word to some is life to some it is death and a snare as the prophet saith And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at to some is a raysing frō death not by conuersion of substances but by good or euill vse that thing which to the godly is saluation to the vngodly is damnation So is the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Lords supper to the worthy receauers Christ himselfe and eternall life and to the vnworthy receauers euerlasting death and damnation not by conuersion of one substance into an other but by godly or vngodly vse thereof And therfore in the book of the holy communion we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and bloud of Christ but that vnto vs in that holy mistery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthely receaue the same that we may be partakers of Christes body and bloud and that therwith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished And a like praier of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion of all such offerings as at that time all the people vsed to offer praying that their offerings might be vnto them the body and bloud of Christ. And where you say it was neuer taught as I say that Christs body is made of the matter of bread you knowingly and willingly misreport me For I say not of the matter of bread but of bread which when you deny that the Papists so say it semeth you be now ashamed of the doctrin which the Papistes haue taught thys 4. or 5. hundred yeres For is it not playnely written of all the Papists both lawyers and scholl authors that the body of Christ in the sacramēt is made of bread and his bloud of wine And they say not that his body is made present of bread wine but is made of bread and wine Be not their books in print ready to be shewed Do they not say that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into nothing but into the body of Christ And do not your selfe also say here in this place that the substance of bread is conuerted into Christes precious body And what is that els but the body of Christ to be made of bread and to be made of a new matter For if the bread doe not vanish away into nothing but be turned into Christes body then is Christs body made of it and then it must needes follow that Christes body is made of new and of an orher substance then it was made of in his mothers wombe For there it was made of her flesh and bloud and here it is made of bread and wine And the Papistes say not as you now would shift of the matter that Christes body is made present of bread but they say plainly without addition that it is made of bread Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the Papists Ex pane fit Corpus Christi of bread is made the body of Christ and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance therof◠And what reason sentence or english could be in this saying Christes body is made present of bread Marye to be present in bread might be some sentence but the speeche will you in no wise admitte And this your saying here if the reader mark it wel turneth ouer quite and cleane all the wholl Papisticall doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament as well touching transubstantiation as also the carnall presence For their doctrine with one whol consent and agreement is this That the substance of bread remaineth not but is turned into the substance of Christes body and so the body of Christ is made of it But this is false say you and not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a place to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And so the wholl doctrine of the papists which they haue taught these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares doe you condemne with condigne reproches as a teaching intollerable not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play Why doe you then take vpon you to defend the Papistical doctrine if it be so intollerable Why doe you not forsake those scoffers and players which haue iugled with the world so long and embrace the
manner which we say not but in a spirituall maner and therefore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such maner as God onely knoweth yet dooth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence exceding our capacitie to comprehend the maner how This is the very true teaching to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament euen of the same body that suffred in playne simple euident termes and wordes such as can not by cauilation be mistaken and construed so néere as possibly mans infirmitie permitteth and suffreth Now let vs consider in what sort the author and hys company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the Sacrament who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne which sonne this author sayth is euer corporally in heauen and no where els and yet by operation and vertue is here in earth so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any language of man able to expresse God and hys mysteryes For and thinges that be sene or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible misteryes the nature wherof is that they can not throughly be expressed they were no misteries and yet it is true that of thinges visible wherein God worketh wonderfully there may be great resemblances some shadowes and as it were inductions to make a man astonied in consideration of thinges inuisible when he séeth thinges visible so wonderfully wrought and to haue so maruaylous effectes And diuers good catholicke deuoute men haue by diuers naturall things gone about to open vnto vs the mistery of the trinitie partely by the sonne as the author doth in the Sacrament partely by fyre partely by the soule of man by the Musitians science the arte the touch with the players fingers and the sound of the cord wherein wil hath all trauailed the matter yet remayneth darke ne can not be throughly set forth by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the sonne whiche sonne this author sayth is onely corporally in heauen and no where els and in the earth the operatiō and vertue of the sonne So as by this authors supposall the substance of the sonne should not be in earth but onely by operation and vertue wherein if this author erreth he doth the reader to vnderstande that if he erre in consideration of naturall thinges it is no maruayle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I will not of my selfe begin the contention with this author of the naturall worke of the Sonne I will bryng forth the saying of Martin Bucer now resident at Cambridge who vehemently and for so much truly affirmeth the trew reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament For he sayth Christ sayd not This is my spirite this is my vertue but This is my body Wherefore he sayth we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hang vpon the crosse our Lord hym selfe whiche in some parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the sonne for hys purpose to proue Christes body present really and substancially in the sacramēt where this author vseth the same similitude to proue the body of Christ really absent I will wryte in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin expounding the xrvi chapiter of Saynte Mathew and then I will put the same in english Bucers wordes bée these Vt Sol vere vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est radys tamen suis praesens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substantialiter quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini simbolis quam oculi vident habent Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res sidei non sunt igitur huc admittende cogitationes de presentatione corporis quae constar ratione huius vitae etiamnum patibilis fluxae Verbo Domini simpliciter inhaerendum est debet fides sensuum de fectui praebere supplimentum Which is thus much in English As the sonne is truely placed determinately in one place of the visible heauē and yet is truely and substantially present by meanes of hys beames els where in the world abroad So our Lord although he be comprehended in one place of the secrete and diuine heauen that is to say the glory of hys father yet neuerthelesse by hys word and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man and therfore in substance in his holy supper which presence mans mind geuing credite to his words and tokens with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see and haue the sonne presente exhibited and shewed with his corporally lyght This is a deep secrete matter and of the new testament and a matter of fayth and therfore herein thoughtes be not to be receiued of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of thys life transitorie and subiect to suffer We must simply cleaue to the word of Christ and fayth must releue the default of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his minde whereunto because the similitude of the sonne doth not aunswere in all partes he noteth wisely in th ende howe this is a matter of faith and therefore vpon the foundation of faith we must speake of it thereby to supply where our sences fayle For the presence of Christ and whole Christe God and man is true although we can not thinke of the maner how The chiefe cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shew how in hys iudgement we haue not onely in earth the operation and vertue of the sonne but also the substance of the sonne by incane of the sonne beames which be of the same substaunce with the sonne and can not be deuided in substance from it and therfore we haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sonne not onely the operation and vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sort yet the beames that touch the earth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papiste and yet for the reall and substantiall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pithely and playnly and here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the sonne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the sacrament which is one of the high misteries in our religiō And this may
also in the middest of them that know him not and thus he reasoneth If he be here among vs still how can he be gone hence as a straunger departed into another countrey wherunto he answereth that Christ is both God and man hauing in him two natures And as a man he is not with vs vnto the worldes end nor is present with all his faihtfull that be gathered together in his name But his diuine power and spirite is euer with vs. Paule saith he was absent from the Corinthes in his body when he was present with thē in his spirite So is Christ sayth he gone hence and absent in his humanitie which in his diuine nature is euery where And in this saying sayth Origen we diuide not his humanitie ` for S. Iohn writeth that no spirite that deuideth Iesus can be of God but we reserue to both his natures their own properties In these wordes Origen hath playnly declared his mynd that Christes body is not both present here with vs and also gone hence and estranged from vs. For that were to make two natures of one body and to deuide the body of Iesus forasmuch as one nature can not at one tyme be both with vs and absēt from vs. And therefore sayth Origen that the presence must be vnderstanded of his diuinitie and the absence of his humanitie And according hereunto S. Austine writeth thus in a pistle Ad dardanum Doubt not but Iesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there from whence he shall come And remember well and beleeue the profession of a christian man that he rose frō death ascended into heauen sitteth at the right hand of his father and from that place and none other shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead And he shall come as the Aungels sayd as he was seene go into heauen that is to say in the same forme and substance vnto the which he gaue immortallytie but chaunged not nature After this forme sayth he meaning his mans nature we may not thynke that he is euery wher For we must beware that we doe not so stablish his diuinity that we take away the veritie of his body These be S. Augustines playne wordes And by and by after he addeth these wordes The Lord Iesus as God is euery where and as man is in heauen And finally he concludeth this matter in these few wordes Doubt not but our Lord Iesus Christ is euery where as God and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God and he is in a certain place in heauen because of the measure of a very body And agayne S. Augustin writeth vpon the Gospel of S. Iohn Our sauiour Iesus Christ sayth S. Augustine is aboue but yet his truth is here His body wherein he arose is in one place but his truth is spred euery where And in an other place of the same booke S. Augustine expounding these wordes of Christ. You shall euer haue poore men with you but me you shall not euer haue saith that Christ spake these words of the presence of his body For saith he as concerning his diuine maiesty as concerning his prouidence as concerning his infallible and inuisible grace these words be fulfilled which he spake I am with you vnto the worldes ende But as concerning the fleshe which he tooke in his carnation as concerning that which was borne of the virgine as concerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vpon a tree and taken downe frō the crosse lapped in linnen clothes and buried and rose againe and appered after his resurrection as concerning that flesh he sayd You shall not euer haue me with you Wherefore senig that as concerning his flesh he was conuersant with his disciples forty dayes and they accompanying seeing and not following him he went vp into heauen both he is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet he is here for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his diuine Maiesty As concerning the presence of his Maiesty we haue Christ euer with vs but as concerning the presence of his flesh he said truely to his disciples ye shall not euer haue me with you For as concerning the presence of his flesh the church had Christ but a few dayes yet now it holdeth him fast by faith though it see him not with eyes All these be S. Augustines wordes Also in an other booke intitled to S. Augustine is written thus We must beleeue and confesse that the Sonne of God as concerning his diuinitie is inuisible without a body immortall and in circumscriptible but as concerning his humanitie we ought to beleeue and confesse that he is visible hath a body and it contayned in a certayn place and hath truely all the members of a man Of these wordes of S. Augustine it is most cleere that the profession of the catholick faith is that Christ as concerning his bodely substance and nature of man is in heauen and not present here with vs in earth For the nature and property of a very body is to be in one place and to occupy one place and not to be euery where or in many places at one time And though the body of Christ after his resurrectiō and ascention was made immortall yet this nature was not taken away for then as S. Augustine saith it were no very body And further S. August sheweth both the maner fourme how Christ is here present with vs in earth how he is absent saying that he is present by his diuine nature and maiesty by his prouidence by grace But by his humain nature and very body he is absent from this world and present in heauen Cyrillus likewise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn agreeth fully with S. Augustin saying Although Christ tooke away from hence the presence of his body yet in Maiestie of hys Godhead he is euer here as he promised to his disciples at his departing saying I am with you euer vnto the worldes end And in an other place of the same booke saynct Cyrill sayth thus Christian people must beleeue that although Christ be absent from vs as concerning hys body yet by his power he gouerneth vs and all thinges and is present with all them that loue hym Therfore he sayd Truely truely I say vnto you where so euer there be two or three gathered together in my name there am I in the middes of them For lyke as when he was conuersant here in earth as a man yet then he filled heauen and did not leaue the company of angelles euē so beyng now in heauen with hys flesh yet he filleth the earth and is in them that loue hym And it is to be marked that although Christ should go away onely as concerning hys flesh for he is euer present in the power of hys diuinitie yet for a little time he sayd he would be with hys disciples
that there is onely bread in the Sacrament sayth Smith and not Christes body what then What is that to purpose here in this place I pray you For I goe not about in this place to proue that onely bread is in the sacrament and not Christes body but in this place I proue onely that it was very bread which Christ called his body and very wine which he called his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud Which Smith with all his rablement of the Papistes deny and yet all the old Authors affirme it with Doctor Steuen Gardiner late Bishope of Winchester also who sayth that Christ made demonstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body And as all the old Authors be able to counteruayle the Papistes so is the late Bishope able to matche Smith in this mater so that we haue at the least a Rowland for an Oliuer But shortly to comprehend the aunswere of Smith where I haue proued my sayinges a dosen leaues together by the authoritie of Scripture and old catholike writers is this a sufficient aunswer onely to say without any proofe that al my trauayl is lost and that all that I haue alleadged is nothing to the purpose Iudge indifferently gentle Reader whether I might not by the same reason cast away all Smithes whole booke and reiect it quite cleane with one word saying All his labore is lost and to no purpose Thus Smith and Gardiner being aunswered I will returne agayne to my booke where it followeth thus Now this being fully proued it must needes folow consequently that this manner of speaking is a figuratiue speach For in playne and proper speach it is not true to say that bread is Christes body or wine his bloud For Christes body hath a soule lyfe sence and reason but bread hath neither soule lyfe sence nor reason Lykewise in playne speche it is not true that we eate Christes body and drinke his bloud For eating drinking in their proper and vsuall signification is with the tongue teeth and lyppes to swallow diuide and chawe in peeces which thinge to do to the flesh and bloud of Christ is horrible to be heard of any Christian. So that these speaches To eate Christes body and drinke his bloud to call bread his body and wine his bloud be speches not taken in the proper signification of euery worde but by translation of these wordes eating and drinking from the signification of a corporall thing to signifie a spirituall thing and by calling a thing that signifieth by the name of the thing which is signified thereby Which is no rare nor straunge thing but an vsuall manner and phrase in common speech And yet least this faulte should be imputed vnto vs that we do fayne thinges of our owne heades without auctoritie as the papistes be accustomed to do here shall be cited sufficient authoritye as well of Scriptures as of olde auncient authors to approue the same First when our Sauiour Christ in the sixt of Iohn sayd that he was the bread of lyfe which who so euer did eate should not dye but liue for euer and that the bread which he would geue vs was his flesh and therefore who so euer should eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should haue euerlasting lyfe and they that should not eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should not haue euerlasting lyfe When Christ had spoken these wordes with many moe of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud both the Iewes and many also of his disciples were offended with his wordes and sayd This is an hard saying For howe can hee geue vs his flesh to be eaten Christ perceiuing their murmuring hartes because they knew none other eating of his flesh but by chawing and swallowing to declare that they should not eate his body after that sort nor that he ment of any such carnall eating he sayd thus vnto them What yf you see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before It is the spirite that geueth life the flesh auaileth nothing the words which I spake vnto you be spirite and lyfe These wordes our Sauiour Christ spake to lift vp their mindes from earth to heauen and from carnall to spirituall eating that they should not phantasy that they should with their teeth eate him present here in earth for his flesh so eaten sayth he should nothing profite them And yet so they should not eate him for he would take his body away from them and ascend with it into heauen and there by fayth and not with teeth they should spiritually eate him sitting at the right hand of his father And therefore sayth he The wordes which I do speake be spirite and lyfe That is to say are not to be vnderstand that we shall eate Christ with our teeth grossely and carnally but that we shall spiritually and gostly with our fayth eate him being carnally absent from vs in heauen And in such wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eate him many yeares before he was incarnated and borne as Saint Paule sayth that all they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doo and drinke the same spirituall drinke that is to say Christ. For they spiritually by their fayth were fed and nourished with Christes body and bloud and had eternall lyfe by him before he was borne as we haue now that come after his ascention Thus haue you heard the declaration of Christ himselfe and of Saint Paul that the eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud is not taken in the common signification with mouth and teeth to eate and chaw a thing being present but by a liuely fayth in hart and minde to chaw and digest a thing being absent either ascended hence into heauen or els not yet borne vpō earth Winchester In the lx leaf the auctor entreateth whether it be a plaine spéech of Christ to say eate and drincke speaking of his body and bloud I answer the spéech of it selfe is propre commaunding them present to eate and drincke that is proponed for them and yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like cōmon effect worke in eating and drinking that heauenly meate drincke as it doth in earthly and carnall meates In this mistery man doth as Christ ordeined that is to say receyue with his mouth that is ordered to be receiued with his mouth graunting it neuerthelesse of that dignitie and estimation that Christes wordes affirms and whether he so doth or no Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it selfe alone whereof no good man iudgeth carnally or grosely ne discusseth the vnfaythfull question how which he can not conceiue but leaueth the déepenes thereof and doth as he is bidden This misterie receiueth no mans thoughtes Christes institution hath a propertie in it which can not be discussed by mans sensuall reason Christes wordes be spirite and life which this auctor wresteth with
his owne glose to exclude the truth of the eating of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to his speach the wordes grossely and carnally which wordes in such a rude vnderstanding be termes méeter to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery Wherein I will make the issue with this author that no catholike teaching is so framed with such termes as though we should eate Christs most precious body grossely carnally ioyning those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hillary vseth it but contrariwise speaking in the Catholique teaching of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spirituall maner of presence and yet there is present by gods power the very true naturall body and bloud of Christ whole God man without leauing his place in heauen and in the holy supper men vse their mouthes and téeth following Christes commaundement in the receiuing of that holy Sacrament being in fayth sufficiently instruct that they can not ne do not teare consume or violate that most precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuing it are cause of their owne iudgement and condemnation Caunterbury EAting and drinking with the mouth being so playne a matter that yong babes learne it and know it before they cā speake yet the Cut till here with his blacke colours and darke speaches goeth about so to couer and hyde the matter that neither yong nor olde learned nor vnlearned should vnderstand what he meaneth But for all his masking who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that eating in the propper and vsuall signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth And who knoweth not also that Christ is not so eaten Who can then be ignorant that here you speake a manifest vntruth when you say that Christes body to be eaten is of it selfe a propper speach and not figuratiue Which is by and by confessed by your selfe when you say that we do not eate that heauēnly meat as we do other carnall meates which is by chawing and deuiding with the mouth and teeth And yet we receaue with the mouth that is ordeined to be receiued with the mouth that is to say the Sacramentall bread and wine esteming them neuerthelesse vnto vs when we duly receiue them according vnto Christes wordes and ordinaunce But where you say that of the substaunce of Christes body no good man iudgeth carnally ne discusseth the vnfaythful question how you charge your selfe very sore in so saying and seeme to make demonstration vpon your selfe of whom may be sayd Ex ore tuo te iudico For you both iudge carnally in affirming a carnall presence and a carnall eating and also you discusse this question how when you say that Christes body is in the sacrament really substauncially corporally carnally sensible and naturally as he was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the cros And as concerning these wordes of Christ The wordes which I doe speake be Spirite and lyfe I haue not wrested them with myne owne glose as you misreport but I haue cited for me the interpretation of the catholik doctors and holy fathers of the church as I refer to the iudgement of the reader But you teach such a carnall grosse eating and drinking of Christes flesh bloud as is more meet to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to sette forth the high mistery of Christes holy supper For you say that Christes body is present really substauncially corporally and carnally and so is eaten and that we eate Christes body as eating is taken in common speach but in common speach it is taken for chawing and gnawing as doges do paunches wherfore of your saying it followeth that we do so eate Christes body as dogges eate paunches which all christian eares abhore for to heare But why should I ioyne with you here an issue in that mater which I neuer spake For I neuer read nor hard no man that sayd sauing you alone that we do eate Christ grossely or carnally or as eating is taken in common speach without any figure but all that euer I haue hard or read say quite cleane contrary But you who affirme that we eate Christ carnally and as eating is taken in common speach which is carnally grossely to chaw with the teeth must nedes consequently graunt that we eat him grossely and carnally as dogges eate paunches And this is a strange thing to heare that where before you sayd that Christ is present but after a spirituall maner now you say that he is eaten carnally And where you say that in the holy Supper men vse their mouth and teeth truth it is that they so do but to chawe the Sacramēt not the body of Christ. And if they doo not teare that most precious body and bloud why say you then that they eate the body of Christ as eatyng is taken in cōmon speech And wherefore doth that false Papisticall fayth of Pope Nicolas which you wrongfully call Catholike teach that Christs body is torne with the teeth of the faythfull De consecr dist 2. Ego Now folowe the particular authorities which I haue alleaged for the interpretation of Christes wordes which if you had well considered you would not haue sayd as you doe that I wrasted Christes wordes with mine owne glose For I beginne with Origene saying And Origene declaring the sayd eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud not to be vnderstand as the wordes doe sound but figuratiuely writeth thus vpon these wordes of Christ Except you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Consider sayth Origen that these thinges written in Godes bookes are figures and therefore examine and vnderstand them as spirituall and not as carnall men For if you vnderstand them as carnall men they hurt you and feede you not For euen in the Gospels is there foūd letter that killeth And not onely in the old Testament but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth hym that dooth not spiritually vnderstand that which is spoken For if thou follow the letter or wordes of this that Christ sayd Except you eat my flesh and drink my bloud this letter killeth Who can more playnely expresse in any wordes that the eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud are not to be taken in common signification as the wordes pretend and sound then Origene dooth in this place Winchester Now I will touch shortly what may be sayd to the particular authorities brought in by this author Origen is noted among other writers of the church to draw the text to all egories who doth not therby meane to destroy the truth of the letter and therefore whē he speaketh of a figure sayth not there is onely a figure which exclusiue only being away as it is not found by any author Catholick taught that the spéech
is in the bread and wine and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wine but really carnally and corporally he is onely in heauen You haue termed these my wordes as it liketh you but farre otherwise then I eyther wrote or ment or then any indifferent reader would haue imagined For what indifferent reader would haue gathered of my words that Christ in his diuine nature is not really in heauen For I make a disiunctiue wherein I declare a playn distinction betweene his diuine nature and his humaine nature And of his diuine nature I say in the first mēber of my diuision which is in the beginning of my aforesayd words that by that nature he is euery where And all the rest that followeth is spoken of his humayne nature wherby he is carnally and corporally onely in heauen And as for this word really in such a sense as you expound it that is to say not in phantasy nor imagination but verily and truely so I grant that Christ is really not onely in them that duely receaue the sacrament of the Lordes supper but also in them that duely receaue the sacrament of Baptisme and in all other true christian people at other times when they receiue no sacramēt For al they be the members of Christs body and Temples in whom he truely inhabiteth although corporally and really as the Papistes take that word really he be onely in heauen and not in the sacrament And although in them that duely receaue the sacrament he is truely and in deed and not by phansy and imagination and so really as you vnderstand really yet is he not in them corporally but spiritual◠as I say and onely after a spirituall manner as you say And as for these wordes carnally and corporally I defame them not for I meane by carnally and corporally none otherwise than after the form and fashion of a mans body as we shal be after our resurrectiō that is to say visible palpable and circumscribed hauing a very quantitie with due proportion and distinction of members in place and order one from an other And if you will deny Christ so to be in heauen I haue so playne and manifest scriptures agaynst you that I will take you for no christian man except that you reuoke that error For sure I am that Christes naturall body hath such a grossenes or stature and quantitie if you will so call it bicause the word grosenes grosely taken as you vnderstand it soundeth not well in an incoruptible and immortall body Marry as for any other grosenes as of eating drinking and grose auoyding of the same with such other like corruptible grosenes it is for grose heades to imagine or think eyther of Christ or of any body glorified And although S. Augustine may say that Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen yet he sayth playnly that his body is of such sort that it is circumscribed and conteined in one place And Gregory Nazianzene ment that Christ should not com at the last iudgement in a corruptible and mortall flesh as he had before his resurrection and as we haue in this mortall lyfe for such grosenes is not to be attributed to bodyes glorified but yet shal he come with with such a body as he hath since his resurrection absolute and perfect in all partes and members of a mans bodye hauing handes feete head mouth syde and woundes and all other partes of a man visible and sensible like as we shall all appeare before him at the same last day with this same flesh in substance that we now haue and with these same eyes shall we see God our Sauiour Marry to what fynes and purenes our bodyes shall be then changed no man knoweth in the perigrination of this world sauing that S. Paule sayth that he shall change this vile body that he may make it like vnto his glorious body But that we shall haue diuersity of all members and a due proportion of mens natural bodyes the scripture manifestly declareth what soeuer you can by a synister glose gather of Nazianzene to the contrary that glorified bodies haue no flesh nor grossenes But see you not how much this saying of S. Augustin that our resurrection shall not be carnally maketh agaynst your self For if we shal not rise carnally then is not Christ risen carnally nor is not in heauen carnally And if he be not in heauen how can he be in the Sacrament carnally and eaten and drunken carnally with our mouthes as you say he is And therfore as for the termes carnally and corporally it is you that defame thē by your grosse taking of thē and not I that speak of none other grossenes but of distinction of the naturall and substantiall partes with out the which no mans body can be perfect And wheras here in this processe you attribute vnto Christ none other presence in heauen but spirituall without all manner of grossenes or carnallity so that all manner of beyng is spirituall and none otherwise then he is in the sacramēt here I ioyn an issue with you for a ioynt and for the price of a faggot I wondred all this while that you were so ready to graunt that Christ is but after a spirituall manner in the sacrament and now I wonder no more at that seyng that you say he is but after a spirituall maner in heauen And by this meanes we may say that he hath but a spirituall manhod as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a spirituall body And yet some carnall thing and grossenes he hath in him for he hath flesh and bones which spirites lack except that to all this impietye you will adde that his flesh and bones also be spirituall thinges not carnall And it is not without some strange prognosticatiō that you be now waxed altogither so spirituall Now as concerning the word figuratiuely what need this any profe that christ is in the sacraments figuratiuely which is no more to say but sacramentally And you graunt your selfe fol. 28. that Christ vnder the figure of visible creatures gaue inuisibly his pretious body And fol. 80. you say that Christ sayd This is my body vsing the outward signes of that visible creatures And this doctrine was neuer reproued of any catholick man but hath at al times and of al men bene allowed without contradition sauing now of you allone Now followeth my answere to the authors particularly And first to Saynt Clement My wordes be these They alleadge S. Clement whose wordes be these as they report The sacraments of Gods secrets are committed to three degrees to a Priest a Deacon and a minister which with feare and trembling ought to kep the leauings of the broken peces of the Lordes body that no corruption be foūd in the holy place least by negligence great iniury be done to the portion of the Lordes body And by and by followeth So many hostes must
that Christes flesh is a spirituall meat and hys bloud a spirituall drink and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud may not be vnderstand litterally but spiritually it is manifested by Origens own words in his seuenth Homily vpon the booke called Leuiticus where he sheweth that those words must be vnderstand figuratiuely and whosoeuer vnderstandeth them otherwise they be deceiued and take harme by their owne grosse vnderstanding Winchester Origens wordes be very playne and meaning also which speake of manifestation and exhibition which be two things to be verified thrée wayes in our religion that is to say in the word and regeneration and the sacramēt of bread and wine as this author termeth it which Origen sayth not so but thus the flesh of the word of God not meaning in euery of these after one sort but after the truth of the Scripture in ech of them Christ in his word is manifest and exhibited vnto vs and by fayth that is of hearyng dwelleth in vs spiritually for so we haue his spirit Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as many as be baptysed be clad in christ Now in the sacramēt of bred wine by Origens rule Christ should be manifested and exhibited vnto vs after the scriptures so as the sacrament of bread and wine should not onely signify Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him sensibly as Origens wordes be reported here to be So as Christes wordes This is my body should be wordes not of fygure or shewing but of exhibiting Christes body vnto vs and sensibly as this author alleageth him which should signifye to be receiued with our mouth as Christ commaunded when he sayd Take eat c. diuersely from the other two wayes in which by Christes spirite we be made participant of the benefite of his passion wrought in his manhode But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanity exhibit vnto vs for food and so in this mistery we receaue him man and God and in the other by meane of his godhead be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhod In this sacrament Christes manhode is represented and truly present whereunto the godhead is most certaynly vnited wherby we receaue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the general resurrection spirituall with our soule as we haue bene in baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfect And therfore this author may not compare baptisme with the sacrament throughly in which Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present although the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there but the truth of the mistery of this sacrament is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherunto eating and drinking is by Christ in his supper apropriate In which supper Christ sayd This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not This is my spirite This is my vertue Wherfore after Origenes teaching if Christ be not onely manifested but also exhibited sensibly in th◠sacrament then is he in the sacrament indede that is to say Really and then is he there substancially because the substaunce of the body is there and is there corporally also bycause the very body is there and naturally bicause the naturall body is there not vnderstanding corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly neither For then were the maner of presence within mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the catholique teaching is that the maner of Christes presence in the sacrament is spirituall and supernaturall not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall the how and maner wherof God knoweth and we assured by his word know onely the truth to be so that it is there indede and therfore really to be also receaued with our handes and mouthes and so sensibly there the body that suffered and therfore his naturall body there the body of very flesh and therfore his carnall body the body truely and therfore his corporall body there But as for the maner of presence that is onely spirituall as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this author enforceth me therunto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosely sensibly naturally applying them to the maner of presence doth maliciously and craftely cary away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these words grosely vnderstanded import astonieth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these wordes as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repeate the vnderstanding of these words oftener then elswere necessary These thinges well considered no man doth more playnly confound this author then this saying of Origene as he alleageth it whatsoeuer other sentences he would pycke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise And as I haue declared a fore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church and to esteme godes misteries most true in the substaunce of the thing so to be although the maner excedeth our capacities which is a spirituall vnderstanding of the same And here also this author putteth in for figuratiuely spiritually to deceaue the reader Caunterbury YOu obserue my wordes here concerning Origene so captiously as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayinges word by word which I did not but bicause they were very long I went about onely to rehearse the effect of his mind brefely and playnly which I haue done faythfully and truely although you captiously carpe and reprehend the same And where as craftely to alter the sayinges of Origene you goe about to put a diuersitie of the exhibition of Christ in these iii. thinges in his worde in baptisme and in his holy supper as though in his worde and in baptisme he were exhibited spiritually in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouthes this distinction you haue dreamed in your slepe or imagined of purpose For Christ after one sort is exhibited in all these iii. in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say spiritually and for so much in one sorte as before you haue confessed your selfe And Origene putteth no such diuersitie as you here imagine but declareth one maner of giuing of Christ vnto vs in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say in all these iii. secundum speciem That as vnto the Iewes Christ was geuen in figures so to vs he is geuen in specie that is to say in rei veritate in his very nature meaning nothing els but that vnto the Iewes he was promised in figures and to vs after his incarnation
indifferent reader iudge whether you or I be in errour and whether of vs both hath most neede to excuse himselfe of ignorance Would god you were as ready humbly to yeld in those manifest errours which be proued agaynst you as you be stout to take vpon you a knowledge in those thinges wherein ye be most ignoraunt But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a perilous witch Now whereas I haue truly expounded this word corporally in Cirill when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs and haue declared how that word corporally as Cyrill vnderstandeth it maketh nothing for your purpose that Christes flesh should be corporally conteyned as you vnderstand the matter vnder the forme of bread for he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread nor that he dwelleth in them corporally that be not liuely members of his body nor that he dwelleth in his liuely members at such time onely as they receaue the Sacrament nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally and not we in him But he sayth as well that we dwell in him as that he dwelleth in vs and whē I haue also declared that Cyrills meaning was this that as the vine and branches be both of one nature so the sonne of God taking vnto him our humayne nature and making vs partakers of his diuine nature geuing vnto vs immortality and euerlasting life doth so dwell naturally and corporally in vs and maketh vs to dwell naturally and corporally in him And wheare as I haue proued this by Cyrills owne wordes as well in that place in his tenth booke vpon S. Iohns gospell the .xiii. chapiter as in his fourth booke the .xvii. chapiter you answere no more to all this but say that I seeke in Cirill where it is not to be found and seeke not where it is to be found A substanciall answere be you sure and a learned For you do here like a keper which I knew once required to follow a sute with his hound after one that had stolen a deare And when his hound was in his right sute and had his game fresh before him and came nere to the house and place where the deere was in deed after he had a little inkling that it was a speciall frend of his that killed the deare and then being loth to find the sute he plucked backe his hound being in the right way and appoynted him to hunt in an other place where the game was not and so deceaued all them that followed him as you would here doe to as many as will follow you For you promise to bring the reader to a place where he shall finde the meaning of this word corporally and when he commeth to the place where you appoynt the word is spoken of there but the meaning therof is not declared neither by you nor by Cirill in that place And so the reader by your fayre promise is brought from the place where the game is truely in deed and brought to an other place where he is vtterly disapoynted of that he sought for For where you send the reader to this place of Cirill The sonne is vnited as man corporally vnto vs by the misticall benediction spiritually as god here in deed in this sentēce Cirill nameth this word corporally but he telleth not the meaning therof which you promised the reader that he should fynde here Neuerthelesse Cirill meaneth no more by these wordes but that Christ is vnited vnto vs two manner of wayes by his body and by his spirite And he is also a band and knot to bynd and ioyne vs to his father being knit in nature vnto both to vs as a naturall man and to his father as naturall God himselfe knitting vs God his father together And although Cirill say that Christ is vnited vnto vs corporally by the mistical benedictiō yet in that place the material benedictiō may well be vnderstād of his incarnatiō which as Cirill and Hilary both call an hye mistery so was it to vs a meruailous benedictiō that he that was immortall God would become for vs a mortall man which mistery S. Paule sayth was without controuersye great and was hid from the world and at the last opened that Gentils should be made partakers of the promises in Christ which by his flesh came downe vnto vs. But to geue you all the aduantage that may be I will graunt for your pleasure that by the misticall benediction Cirill vnderstoode the sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud as you say and that Christ is therby vnited corporally vnto vs. Yet sayth not Cirill that this vnity is onely when we receaue the sacramēt nor extēdeth to all that receaue the sacramēt but vnto thē that being renued to a new life be made partakers of the diuine nature which nature Cirill himselfe vpō the vi chapiter of Iohn declareth to be life But he speaketh not one word of the corporall presence of Christ in the fourmes of bread and wine nor no more doth Hilary And therfore I may well approue that I sayd that the answer made vnto Hilary will very well also serue for Cirill And yet neyther of them both hath one word that serueth for your purpose that Christes flesh and bloud should be in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine And where you say that Christ vniteth himselfe to vs as man when he geueth his body in the sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it if you will speake as Cirill and other old authors vse to do Christ did vnite himselfe to vs as man at his incarnation And here agayne you geue euidence agaynst your owne issue affirming our vnity vnto Christ no further than we receaue the sacrament worthely And then they that receaue it vnworthely be not vnited corporally vnto Christ nor eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which is the playne mynd both of Hilary also of Cirill and directly with the state of my fourth booke agaynst your āswer to the same And here you pretending to declare agayne what is ment by this word corporall do tell the negatiue that there is no grosenes ment therby but the affirmatiue what is ment therby you declare not as you promised But if you meane playnly speake playnly whether Christes body being in the sacrament vnder the fourmes of bread and wine haue head feete armes legges backe and bely eyes eares and mouth distinct and in due order and proportion Which if he lacke the simplest man or woman knoweth that it can not be a perfect corporall mans body but rather an imaginatiue or phantasticall body as Martion and Ualētyne taught it to be Expresse here fully and playnly what manner of body you call this corporall body of Christ. And where you say that I alleadge Cirill to deny in wordes the eating of a man and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth and yet it shall appeare by further discussing say you that Cirill sayth not so
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
taught and admonished by these misticall or figuratiue wordes that we should be in his body vnder him our head among his members eating his flesh nor forsaking his vnitie And in his booke De doctrina Christiana S. Augustine sayth as before is at length declared that to eate Christes flesh and to drincke his bloud is a figuratiue speach signifying the participation of his passion and the delectable remembraunce to our benefite and profite that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. And in an other sermon also De verbis Apostoli he expoundeth what is the eating of Christes body and the drincking of his bloud saying The eating is to be refreshed and the drincking what is but to liue Eate life drincke life And that shall be when that which is taken visibly in the sacrament is in very deed eaten spiritually and dronken spiritually By all these sentences of S. Augustine it is euident and manifest that all men good and euill may with theyr mouthes visibly and sensibly eate the sacrament of Christes body and bloud but the very body bloud them selues be not eaten but spiritually that of the spiritual members of Christ which dwell in Christ haue Christ dwelling in them by whome they be refreshed and haue euerlasting lyfe And therfore sayth S. Augustine that when the other Apostles did eate bread that was the Lord yet Iudas did eate but the bread of the Lord and not the bread that was the Lord. So that the other Apostles with the sacramentall bread did eate also Christ him selfe whome Iudas did not eate And a great number of places moe hath S. Augustine for this purpose which for eschewing of tediousnes I let pas for this tyme and will speake some thing of S. Cirill ¶ Cyrill vpon S. Iohn in his Gospell sayth that those which eate Manna dyed bycause they receaued therby no strength to liue euer for it gaue no lyfe but onely put away bodily hunger but they that receaue the bread of life shall be made immortall and shall eschewe all the euils that pertayne to death liuing with Christ for euer And in an other place he sayth◠For as much as the flesh of Christ doth naturally geue life therfore it maketh them to liue that be partakers of it For it putteth death away from them vtterly driueth destructiō out of them And he concludeth the matter shortly in an other place in fewe wordes saying that when we eate the flesh of our sauiour than haue we life in vs. For if thinges that were corrupt were restored by onely touching of his clothes how can it be that we shall not liue that eate his flesh And further he sayth that as two waxes that be molten together do run euery part into other so he that receaueth Christes flesh and bloud must nedes be ioyned so with him that Christ must be in him and he in Christ. Here S. Cyrill declareth the dignitie of Christes flesh being inseparably annexed vnto his diuinitie saying that it is of such force and power that it geueth euerlasting life And what soeuer occasion of death it findeth or let of eternall life it putteth out and driueth cleane away all the same from them that eate that meate and receaue that medicine Other medicins or playsters sometyme heale and sometyme heale not but this medicine is of that effect and strength that it eateth away all rotten and dead flesh and perfectly healeth all woundes and sores that it is layd vnto This is the dignitie and excellēcy of Christes flesh and bloud ioyned to his diuinite of the which dignite Christes aduersaries the Papistes depriue and robbe him when they affirme that such men do eate his flesh and receaue this playster as remayne still sicke and sore and be not holpen therby Thus hast thou heard gentle reader the groundes and profes which moued me to write the mater of this iiii booke that good men onely eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud Now shalt thou here the late byshopes confutation of the same Winchester And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this author alleadgeth to proue that only good men receaue the body and bloud of Christ I graunt it without contention speaking of spirituall manducation and with liuely fayth without the Sacrament But in the visible sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do for the substance of the sacrament is by godes ordinauce all one And if this author would vse for a profe that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present bicause euill men receaue it that shal be no argument for the good seed when it was sowen did fall in the euill ground and although Christ dwelleth not in the euill man yet he may be receaued of the euill man to his condemnation bycause he receaueth him not to glorifie him as God as S. Paule sayth Non dijudicans corpus domini not esteming our Lordes body And to all that euer this author bringeth to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ may be sayd shortly that spiritually they eat it not besides the sacrament and in the sacrament they eate it not effectually to life but condemnation And that is and may be called a not eating As they be sayd not to heare the word of God that here it not profitably And bycause the body of Christ of it selfe is ordeyned to be eaten for life those that vnworthely eate to condemnation although they eate in dede may be sayd not to eate because they eate vnworthely as a thing not well done may be in speach called not done in respect of the good effect wherfore it was chiefly ordered to be done And by this rule thou reader mayst discusse all that this author bringeth forth for this purpose eyther out of Scriptures or doctors For euill men eate not the body of Christ to haue any fruite by it as euil men be sayd not to heare gods word to haue any frute by it and yet as they heare the worde of spirite life and neuerthelesse perish so euill men eate in the visible sacrament the body of Christ and yet perish And as I sayd this aunswereth the Scripture with the particuler sayinges of Ciprian Athanase Basyl Hierome and Ambrose As for S. Augustine which this author alleageth De ciuitate dei the same S. Augustine doth playnly say there in this place alledged how the good and euill receaue the same sacrament and addeth but not with like profite which wordes this author suppresseth and therfore dealeth not sincerely As for S. Augustine shall be hereafter more playnly declared Finally he that receaueth worthely the body bloud of Christ hath euerlasting life dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him he that receaueth vnworthely which can be onely in the sacrament receaueth not lyfe but condemnation Caunterbury IF you graunt without contention that which I do proue then you must graunt absolutely and franckly without any addition that onely good
yet for the tyme of the receauing it hath the licour in it And how can Christ departe from an vnpenitent sinner as you say he doeth if he haue him not at all And because of myne ignoraunce I would fayne leran of you that take vpon you to be a man of knowledge how an euill man receauing Christes very body and whole Christ God and man as you say an euell man doth and Christes body being such as it cannot be deuided from his spirite as you say also how this euell man receauing Christes spirite should be an euell man for the tyme that he hath Christes spirit within him Or how can he receaue Christes body and spirite according to your saying and haue them not in him for the tyme he receaueth them Or how can Christ enter into an euell man as you confesse and be not in him into whome he entreth at that present tyme These be matters of your knowledge as you pretend which if you can teach me I must confesse myne ignoraunce And if you cannot for so much as you haue spoken them you must confesse the ignoraunce to be vpon your owne part And S. Paule sayth not as you vntruely recite him that in him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation but that he eateth and drincketh condemnation And where you say that S. Paules wordes playnly import that those did eate the very body of Christ which did eate vnworthely euer still you take for a supposition the thing which you should proue For S. Paule speaketh playnly of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not one word of eating of the body and drincking of the bloud of Christ. And let any indifferent reader looke vpon my questions and he shall see that there is not one word answered here directly vnto them except mocking and scorning be taken for aunswere And where you deny that of your doctrine it should follow that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell you can not deny but that your owne teaching is that Christ entreth into euell men when they receaue the sacrament And if they be his temple into whome he entreth then must euell men be his temple for the tyme they receaue the sacrament although he tary not long with them And for the same tyme they be euell men as you say and so must nedes be the temple of the deuell And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching that at one tyme a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the deuell And in your figure of Christ vpon earth although he taryed not long with euery man that receaued him yet for a tyme he taried with them And the word of God tarieth for the tyme with many which after forget it and kepe it not And then so must it be by these examples in euell men receauing the sacrament that for a tyme Christ must tary in them although that tyme be very short And yet for that tyme by your doctrine those euell men must be both the temples of God and of Beliall And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authoritie of S. Paule it is no small contumely and iniury to S. Paule to asscribe your fayned and vntrue glose vnto him that taught nothing but the truth as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mentiō of the eating and drincking of the bread and cuppe but not one word of the eating and drincking of Christes body and bloud Now followeth in my booke my answer to the Papistes in this wise But least they should seme to haue nothing to say for them selues they alleadge S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth where he sayth He that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh and bloud as it is manifest to euery man that will reade the text For these be the wordes of S. Paule Let a man examin him selfe and so eat of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body In these wordes S. Paules mynd is that for asmuch as the bread and wine in the Lordes supper do represent vnto vs the very body and bloud of our sauiour Christ by his owne institution and ordinance therfore although he sit in heauen at his fathers right hand yet should we come to this misticall bread and wine with fayth reuerence purite and feare as we would do if we should come to see and receaue Christ him selfe sensibly present For vnto the faythfull Christ is at his own holy table presēt with his mighty spirite grace and is of them more fruitfully receaued then if corporally they should receaue him bodely present and therfore they that shall worthely com to this Gods boord must after due triall of them selues consider first who ordeined this table also what meat and drincke they shall haue that come therto and how they ought to behaue them selues therat He that prepared the table is Christ him selfe The meat and drincke wherwith he fedeth them that come therto as they ought to do is his own body flesh and bloud They that com therto must occupy theyr myndes in considering how his body was broken for them and his bloud shed for theyr redemption and so ought they to approch to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart and godlynes of mynd as to the table wherin Christ hym selfe is giuen And they that come otherwise to this holy table they come vnworthely and do not eat drincke Christes flesh and bloud but eat and drincke theyr own damnation bicause they do not duely consider Christes very flesh and bloud which be offred there spiritually to be eaten and drinken but dispising Christes most holy supper do come therto as it were to other common meates drinckes without regarde of the Lordes body which is the spirituall meat of that table Winchester In the .97 leafe and the second columne the Author beginneth to trauerse the wordes of S. Paule to the Corinthians and would distinct vnworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament receyued which can not be For our vnworthines can not alter the substance of Gods sacrament that is euermore all one howsoeuer we swarue from worthynes to vnworthynes And this I would aske of this Author why should it be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when he is taught yf this authors doctrine be true that it is not there at all If the bread after this authors teaching be but a figure of Christes body it is then but as Manna was the eating wherof vnworthily and vnfaythfully was no gift of Christes body Erasmus noteth these wordes of S. Paule to be gylty of
present vnder the kindes of bread and wine which as before is expressed and proued is vtterly nothing And so they geue vnto the ignorant occasion to worship bread and wine and they them selues worship nothing there at all Winchester As touching the adoration of Christes flesh in the sacrament which adoration is a true confession of the whole man soule and body if there be oportunity of the truth of God in his worke is in my iudgement well set forth in the booke of Common prayer where the priest is ordered to knele and make a prayer in his owne and the name of all that shall communicate confessing therin that is prepared there at which tyme neuerthelesse that is not adored that the bodely eye séeth but that which fayth knoweth to be there inuisibly present which and there be nothing as this author now teacheth it were not well I will not aunswere this authors eloquence but his matter where it might hurt Caunterbury WHere as I haue shewed what idolatry was cōmitted by meanes of the Papisticall doctrine concerning adoration of the sacrament bicause that answere to my reasons you can not and confesse the truth you will not therfore you runne to your vsuall shift passing it ouer with a toy and scoffe saying that you will not answere myne eloquence but the matter and yet indede you answere neither of both but vnder pretence of myne eloquēce you shift of the matter also And yet other eloquence I vsed not but the accustomed speach of the homely people as such a matter requireth And where you say that it were not well to worship Christ in the Sacrament if nothing be there as you say I teach if you meane that Christ can not be worshipped but where he is corporally present as you must nedes meane if your reason should be to purpose then it followeth of your saying that we may not worship Christ in Baptisme in the fieldes in priuate houses nor in no place els where Christ is not corporally and naturally present But the true teaching of the holy catholike churche is that although Christ as concerning his corporall presence be continually resident in heauen yet he is to be worshiped not onely there but here in earth also of all faythfull people at all tymes in all places and in all theyr workes Heare now what followeth further in my Booke But the Papistes for theyr owne commodity to keepe the people still in idolatry do often alleadge a certayne place of S. Augustine vpon the Psalmes where he sayth that no man doth eate the flesh of Christ except he first worship it and that we do not offend in worshipping therof but we should offend if we should not worship it That is true which S. Augustine sayth in this place For who is he that professeth Christ and spiritually fedde and nourished with his flesh and bloud but he will honor and worship him sitting at the right hand of his father and render vnto him from the botome of his hart all laud prayse and thankes for his mercifull redemption And as this is most true which S. Augustine sayth so is that most false which the Papistes would perswade vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacramentall bread and wine or any visible thing is to be worshipped in the Sacrament For S. Augustines mynd was so farre from any such thought that he forbiddeth vtterly to worship Christes owne flesh and bloud alone but in consideration and as they be annexed and ioyned to his diuinity How much lesse then could he thinke or allow that we should worship the Sacramentall bread and wine or any outward or visible Sacrament which be shadowes figures and representations of Christes flesh and bloud And S. Augustine was afrayd least in worshiping Christes very body we should offend therfore he biddeth vs when we worship Christ that we should not tarry and fixe our myndes vpon his flesh which of it self auayleth nothing but that we should lift vp our myndes from the flesh to the spirite which geueth lyfe and yet the Papistes be not afrayd by crafty meanes to induce vs to worship those thinges which be signes and sacraments of Christes body But what will not the shamelesse Papistes alleadge for theyr purpose when they be not ashamed to mayntayne the adoration of the Sacrament by these wordes of S. Augustine Wherin he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament but onely of Christ him selfe And although he say that Christ gaue his flesh to be eaten of vs yet he ment not that his flesh is here corporally present and corporally eaten but onely spiritually As his word declare playnly which follow in the same place where S. Augustine as it were in the person of Christ speaketh these wordes It is the spirite that giueth lyfe but the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken vnto you be spirite and life That which I haue spoken vnderstand you spiritually You shall not eate this body which you see and drincke that bloud which they shall shed that shall crucify me I haue commended vnto you a sacramēt vnderstand it spiritually and it shall geue you lyfe And although it must be visibly ministred yet it must be inuisibly vnderstand These wordes of S. Augustine with the other before recited do expresse his mynd playnly that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten than spiritually which spirituall eating requireth no corporal presence and that he entended not to teach here any adoration eyther of the visible sacramentes or of any thing that is corporally in them For in dede there is nothing really and corporally in the bread to be worshipped although the Papistes say that Christ is in euery consecrated bread Winchester As in the wrong report of S Augustine who speaking of the adoration of Christes flesh geuen to be eaten doth so fashion his speach as it can not with any violence be drawen to such an vnderstanding as though S. Augustine should meane of the adoring of Christes flesh in heauen as this author would haue it S. Augustine speaketh of the giuing of Christes flesh to vs to eate and declareth after that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament which must be inuisibly vnderstanded spiritually not as the Capernaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cut in peces and therfore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christes body after the manner he walked here nor drincke his bloud as it was shedde vpon the Crosse but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of godes worke supernaturall aboue mans vnderstanding and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall geue life which life carnall vnderstanding must nedes exclude And by these my wordes I thincke I declare truely S. Augustines meaning of the truth of this sacrament wherin Christ giueth truly his flesh to be eaten the flesh he spake of before taken of the virgine For the spirituall vnderstanding that S. Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truth of
as touching the belefe of S. Thomas although he beleued certaynly that Christ was a man yet he beleued not that Christ was risen and appeared to the Apostles but thought rather that the Apostles were deceaued by some vision or spirit which appeared to them in likenes of Christ which he thought was not he indede And so thought the Apostles themselues vntill Christ sayd Videte manus meas pedes quia ego ipse sum Palpate videte quia spiritus carnem ossa non habent sicut me videtis habere See my handes and my feete for I am euen he Grope and see for a spirite hath no flesh and bones as you see that I haue And so thought also S. Thomas vntill such tyme as he put his handes into Christes side and felt his woundes and by his sense of feeling perceaued that it was Christes very body and no spirite nor phantasy as before he beleued And so in S. Thomas the truth of feeling depended not vpon the true belefe of Christes resurrection but the feeling of his senses brought him from misbelefe vnto the right and true fayth of that matter And as for S. Gregory he speaketh no such thinges as you report that the glorified body of Christ was of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable but he sayth cleane contrary that Christ shewed his glorified body to S. Thomas palpable to declare that it was of the same nature that it was of before his resurrection whereby it is playne after S. Gregories minde that if it were not palpable it were not of the same nature And S. Gregory sayth further in the same homely Egit miro modo superna clementia vt discipulus ille dubitans dum in magistro suo vulnera palparet carnis in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis Plus enim nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem quam fides credentium discipulcrum profuit quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita in fide solidatur The supernall clemency wrought meruaylously that the disciple which doubted by groping the woundes of flesh in his master should heale in vs the woundes of infidelity For the lacke of fayth in Thomas profited more to our fayth then did the fayth of the disciples that beleued For when he is brought to fayth by groping our minde is stablished in fayth without all doubting And why should S. Gregory write thus if our sences auayled nothing vnto our fayth nor could nothing iudge of substances And do not all the olde catholike authors proue the true humanity of Christ by his visible conuersation with vs here in earth that he was heard preach seene eating and drincking labouring and sweatting Do they not also proue his resurrection by seing hearing and groping of him which if it were no proofe those arguments were made in vayne agaynst such Heretikes that denied his true incarnation And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments to the maintenance of those olde condemned heresies by your subtill sophistications The touching and feeling of Christes handes feete and wounds was a proofe of his resurrection not as you say to them that beleued but as S Gregory sayth to them that doubted And if all thinges that Christ did and spake to our outward senses proue not that he was a naturall man as you say with Martion Menander Ualentinus Apolinaris withother like sort thē I would know how you should confute the sayd heresies Marty will you say peraduenture by the scripture which sayth playnly Verbum caro factumest But if they would say agayne that he was called a man and flesh bicause he tooke vpon him the forme of a man and flesh and would say that S. Paule so declareth it saying Forinam serui accipiens and would then say further that forme is the accidence of a thing and yet hath the name of substance but is not the substance indeede what would you then say vnto them if you deny that the formes and accidences be called substances then go you from your owne saying And if you graunt it then will they auoyde all the scriptures that you can bring to proue Christ a man by this cauilation that the apparances formes and accidences of a man may be called a man aswell as you say that the formes and accidences of bread be called bread And so prepare you certayne propositions and groundes for heretikes to build their errours vpon which after when you would you shall neuer be able to ouerthrowe And where you say that Thomas touched truely Christes body glorified how could that be whē touching as you say is not of y◠substance but of the accidents only and also Christes body glorified as you say is neyther visible nor palpable And where as indeede you make Christs actes illusiōs and yet in wordes you pretend the contrary call you not this illusiō of our sēses whē a thing apeareth to our sēces which is not the same thing indeede When Iupiter Mercury as the comedy telleth apeared to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitrio Sosia was not Alcumena deceaued therby And Poticaries that sell Ieniper buries for pepper being no pepper indeede deceaue they not the biers by illusion of their sences Why then is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeede Finally where as I required earnestly all the Papistes to lay their heades togither and to shew one article of our fayth so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thing to be and yet our fayth shall teach vs the contrary therunto where I say I required this so earnestly of you and with such circumstances and you haue yet shewed none I may boldly conclude that you can shew none For sure I am if you could being so earnestly prouoked therunto you would not haue fayled to shew it in this place As for the article of our resurrection and of the feeding of angels serue nothing for this purpose For my saying is of the dayly experience of our senses and when they affirme a thing to be but the resurrection of our flesh and the feeding of angels be neither in dayly experience of our senses nor our senses affirme them not so to be Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my booke the authorities of ancient writers in this wise Now for as much as it is declared how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is agaynst the word of God agaynst nature agaynst reason and agaynst all our senses we shall shew furthermore that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the olde authors of Christes church beginning at those authors which were nearest vnto Christes time and therfore might best know the truth herein First Iustinus a great learned man and an holy martyr the oldest author
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
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
ghostly enemies the subtill and puisant wicked spirites and diuels The same manner of speach vsed also S. Peter in his first epistle saying That the apparaile of women should not be outwardly with brayded here and setting on of gold nor in putting on of gorgious apparayle but that the inward man of the hart should be without corruption In which manner of speach he intended not vtterly to forbid all broyding of here all gold and costly apparell to all women for euery one must be apparayled according to their condition state and degree but he ment hereby clerely to condemne all pride and excesse in apparayle and to moue all women that they should study to decke their soules inwardly with all vertues and not to be curious outwardly to decke and adourne their bodyes with sumptuous apparayle And our sauiour Christ himselfe was full of such maner of speaches Gather not vnto you sayth he treasure vpon earth willing therby rather to set our mindes vppon heauenly treasure which euer indureth than vppon earthly treasure which by many sundry occasions perisheth and is taken away from vs. And yet worldly treasure must needes be had and possessed of some men as the person tyme and occasion doth serue Likewise he sayd When you be brought before kinges and princes thinke not what and how you shall answer Not willing vs by this negatiue that we should negligently and vnaduisedly answere we care not what but that we should depend of our heuenly father trusting that by his holy spirite he will sufficiently instruct vs of answer rather then to trust of any answer to be deuised by our owne witte and study And in the same maner he spake when he sayd It is not you that speake but it is the spirite of God that speaketh within you For the spirite of God is he that principally putteth godly wordes into our mouthes and yet neuerthelesse we do speake according to his mouing And to be short in all these sentences following that is to say Call no man your father vpon earth Let no man call you lord or master Feare not them that kill the body I came not to send peace vpon earth It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand You shall not worship the father neyther in this mountnor in Ierusalem I take no witnes at no man My doctrine is not mine I seeke not my glory In all these negatiues our sauiour Christ spake not precisely and vtterly to deny all the foresayd thinges but in comparison of them to prefer other thinges as to prefer our father and Lord in heauen aboue any worldly father lord or master in earth and his feare aboue the feare of any creature and his word and gospell aboue all worldly peace Also to prefer spirituall and inward honoring of God in pure hart and mynd aboue locall corporall and outward honour and that Christ preferred his fathers glory aboue his owne Now for as much as I haue declared at length the nature and kind of these negatiue speaches which be no pure negatiues but by comparison it is easye hereby to make answer to S. Iohn Chrisostom who vsed this phrase of speach most of any author For his meaning in his foresayd Homily was not that in the celebration of the Lordes supper is neyther bread nor wine neither priest nor the body of Christ which the Papistes themselues must needes confesse but his intent was to draw our mindes vpward to heauen that we should not consider so much the bread wine and priest as we should consider his diuinity and holy spirite giuen vnto vs to our eternall saluation And therfore in the same place he vseth so many tymes these wordes Thinke and thinke not willing vs by these wordes that we should not fixe our thoughts and myndes vpon the bread wine priest nor Christes body but to lift vp our hartes higher vnto his spirite and diuinity without the which his body auayleth nothing as he sayth himselfe It is the spirite that giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing And as the same Chrisostome in many places moueth vs not to consider the water in baptisme but rather to haue respect to the holy ghost receaued in baptisme and represented by the water euen so doth he in this homily of the holy communion moue vs to lift vp our myndes from all visible and corporall things to thinges inuisible and spirituall In so much that although Christ was but once crucified yet would Chrisost haue vs to thincke that we see him dayly whipped and scourged before our eyes and his body hanging vpon the Crosse and the speare thrust into his side and the most holy bloud to flow out of his side into our mouthes After which manner S. Paule wrote to the Galathians that Christ was paynted and crucified before their eyes Therfore fayth Chrisostome in the same homily a litle before the place rehersed What doest thou O man diddest not thou promise to the prist which sayd Lift vp your myndes and hartes and thou diddest answere We lift them vp vnto the Lord Art not thou ashamed and afrayd being at that same houre found a liar A wonderfull thing The table is set forth furnished with Gods misteries the Lambe of God is offered for thee the priest is carefull for thee spirituall fier cometh out of that heauenly table the angels Seraphin be there present couering their faces with vi winges All the angelicall power with the priest be meanes aud intercestors for thee a spirituall fyer cometh downe from heauen bloud in the cup is druncke out of the most pure side vnto thy purification And art not thou ashamed afrayd and abashed not endeuoring thy selfe to purchase Gods mercy O man doth not thyne owne conscience condemne thee There be in the weeke 168. houres and God asketh but one of them to be giuen wholy vnto him and thou consumest that in worldly busines in trifling and talking with what boldnes then shalt thou come to these holy misteries O corrupt conscience Hitherto I haue rehersed S. Iohn Chrisostomes wordes which do shew how our myndes should be occupyed at this holy table of our Lord that is to say withdrawen from the consideration of sensible thinges vnto the contemplation of most heauenly and godly thinges And thus is answered this place of Chrisostom which the Papists tooke for an insoluble and a place that no man was able to answere But for further declaration of Chrisostoms mynd in this matter read the place of him before rehersed fol. 327. and 343 Winchester Answering to Chrisostome this author complayneth as he did in Ciprian of malicious leauing out of that which when it is brought in doth nothing empayre that went before Chrisostome would we should consider the secret truth of this mistery where Christ is the inuisible Priest and ministreth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest wherof
vntill the Papistes did transforme and transubstantiate the chiefe articles of our christen fayth Thus is an aunswere made vnto the false calumniations of Smith in the preface of his book or rather vnto his whole booke which is so full of bragging boasting slaundering misreporting wrangling wrasting false construing and lying that those taken out of the booke there is nothing worthy in the whole book to be aunswered Neuertheles in answering to the late byshop of Winchesters book I shall fully aunswere also D. Smith in all points that require aunswere And so with one answere shal I dispatch them both And in some places where one of thē varieth from an other as they do in many great matters in the chiefe and principall poynts I shall set them together Bithum cum Bachio Esernium cum Pacidiano to try which of them is more stout and valiaunt to ouerthrow the other ¶ Here endeth the aunswere vnto the Preface of M. Smithes booke which he wrote agaynst the defence of the true and catholicke doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST Matters wherein the Byshop of Winchester varyed from other Papistes OTher say That the body of Christ is made of bread He sayth that the body of Christ is not made of bread nor was neuer so taught but is made present of bread pag. 72. lin 14. pag. 178. lin 10. He sayth that Christ made the demonstratiō of the bread and called it his body when he sayd This is my body pag 257. lin 27. And in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. Other say contrary And Smith fol. 53. He sayth that This is my body is asmuch to say as this is made my body And so he taketh Est for fit pag. 295. lin 35. Other say that Est is taken there substantiue that is to say onely for is and not for is made Marcus Antonius fol. 171. facie 2 consideratione 6. He sayth that Christ is present in the Sacrament after the same maner that hee is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. Other say contrary that hee is in heauen after the maner of quantitie and that hee is not so in the Sacrament He sayth that where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man and that when we speake of Christ is body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie pag. 71. lin 37. Smith sayth that Christes body in the Sacrament hath not his proper forme and quantitie fol. 106. He sayth we beleue simply that Christes body is naturally and corporally in the Sacrament wihout drawyng away his accidences or addyng pag. 353. lin 1. Smith sayth we say that Christes body is in the Sacrament agaynst nature withall his qualities and accidentes fol. 105. He sayth that Gods workes be all seemelynes without confusion although he cā not locally distinct Christes head frō his foote nor his legges from his armes pag. 70. lin 27. Other say that Christes head and foote and other partes be not in deed loccally distinct in the Sacrament but be so confounded that where soeuer one is there be all the rest They teach that the body of Christ is made of bread he sayth it was neuer so taught pag. 79. lin 6. c. He sayth that Christes body is the Sacrament sensibly naturally carnally and corporally pag. 159. lin 9. c. Other say contrary Smith fol. 39. Other say that Christes feete in the Sacrament be there where his head is He sayth that who soeuer say so may be called mad pag. 61. lin 34. He sayth that Christes body is in the Sacrament naturally and carnally pag. 156. lin 6. Other say that corporally Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke and no further He sayth contrary pag. 52. lin 36. He saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in him that receiueth the Sacrament worthely so long as hee remaineth a member of Christ pag. 53. lin 1. pag. 56. lin 31. c. Other say contrary but that Christ flyeth vp into heauen so soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke Smith fol. 64. pag. 65. lin 2. 25. He sayth that no creature can eate the body of Christ but onely man pag. 66. lin 30. Other say cleane contrary He saith that an vnrepentaunt sinner receauyng the Sacrament hath not Christes body nor spirite within him pag. 225. lin 36. Smith saith that he hath Christes body and spirite within him fol. 136. He sayth that of the figure it may not be said Adore it worship it that is not to be Adored which the bodily eye seeth pag. 178. lin 40. pag. 239 lin 32. Marcus Antonius fol. 176. fa. 2. Smith sayth contrary fol. 145. fa. 2. He sayth that reason will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well inough pag. 264. lin 47. Smith sayth that Transubstantiation is agaynst reason and naturall operation fol. 60. Other say that wormes in the Sacrament be gendred of accidences He sayth that the be wrong borne in hand to say so pag. 355. lin 3. He sayth that the accidences of bread and wine do mould sowre and waxe vineger pag. 265. lin 11. 355. lin 8. And Marcus fol. 168. fa. 1. Smith sayth thus I say that the consecrated wine turneth not into vineger nor the consecrated bread mouleth nor engendreth wormes nor is burned nor receiueth into it any poyson as long as Christes body bloud are vnder the formes of them which do abide there so long as the naturall qualities properties of bread wine tary there in their naturall disposition and condition that the bread and wine might be naturally there if they had not bene chaunged into Christes body and bloud and also as long as the hoste and consecrated wine are apt to be receiued of man and no longer but goe and depart thence by Gods power as it pleaseth hym And then a new substaunce is made of God which turneth into vineger engendreth wormes mouleth is burned feedeth men and myse receiueth poyson c. fol. 64. 105. He sayth euery yea conteineth a nay in it naturally so as who soeuer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine For in the rule of common reason the graunt of one substaunce is the deniall of an other And therfore reason hath these conclusions throughly what soeuer is bread is no wyne what soeuer is wine is no milke c. So Christ saying This is my body sayth it no bread pag. 256. lin 38. pag. 265. lin 5. Smith sayth a boye which hath onely learned the Sophistry will not dispute so fondly fol. 77. Other say that the Masse is a sacrifice satisfactory by deuotion of the Priest and not by the thyng that is offered He sayth otherwise pag. 80. lin 43. He saith that the onely immolation of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankynd to the fauour of God pag. 437. lin 1.2 31. Smith sayth what
what is this to make foundation of an argument vpon a secret copy of an epistle vttered at one tyme in diuers senses I shall touch one speciall poynt Peter Martyr sayth in Latin whome the translator in English therin followeth that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body This author Englishing the same place termeth it exalted to the name of the Lordes body which wordes of exalting come nearer to the purpose of this author to haue the bread but a figure and therwith neuer the holier of it selfe But a figure can neuer be accompted worthy the name of our Lordes body the very thing of the Sacrament onles there were the thing in deede as there is by conuersion as the church truely teacheth Is not heare reader a meruaylous diuersity in report and the same so set forth as thou that canst but reade English mayst euidently see it God ordring it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appeare where the truth is impugned Agayne this author maketh Chrisostome to speake strangely in the end of this authority that the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ as though the nature of man were the stay to the diuine nature where as in that vnion the rest is an ineffable mistery the two natures in Christ to haue one substance called and termed an hipostasie and therfore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus The diuine constitution the nature of the body adioyned these two both togither make one sonne and one person Thou reader mayst compare the bookes that be abroad of Peter Martyr in Latine of Peter Martyr in English and this authors booke with that I write and so deeme whither I say true or no. But to the purpose of S. Chrisostomes wordes if they be his wordes he directeth his argument to shew by the mistery of the Sacrament that as in it there is no confusion of natures but each remayneth in his property so likewise in Christ the nature of his godhead doth not confound the nature of his manhode If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christes body there truely present inuisible also as that body is impalpable also as that body is incorruptible also as that is then were the visible nature altred and as it were confounded which Chrisostome sayth is not so for the nature of the bread remayneth by which word of nature is conueniently signified the property of nature For proofe wherof to shew remayning of the property without alteration Chrisostome maketh onely the resemblance and before I haue shewed how nature signifieth the propriety of nature and may signifie the outward part of nature that is to say the accidents being substance in his proper signification the inward nature of the thyng of the conuersion wherof is specially vnderstand transubstantiation Caunterbury WHere you like not my translatiō of Chrisostomes wordes I trow you would haue me to learne of you to trāslate you vse such sincerity and playnnes in your translation Let the learned reader be iudge I did translate the wordes my selfe out of the copye of Florence more truely than it seemeth you would haue done But whan you see the wordes of Chrisostome so manifest and cleare agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation for he sayth that the nature of bread remayneth still you craftely for a shift fall to the carping of the translation bicause you cannot answere to the matter And yet the wordes of Chrisostome cyted by master Peter Martyr in latine out of Florence copy and my translation and the translation of master Peters booke in English do agree fully here in sense although the wordes be not all one which neyther is required nor lightly found in any two translators so that all your wrangling in the diuersity of the translations is but a fleight and common practise of you whan you cannot answer the matter to seeke faultes in the translation where none is And for the speciall poynt wherin you do note a meruaylous diuersity in report and would gather therof no truth to be where such diuersity is let the reader be iudge what a wonderfull diuersity it is The Latine is this Panis dignus habitus est dominici corporis appellatione The translator of M. Peter Martyrs booke sayth The bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body My translation hath The bread is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord. When a man is made a Lord or Knight if one say of him that he is reputed worthy the name of a Lord or Knight and an other say that he is exalted to the name of a Lord or Knight what difference is betwene these two sayinges Is not this a wonderfull diuersity I pray thee iudge indifferently good reader But say you a figure can neuer be counted worthy the name of the thing onles the thing were there in deede Wrangle then with S. Ihon Chrisostome himselfe and not with me who sayth that the bread is exalted to the name of the Lords body or is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body after the sanctificatiō and yet the nature of the bread remayneth still which can not be as you say if the body of Christ were there present And who heard euer such a doctrine as you here make that the thing must be really and corporally present where the figure is For so must euery man be corporally buried in deede when he is Baptised which is a figure of our buriall And when we receaue the Sacrament of Christes body then is accomplished the resurrectiō of our bodies for that Sacrament you affirme to be the figure therof But your doctrine herein is cleane contrary to the iudgement of Lactantius and other olde writers who teach that figures be in vayne and serue to no purpose when the thinges by them signified be present And where you thinke it strange to say that the diuine nature is or resteth in the body of Christ it is nothing els but to declare your ignorance in Gods word and auncient authors in reading of whome forasmuch as you haue not bene much exercised it is no meruayle though their speach seeme strange vnto you The greeke word of Chrisostome is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I pray you english and then we shall see what a strange speach you will make Did you neuer heare tell at the least that the word was incarnated or Verbum caro factum est And what signifieth this word Incarnate but God to be made man and his diuine nature to be in flesh Doth not S. Iohn bid vs beware that we beleue not euery spirite for there be many false prophets and euery spirite sayth he that confesseth not Iesus Christ to haue come in flesh is not of God but is the spirite of Antichrist Is this then a strange speach to you that the diuine nature resteth in the flesh that is to say in the body of Christ which
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
is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do when he sayth it is vinificum which can be onely sayd of the very body and bloud of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of laudes and thankesgeuing cannot be sayd a pure and cleane Sacrifice whereby to fulfill the prophecy of Malachy and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church vnderstanded to be spoken of the dayly offering of the body and bloud of Christ for the memory of Christes death according to Christes ordinaunce in his supper as may at more length be opened and declared Thinking to the effect of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chiefe poyntes of the authors doctrine with such contradiction to thē as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessity require the more particuler confutation of that is vntrue on the aduersary part and confirmation of that is true in the Catholique doctrine requiring more tyme and leysure then I haue now and therefore offering my selfe ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shal be required I shall here end for this time with prayer to almighty God to graunt his truth to be acknowledged and confessed and vniformely to be preached and beleued of al so as all contention for vnderstanding of religion auoyded which hindereth Charity we may geue suche light abroad as men may see our good workes and glorify our father who is in heauen with the sonne and holy ghost in one vnity of godhead reigning without end Amen Caunterbury HIpinus sayth that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not beleue that Hipinus so sayd vntill you appoint me both the booke and place where he so sayth For the effect of his booke is cleane contrary which he wrote to reproue the propitiatory sacrifice which the Papistes fayne to be in the Masse Thus in deede Hipinus writeth in one place Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis sanguinis Christipraesentiam primo vocauerunt sacrificium deinde propter oblationes munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur conferebantur ad sacraministeria ad necessitatem credentium In which wordes Hipinus declareth that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two consideratiōs one was for the present of Christes flesh and bloud the other was for the offerynges which the people gaue there of their deuotion to the holy ministratiō and reliefe of the poore But Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporall presence nor of propitiatory Sacrifice but generally of presence and sacrifice which maketh nothyng for your purpose nor agaynst me that graunt both a presence and a sacrifice But when you shall shew me the place where Hipinus sayth that the old Fathers called the Lordes Supper a propitiatory sacrifice I shall trust you the better and him the worse And as for Cyrill if you will say of his head that the Sacrifice of the Church giueth life how agreeth this with your late saying that the sacrifice of the Church increaseth lyfe as the sacrifice on the Crosse giueth lyfe And if the Sacrifice made by the Priest both geue lyfe and encrease lyfe then is the Priest both the mother and nurse and Christ hath nothyng to do with vs at all but as a straunger And the sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is the sacrifice laud and thankes which all deuoute Christian people geue vnto God whether it be in the Lordes Supper in their priuate Prayers or in any worke they do at any tyme or place to the glory of God all which Sacrifices not of the Priestes onely but of all faythfull people be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ by whose bloud all their filthy and vnpurenes is cleane sponged away But in this last booke it seemeth you were so astonied and amased that you were at your wits end wist not where to become For now the Priest maketh a Sacrifice propitiatory now he doth not now he giueth lyfe now he giueth none now is Christ the full Sauiour and satisfaction now the Priest hath halfe part with him now the Priest doth all And thus you are so inconstant in your selfe as one that had bene netteled and could rest in no place or rather as one that had receaued such a stroke vpon his head that hee staggered with all and reeled here and there and could not tell where to become And your doctrine hath such ambiguities such perplexities such absurdities and such impieties in it and is so vncertaine so vncomfortable so contrary to Gods word and the old Catholicke Church so contrary to it selfe that it declareth from whose spirite it commeth which can be none other but Antichrist him selfe Where as on the other side the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure Church from the begynnyng is playne certaine without wrynkels without any inconuenience or absurditie so chearefull and comfortable to all Christen people that it must needes come from the spirite of God the spirite of truth and all consolation For what ought to be more certaine and knowen to all Christen people then that Christ dyed once and but once for the redemption of the world And what can be more true then that his onely death is our lyfe And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner that is sory for his sinne and returneth to God in his hart and whole mynde then to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heauy lode of his sinne and taketh the burden vpon his owne backe And if we shall ioyne the Priest herein to Christ in any part and giue a portion hereof to his sacrifice as you in your doctrine giue to the priest the one halfe at the least what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner that he may not hang wholly vpon Christ what perplexities and doubtes rise hereof in the sinners conscience And what an obscuryng and darkenyng is this of the benefite of Christ Yea what iniury and contumely is it to him And furthermore when we heare Christ speake vnto vs with his own mouth and shew him selfe to be seen with our eyes in such sorte as is conuenient for him of vs in this mortall lyfe to be heard and sene what comfort can we haue more The Minister of the Churche speaketh vnto vs Gods owne wordes whiche we must take as spoken from Gods owne mouth because that from his mouth it came and his word it is and not the Ministers Likewise when he ministreth to our sightes Christes holy Sacramentes we must thinke Christ crucified and presented before our eyes because the Sacraments so represent him and be his Sacraments and not the Priestes As in Baptisme we must thinke that as the Priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly and washeth him with water so must we thinke that God putteth to his hand inwardly and washeth the infant with his holy spirite and
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