or contrary to the Scripture or direct not the forme of life accordyng to the same then it is not the piller of truth nor the Church of Christ but the sinagogue of Sathan and the temple of Antichrist which both erreth it selfe and bringeth into errour as many as do folow it And the holy Church of Christ is but a small herd or flocke in comparison to the great multitude of them that folow Sathan and Antichrist as Christ him selfe sayth and the word of God and the course of the world from the begynnyng vntill this day hath declared For from the creation of the world vntill Noes floud what was then the open face of the Church How many godly men were in those thousand and sixe hundred yeares and moe Dyd not iniquitie begyn at Cain to rule the worlde and so encreased more and more that at the length God could no lenger suffer but drowned all the world for sinne except viij persons which onely were left vpon the whole earth And after the world was purged by the floud fell it not by and by to the former iniquitie agayne so that within few yeares after Abraham could find no place where he might be suffered to worshyp the true liuyng God but that God appointed him a straunge countrey almost clearely desolate and vnhabited where hee and a fewe other contrary to the vsage of the world honored one God And after the great benefites of God shewed vnto his people of Israell and the law also geuen vnto them wherby they were taught to know him and honor him yet how many tymes did they fal from him Did they not from tyme to tyme make them new Gods worshyp them Was not the open face of the Church so miserably deformed not onely in the wildernesse and in the tyme of the Iudges but also in tyme of the kynges that after the diuision of the kyngdome amongest all the kyngs of Iuda there was but onely three in whose tymes the true Religion was restored among all the kynges of Israell not somuch as one Were not all that tyme the true Priestes of God a few in number Did not all the rest maintaine Idolatry and all abhominatiōs in groues and mountaines worshippyng Baal and other false Gods And did they not murther and slea all the true Prophetes that taught them to worshyp the true God In so much that Helias the Prophet knowyng no mo of all the whole people that folowed the right trade but him selfe alone made his complaint vnto almightie God saying O Lord they haue slayne thy Prophetes and ouerthrowen thine aultars there is no mo left but I alone and yet they lye in wayte to flea me also So that although almighty God suffered thē in their captiuitie at Babylon no more but lxx yeares yet he suffered them in their Idolatry folowyng their owne wayes and inuentions many hundred yeares the mercy of God beyng so great that their punishment was short and small in respect of their long and greeuous offences And at the tyme of Christes cōmyng the hygh Priests came to their offices by such fraude simony murther and poysonyng that the like hath not bene often read nor heard of except onely at Rome And when Christ was come what godly religion found he What Annasses and Cayphasses what hypocrisie superstition and abhomination before God although to mens eyes thyngs appeared holy and godly Was not then Christ alone his Apostles with other that beleued his doctrine the holy true Church Although they were not so takē but for heretickes seditious persons blasphemers of God were extremely persecuted and put to vilanous death by such as accompted them selues were taken for the Church which fulfilled the measure of their fathers that persecuted the Prophets Upon whō came al the righteous bloud that was shed vpon the earth from the bloud of iust Abell vnto the bloud of Zachary the sonne of Barachie whom they slew betwene the Temple and the aultar And how many persons remayned constantly in the true liuely fayth at the tyme of Christes passion I thinke M. Smith will say but a very fewe seyng that Peter denyed Christ his Maister three tymes and all his Apostles fled away and one for hast without his clothes What wonder is it then that the open church is now of late yeares fallen into many errours and corruption and the holy church of Christ is secret and vnknowne seing that Sathan these 500. yeares hath beene let lose and Antichrist raigneth spoyling and deuouring the simple flocke of Christ. But as almighty God sayd vnto Helias I haue reserued and kept for mine ownne selfe seuen thousand which neuer bowed their knee to Baall so it is at this present For although almighty God hath suffered these foure or fiue hundred yeares the open face of his church to be vggely deformed and shamefullye defiled by the sects of the Papistes which is so manifest that now all the world knoweth it yet hath God of his manifold mercy euer preserued a good number secret to himselfe in his true religion although Antichrist hath bathed himselfe in the bloud of no small number of them And although the Papistes haue ledde innumerable people out of the right way yet the church is to be folowed but the Church of Christ not of Antichrist the church that concerning the fayth contayneth it selfe with in gods word not that deuiseth daily new artcles contrary to gods word The church that by the true interpretation of scripture and good example gathereth people vnto Christ not that by wrasting of the scripture and euill example of corrupt liuing draweth them away from Christ. And now forasmuch as the wicked church of Rome counterfayting the church of Christ hath in this matter of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and bloud of our sauior Christ varied from the pure and holy Church in the Apostles tyme and many hundred yeares after as in my booke I haue plainely declared manifestly proued it is an easy matter to discerne which church is to be folowed And I cannot but maruaile that Smith alleadgeth for for him Vincentius Lirenensis who contrary to D. Smith teacheth playnly that the canon of the Bible is perfect and fufficient of it selfe for the truth of the Catholicke fayth and that the whole church cannot make one article of the fayth although it may be taken as a necessary witnes for the receiuing and establishing of the same with these three conditions that the thing which we would establish thereby hath bene beleued in all places euer and of al men Which the Papistical doctrine in this matter hath not bene but came from Rome sins Beringarius time by Nicolas the ii Innocentius the third and other of their sort where as the doctrine which I haue set forth came from Christ and his Apostles and was of all men euery where with one consent taught and beleued as my book sheweth plainly
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
these wordes Let vs marke that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his disciples was the body of our Sauiour Christ as he sayd vnto them Take and eate this is my body And S. Augustine also sayth that although we may set forth Christ by mouth by writing and by the sacrament of his body and bloud yet we call neither our toung nor words nor inke letters nor paper the body and bloud of christ but that we call the body and bloud of Christ which is taken of the fruite of the earth and consecrated by misticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meat his body and drynke his bloud Moreouer Cyrill vpon S. Iohn saith that Christ gaue to his disciples peces of bread saying Take eate this is my body Likewise Theoderetus saith When Christ gaue the holy misteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wine and water he called his bloud By all these foresayd authours and places whith many mo it is playnly proued that when our sauiour Christ gaue bread vnto his Disciples saying Take and eate this is my body And likewise when he gaue them the cuppe saying Diuide this among you and drinke you all of this for this is my bloud he called then the very materiall bread his body and the very wine his bloud That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth among vs and that groweth out of the earth and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower and mixed with water and so baken aud made into bread of such sort as other our bread is that hath neither sence nor reason and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies such bread Christ called his body when he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togither and thereof is made drinke whiche nourishe the body such wine he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by the holy scripture as by all auncient authours of Christes Church both Greekes and Latines that is to say that whē our Sauiour Christ gaue bread and wine to his disciples spake these words This is my body This is my bloud it is very bread wine which he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shew some authority for their opinion either of scripture or of some aunciant author And let them not constrayne all men to follow their fond deuises only because they say It is so without any other groūd or authoritie but their owne bare wordes For in such wise credite is to be geuen to Gods word only and not to the word of any man As many of them as I haue red the byshop of Winchester onely excepted do say that Christ called not bread his body nor wine his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud And yet in expoūding these wordes they vary among them selues which is a token that they be vncertaine of their own doctrine For some of them say that by this pronoune demonstratiue this Christe vnderstoode not the bread and wine but his body and bloud And other some say that by the pronoune this he ment neither the bread nor wine not his body nor bloud but that he ment a particuler thyng vncertain which they call Indiuiduum vagum or Indiuiduum in genere I trowe some Mathematicall quiditee they can not tell what But let all these Papistes togyther shew any one authoritie eyther of scripture or of auncient author either Greke or Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall gyue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely theyr own bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the trueth confirmed by so many authorities bothe of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloude Winchester After this the author occupieth a great number of leaues that is to say from the lvii leafe vnto the lxxiiii to proue Christs words This is my body to be a figuratiue spech Sleight and shift is vsed in the matter without any offectuall consecution to him that is learned First the author sayth Christ called bread his body Confessed bread his body To this is aunswered Christes calling is a making as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non sunt tanque ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his calling as Chrisostome and the greke commentaries say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth trnslated by Iustus Ionas in Germany and after by this author in english Tertullian saith Christ made bread his body it is all one spech in Christ being god declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the word call or make for in his mouth to call is to make Cypryan saith according hereunto how 's bread is by Gods omnipotency made fleshe whereupon also this spech bread is flesh is as much to say as made flesh not that bread beyng bread is flesh but that was bread is flesh by Gods omnipotency and so this author entreating this matter as he doth hath partly opened the fayth of transubstantiaon For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is nowe Christes body because bread is made Christes body and because Christ called bread his body which was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wine the spech is very proper to say water is made wine For after like manner of spech we say Christ iustifieth a wicked man Christ saueth sinners the phisitiō hath made the sicke man whole suche dyet will make an whole man sicke Al these speches be proper and playn so as the construction be not made captious and Sophisticall to ioin that was to that now is forgetting the meane worke When Christ said This is my body there is necessitie that the demonstration this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the spech of God the father vpō Christ in Baptisme This is my son And here whē this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the fainyng of the papists I shal ioyn this Issue in this place that he vnderstandeth not what he saith and if his knowledge be no better then is vttered herein the penne to be in this point clerly cōdēned of ignoraunce Caunterbury HEre is an other sleight such as the like hath not lightly bene sene For where I wrote that when Christ sayd This is my body it was bread that he called his body you turne the matter to make a descant vpon these 2. wordes calling and making that the nundes of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these 2. wordes that in
it as appered by the Capharnaites who murmured at it And therfore because onely faythful men can by fayth vnderstand this mistery of the eatyng of Christes flesh in the Sacrament in which we eat not the carnall flesh of a common man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God mā as fayth teacheth It is in that respect well noted for a figuratiue spéech for that it hath such a sence in the letter as is hidden from the vnfaythfull So as the same letter being to faythfull men spirite and life who in humility of fayth vnderstandeth the same is to the faythfull a figure as contayning such a mistery as by the outward barke of the letter they vnderstand not vpon which consideration it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mistery of the Sacrament wherein is a worke of God ineffable such as the Ethnike eares could not abide they termed it a figure not therby to deminish the truth of the mistery as the proper and special name of a figure doth but by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecy apt only to be vnderstanded of men beleuing and therefore the sayd fathers in some part of theyr works in playn words expresse and declare the truth of the mistery the plain doctrine therof according to the Catholick fayth and in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure which consideration in S. Augustines writings may be euidently gathered for in some place no man more playnly openeth the substance of the Sacrament then he doth speaking expressely of the very body and bloud of Christ contayned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not thereby to contrary his other playne sayings and doctrine but meaning by the word figure to signify a secret déep mistery hidden from carnall vnderstanding For auoyding and expelling of which carnallity he geueth this doctrine here of this text Except ye eat c. which as I sayd before in the bare litterall sence implyeth to carnal iudgement other carnall circumstāces to attayne the same flesh to be eaten which in that carnall sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeying of Christes commaundement in the institution of his supper when he himself deliuereth his body and bloud in these misteryes biddeth Eat and drink there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth and therefore S. Augustins rule pertaineth not to Christs supper wherin when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded without carnall thought or murmuring in our sensuall deuise how it can be so And S. Augustin in the fame place speaking De communicando passionibus Christi declareth playnely he meaneth of the Sacrament Caunterbury IF thou takest not very good heed reader thou shalt not perceiue where the cuttill becometh He wrappeth himself so about in darcknesse and he commeth not neere the net by a myle for feare he should be taken But I will draw my net nearer to him that he shall not escape I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud were spoken by a figure and he would auoyd the matter by saying that those words haue a spirituall mistery in them which is most true and nothing contrary to my saying but confirmeth the same For the words of eating and drinking be figuratiue speches because they haue a secret and hid spirituall mistery in them and cannot be taken otherwise then in that spiritual mistery which is a figure And moreouer you plainly here confesse that to eat Christes flesh and to drinke his bloud be figuratiue speches But you trauesse the cause wherfore they be figuratiue speches which is not materiall in this place where my processe is onely to proue that they be figuratiue speches Aud forasmuch as you graūt here all that I take vpon me to proue which is that they be figuratiue speches what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words when we agree in the matter which is here in question And as for the cause of the figure you declare it far otherwise then S. Augustine dooth as the words of S. Augustine do playnely shew to euery indifferent reader For the cause say you is this that in the Sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a commō man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God and man and in that respect it is well noted for a figuratiue spech In which one sentence be three notable errors or vntruthes The first is that you say the letter soundeth than we eat the carnall flesh of a common man which your saying the playne words of the gospell do maniestly reproue For Christ seperating himself in that spech from all other men spake onely of himself saying My flesh is very meat and my blood is very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him The second is that you call the flesh of Christ a spirituall flesh as before you sayd that he is spiritually eaten And so by your doctrine his flesh is spirituall and is spiritually eaten and all is spirituall which hath need of a fauorable interpretation if it should be counted a sound and Catholick teaching And if all be spirituall done spiritually what meaneth it then that in other places you make so often mention that he is present and eaten carnally corporally and naturally The third is that you say the spech of Christ is noted figuratiue in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man which is vtterly vntrue For the authors note not the figuratiue spech in that respect but as christ spake of his owne flesh ioyned vnto his diuinity wherby it geueth lyfe euen so do the authors note a figuratiue spech in respect of Christes owne flesh and say therof that the letter can not be true without a figure For although Christ be both God and man yet his flesh is a very mans flesh and his bloud is truely mans blond as is the flesh bloud of his blessed mother and therfore can not be eaten and drunken properly but by a figure For he is not meat and drink of the body to be eatē corporally with mouth and teeth and to be dygested in the stomack but he is the meat of the soule to be receaued spiritually in our harts minds and to be chawed and digested by fayth And it is vntrue that you here say that the proper and speciall name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mistery For then Christ in vayne did ordayne the figures if they diminish the misteries And the Authors terme it here a figure not therby to couer the mistery but to open the mistery which was in deed in Christs words by fyguratiue speches vnderstand
as it is in the very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and after is al one in nature substance bignes forme and fashion and yet it is not called as an other common body but with addition for the dignitie of his exaltation it is called a heauenly a godly an immortall and the lordes body so likewise the bread and wine before the consecration and after is all one in nature substance bignes form and fashion and yet it is not called as other common bread but for the dignitie wherunto it is taken it is called with addition Heauenly bread The bread of life and the bread of thankes giueng The fift that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to affirme for a certayne truth in religion any thing which is not spoken of in holy scripture And this is spoken to the great and vtter condemnation of the Papistes which make and vnmake newe articles of our fayth from tyme to tyme at their pleasure without any scripture at all yea quite and clean contrary to scripture And yet wyll they haue all men bound to beleue what soeuer they inuent vpon perill of damnation and euerlasting fyre And yet wil they constrayne with fyre and fagot all men to consent contrary to the manifest wordes of God to these their errours in this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes body and bloud First that there remayneth no bread nor wine after the consecration but that Christes flesh and bloud is made of them Second that Christes body is really corporally substantially sensibly and naturally in the bread and wine Thirdly that wicked persons do eat and drincke Christes very body and bloud Fourthly that priestes offer Christ euery day and make of him a new sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Thus for shortnes of tyme I doe make an end of Theodoretus with other old auncient writers which do most clearly affirme that to eat Christes body and to drink his bloud be figuratiue speaches And so be these sentenses likewise which Christ spake at his supper This is my body This is my bloud Winchester The author bringeth in Theodoret a greek whom to discusse particularly wer lōg tedious one notable place there is in him which toucheth the poynt of the mater which place Peter Marter alleageth in greek and then translateth it into Latin not exactly as other haue done to the truth but as he hath done I will write in here And then will I wryte the same translated into english by one that hath translated Peter Marters booke and then will I adde the translation of this author and finally the very truth of the Latine as I will abide by and ioyn an issue with this author in it wherby thou reader shalt perceaue with what sinceritie thinges be handled Peter Marter hath of Theodoret this in Latin which the same Theodoret in a disputation with an Heritique maketh the catholique man to say Captus es ijs quae tetenderas retibus Neque enim post sancti ficationem mistica simbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur manent enim in priori sua substantia figura specie adeoque videntur palpantur quemadmodum antea Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur tanquam ea existentia quae creduntur He that translateth Peter Marter in english doth expresse these wordes thus Lo thou art new caught in the same nette which thou haddest sette to catche me in For those same misticall signes do not depart away out of their owne proper nature after the hallowing of them For they remayne still in their former substance and their former shape and their former kind and are euen as well seene and felte as they were afore But the thinges that are done are vnderstanded and are beleued and are worshiped euen as though they were in very deede the thinges that are beleued This is the common translation into English of Peter Marters booke translated which this author doth translate after his fashion thus Thou art taken with thine owne nette for the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and be seen and touched as well as before Yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Thus is the translation of this author Myne English of this latine is thus Thou art taken with the same nettes thou diddest lay forth For the misticall tokens after the sanctification go not away out of their proper nature For they abide in their former substance shape and forme and so far forth that they may be seene and felt as they might before But they be vnderstanded that they be made and are beleued and are worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued This is my translation who in the first sentence meane not to vary from the other translations touching the remayne of substance shape forme or figure I will vse all these names But in the second parte where Theodoret speaketh of our beleefe what the tokens be made and where he sayth those tokens be worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued thou mayst see reader how this author flieth the wordes beleue and worship which the common translation in english doth playnly and truly expresse how soeuer the translator swarued by colour of the word tanquam which there after the greeke signifieth the truth and not the similitude onely like as saynt Paule Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam sint which is to make to be indeed not as though they were And the greeke is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it were an absurditie to beleue thinges otherwise then they be as though they were and very Idolatrie to worship wittingly that is not as though it were in dede And therfore in these two words that they beleued that they be made and be worshiped is declared by Theodoret his fayth of the very true reall presence of Christs glorious flesh wherunto the Deitie is vnited Which fleshe S. Augustine consonantly to this Theodoret sayd must be worshiped before it be receiued The word worshiping put here in english is to expresse the word Adorantur put by Peter in latine signifieng adoring being the verbe in Greke of such signification as is vsed to expresse godly worship with bowing of the knée Now reader what should I say by this author that conueieth these two wordes of beleuing and worshiping and in stede of them cometh in with reuerence taking reputing and esteming wherof thou mayst esteme how this place of Theodoret pinched this author who could not but see that adoring of the sacramēt signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored which els were an absurditie and therfore the author toke payne to
christian man ought to come to Christes sacraments with great feare humility fayth loue and charitie And S. Augustine sayth that the Gospell is to be receaued or heard with no lesse feare and reuerence than the body of Christ. Whose wordes be these Interrogo vos fratres sorores dicite mihi Quid vobis plus esse videtur verbum dei an corpus Christi Si vere vultis respondere hoc vtique dicere debetis quod non sit minus verbum dei quam corpus Christi Et ideo quanta solicitudine obseruamus quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur vt nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in terram cadat tanta solicitudine obseruemus ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur dum aliquid aut cogitamus aut loquimur de corde nostro pereat quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negligenter audierit quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua negligentia permiserit I ask this question of you brethren and sisterne sayth S. Augustine aunswer me Whether you think greater the word of God or the body of Christ If you will answer the truth verely you ought to say thus That the word of God is no lesse then the body of Christ. And therfore with what carefullnes we take heed when the body of Christ is ministred vnto vs that no part therof fall out of our handes on the earth with as great carefulnes let vs take heede that the word of God which is ministred vnto vs when we think or speake of vayne matters perish not out of our hartes For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be giltie of no lesse fault then he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall vpon the ground thorough his negligence This is the mynd of S. Augustine And as much we haue in Scripture for the reuerent hearing and reading of God his holy word or the neglecting therof as we haue for the sacramentes But it semeth by your penne and vtteraunce of this matter that you vnderstand not the ground and cause wherupon should arise the great feare and trembling in their hartes that come to receaue the sacramentes for you shew another consideration therof than the scripture doth For you seeme to driue all the cause of feare to the dignitie of the body of Christ there corporally present and receaued but the scripture declareth the feare to ryse of the indignitie and vnworthines of the receauers He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely threatneth Gods word eateth and drinketh his owne damnation And Centurio considering his own vnworthines was abashed to receaue Christ into his house saying Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vnder the couering of my house And the same thing made Peter afrayd to be neare vnto Christ and to say Go from me O Lord for I am a sinner And all Christian men ought not to feare tremble onely whan they receaue the sacramentes but when soeuer they heare Gods word and threatninges pronounced agaynst sinners Now as concerning the third note thou shalt see playnly good reader that here is nothing here aunswered directly but meere cauilations sought and shift to auoyde For if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound as the people did communicate with the priest as you say they do and so they do in dede and that as well in the communion of drinking as eating than eyther the people did cōmunicate with them indeede and receaued the Sacrament vnder both the kindes or else the prayers had ben false the ceremonies frustrate and in vayne And is it like that the priests in that time would haue vsed vnto God such vntrue prayers as should declare that the people did communicate with thē if indeed none did communicate with them as it should haue bene by your imagined chances and cases But it apeareth by the wordes of the Epistle that the whole multitude of the people that was present did communicate at those dayes so that the priest could not communicate alone except he would communicate whan no man was in the church But by the aunswer of this sophister here in this place thou mayst see an experience good reader whether he be as redy to see those thinges that make agaynst him as he is paynfull and studious to draw as it were by force all thinges to his purpose to make them at the least to seme to make for him although they be neuer so much agaynst him As appeareth by all these his suppositions that all the people which were prepared for should in those dayes withdraw them selues from the communion and not one of them come vnto it that the clarkes should receaue all that was prouided for the people that one clerke should receaue that which many clerkes ought to haue receaued And so in conclusiō by onely his fayned suppositions he would perswade that the priest should receaue all alone By such prety cases of the people disapoynting the priestes and of lacke of store of clerkes you might dayly finde cauilations with all godly ordenaunces For where as God ordayned the pascall lambe to be eaten vp cleane in euery house and where there were not inough in one house to eat vp the Lambe they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eate vp the hole Lambe so that nothing should remayne Here you might bring in your vpon a chance that they that lacked company to eate vp a hole Lambe dwelt alone far from other houses and could not come together or could not gette any such Lambe as was appoynted for the feast or if their neighbours lacked company also And what if they had no spitte to rost the lambe And where as it was commaunded that they should be shooed what if perchance they had no shooes And if perchaunce a mans wife were not at home and all his seruaunts falled sike of the sweat or plague and no man durst come to his house then must he turne the spitte him selfe and eate the Lambe all alone Such chances you purposely deuise to establishe your priuat Masse that the priest may eate all alone But by such a lyke reason as you make here a man might proue that the priest should preach or say mattens to him selfe alone in case as you say that the people which should come would disapoynt him For what if the people disapoynt the priest say you and come not to the communion What if the people disapoynt the priest say I and come not to mattens nor sermon shall he therfore say mattens and preach whan no man is present but him selfe alone But your imagined case hath such an absurditie in it as is not tollerable to be thought to haue beene in Christian people in that tyme when Clements Epistles were written that when all the people should receaue the communion with the priest yet not one would come but all would disapoynt him And yet in that case I
nourisheth the right beleuers Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier and thou shalt euidently perceiue that either he wil not or can not or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer and in my booke also by the receauing and feding vpon Christ spiritually But it is no maruaile that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ before they be borne a new and forsaking their papisticall leauen haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God then flesh bloud can teach them Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth that Christes body is corporally there where the visible formes of bread wine be of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture which teacheth vs to beleue professe that Christ as concerning his bodily presence hath forsaken the world is ascended into heauen shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud there is no mouth and teeth can serue but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes and speake very little And the cause why is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes Caparnaites that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity spirituall circumcition spirituall honger and thirst and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ but they hang all together so in the letter that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit which knowledge if that you had you should soone perceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made And where you peruert the order of the bookes setting the carte before the horse that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second saying that the naturall order of the matter so requireth here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes which is vnder the pretence coulour of order to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light For when they perceaue a window open wherby the light may shine in and the truth appeare then they busily go about to shut that window and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is and les light can be sene And when besides the darkenes of the matter they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes that he is become blind thē dare they make him iudge be the matter neuer so vntrue And no meruail for he is now becōe so blindfeld subiect vnto them that he must say what so euer they bid him be it neuer so much repugnāt to the euidēt truth In such sort it is in the matter of that sacramēt For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined that plaine wordes of the scripture the consent of aūcient writers the articles of our fayth the nature of a sacrament reason all sences making so euidently agaynst it therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation but they will alwayes beare men in hand that other matters must fyrst be examined as the late Bishop doth here in this place Now in the second place of Chrisostome where you say that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen which shall suffice for answere here also And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre here with vs in our handes truth it is that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment But that we shoud not think that he is corporally here with vs S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum saying Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man that we should therby take away the truth of his body And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body to be in two places at one tyme therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally and also naturally in the sacrament For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule But like as it is not to be thought that Quicquid est in deo est putandum vbique vt dens that whatsoeuer is in god is euery where as God is so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme euery where where his godhead is But Christ is sayth S. Augustine Vbique per id quod est deus in coelo autem per id quod est homo Euery where in that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence and the presence of his diuinitie of his grace of his truth of his maiestie and power is reall and effectuall in many places according to his worde Now as concerning your issue I refuse it not but say that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred and which our sauiour Christ ment and the old fathers speake of is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life Now if you can bring good testimony for you that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud and that it shall lyue for euer which neuer had lyfe and that Gods operation worke is more in domme creatures then in man then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you And when I heare your testimonies I shall make answer but before I here them I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne and beate the wind to no purpose Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alleadge sayth thus Christ geuing thankes dyd breake which also we doe adding thereto prayer And he gaue vnto them saying Take this is my body this that I do now geue and that which ye now do take For the bread is not a
serued to the sustentation and increase of it therfore the bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it appeareth not flesh but bread that we should not lothe the eating of it for if flesh did appeare we should be vnpleasantly disposed to the communion of it Now our lord condescending to our infirmitie the misticall meat appeareth such to vs as those we haue ben accustomed vnto Hitherto I haue faythfully expressed Theophilactes wordes out of latine of Oecolampadius translation without terming the substantiall poyntes of her wise theÌ„ the words purport in latine By which may appeare what was Theophilactes meaning what doctrine he geueth of the sacrament and how his owne wordes vpon saynt Marke be to be vnderstanded when he sayth Speciem quide panis vim seruat in vertutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat incorupting of which wordes this author maketh a great matter when they were not alleaged for his but as they be his seruare speciem may be well translate forme and aparance bycause vpon S. Iohn before alleadged he sayth of the bread it appeareth And as for these wordes the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud must be vnderstanded to agree with the playne place of Theophilact vpon S. Iohn and vpon S. Marke also to signifie not onely vertue but veritie of the flesh and bloud of Christ. For if Theophilact by that spech ment the vertue of the body of Christ and not the verytie of the very body as thor sayth he did why should Theophilact both vppon S. Marke and also vpon S. Iohn aske this question why doth not the flesh appeare if him selfe by those wordes should teach there were onely present the vertue of his flesh who and he had ment so would not haue asked the question or if he had would haue answered it thâ—s accordingly there is no flesh in dede but the vertue of the flesh and that had bene a playne answer and such as he would haue made This author will aske then why doth Theophilact vse this phrase to say changed into the vertue of the body of Christ Hereunto I answer that this word vertue in phrase of speach many tymes oâ—â—ly filleth the speach and is comprehended in the signification of his genetiue following and therfore as Luke in the xxii chap. sayth à dextris vertutis Dei so in the Actes in the same sentence is spoken à dextris Dei both out of one pen and à dextris virtutis Dei is no more to say then à dextris Dei and so is virtutem carnis sanguinis no more to say but in carnem sanguinem which sentence the same Theophilact with vpon S. Iohn before alleaged in this saying The bread is changed into flesh anâ—â— Marke in this phrase into the vertue of flesh being like these speaches à dextris Dei and à dextris virtutis Dei. Which and if had liked this author to haue considered he should haue taken Theophilactes speach as Theophilact vnderstandeth himselfe and sayd the wordes alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophilactes wordes and then he had sayd for so much true which would do well among and the wordes be not indede Theophilactes wordes nor were not alleaged for his Now when this author sayth they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes that is a large negatiue and will be hardly proued otherwise then by addition of the authors knowledge for any thing that he can finde and so there shal be no absurditie to graunt it And thus I returne to myne issue with this author that Theophilact himselfe hath no such meaning expressed in wordes as this author attributed vnto him but an euident contrary meaning sauing herein I will agree with this author that Theophilact ment not grossely sensibly carnally as these wordes sound in carnall mennes iudgementes For we may not so thinkâ— of Gods misteries the worke wherof is not carnall nor corporall for the maner of it But the maner spirituall and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ bicause Christ is in his very true flesh present he may be sayd so carnally present and naturally after Hilary and corporally after Cyrill vnder standing the wordes of the truth of that is present Christes very bydy and flesh and not of the maner of the presence which is onely spirituall supernaturall and aboue mannes capacitie And therfore a high mistery a great miracle a wonderfull woorke which it is holsome to beleue simply with a sincere fayth and daungerous to serch and examine with a curious imagination such as idlenes and arogancy would tempt a man vnto and by diuising of a figure or metaphore bring it within the compasâ—e of our busy reason Caunterbury THis is a pretie sleight of you to passeouer the authors name saying that you found it so alleaged in an author and tell not in what author There is surely some hid mistery in this matter that you would not haue his name knowen For if you had found any approued author who had fathered these wordes vpoÌ„ Theophilus Alexandrinus I doubt not but I should haue herd him here named it should haue serued so much for your purpose For to what purpose should you coÌ„ceale his name if you had any such author But shall I open the mistery of this matter Shall I by coniectures tell the author which you followed as you by coniecture gathered of him the name of Theophilus Thomas de Aquino in his cathena aurea citeth the wordes by you alleaged in these letters Theoph. which letters be indiferent aswel to Theophilus as to Theophilactes so that you might haue christened the child whether you would by the name of Theophilus or of Theophilactus And because Theophilus was a more auncient author and of more learning and estimation then was Theophilact therfore the name pleased you better to geue more credite to your sayinges and so of Theoph you made the whole name Theophilus And bycause one Theophilus was a byshop of Alexandry you added as it were his syr name calling him Theophilus Alexandâ—inus And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter peraduenture it might be doctor Fisher somtyme byshop of Rochester who writing in the same matter that you do was or would be deceaued as you be But what author so euer you folowed you shall not honestly shake of this matter except you tell his name For els I will say that you be fayne to bring in for you fayned authors whispered in corners And yet that Theophilus wrot not that wordes alleaged vpon Marke this is no smale profe that Theophilact hath the same sentences word by word and that neyther S. Hierom Gennadius Eusebius Tritemius nor any other that euer wrot hitherto made euer any mention that Theophilus wrot vpon the gospell of S. Marke And as concerning your issue thus much I graunt without issue that no catholike
presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament so I trust to shew this author ouerseene in the article of transubstantiation For enter wherunto first I say this that albeit the word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall counsaile where the Bishop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstanding of Christes wordes and was in that counsayle confessed not for the authority of the Bishop of Rome but for the authority of truth being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome but the true doctrine of Christes mistery and therfore in this realme the authority of Rome cessing was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realme in an open counsayle specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath bene repelled yet that doctriue was neuer hitherto by any publique counsayle or any thing set forth by authority empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this author should not improue it by the name of the Bishop of Rome seing we read how truth was vttered by Balsaam and Caiphas also and S. Paule teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or enuy so Christ be preached the person should not empayre the opening of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alow for truth impugning the article of Transubstantiation not meaning therby as this author doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament of the aniter as is afore sayd in the discussion of which truth of Transubstantiation I for my part should be speciall defended by two meanes wherwith to auoyd the enuious name of Papist One is that Zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knowen nor good christen man as some sayd neither sayth playnly writing to Luther in the matter of the Sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament there is of necessity Transubstantiation also Wherfore seing by Luthers trauayle who fauored not the Byshops of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth most certayne and manifest it appeareth that according to the true catholqiue sayth Christ is really present in the sacrament it is now by Zuinglius iudgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is TransubstantiatioÌ„ also which shal be one meane of purgation that I defend not Transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necessity of the truth howsoeuer it liketh Duns or Gabriell to write in it whose sayinges this author vseth for his pleasure An other defence is that this author himselfe sayth that it is ouer great an absurdity to say that bread insensible with many other termes that he addeth should be the body of Christ and therfore I thinke that the is that is to say the inward nature and essence of that Christ deliuered in his supper to be eaten and dronken was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine and therfore can well agree with this author that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christ nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter which considerations will enforce him that beleueth the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body as the true catholique â—ayth teacheth to assent to Transubstantiation not as determined by the church of Rome but as a consequent of truth beleued in the mistery of the Sacrament which Transubstantiation how this author would impugne I will without quarell of enuious wordes consider and with true opening of his handeling the matter doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth agaynst the truth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I heard this Author if he be the same that is named once reherse more seriously in a solemne and open audience to the conuiction and condemnation as followed of one that erroniously mayntayned agaynst the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholique fayth Caunterbury IN this booke which answereth to my second booke rather with taunting wordes then with matter I will answere the chief poyntes of your intent and not contend with you in scolding but will geue you place therin First I charge none with the name of papistes but that be well worthy therof For I charge not the hearers but the teachers not the learners but the inuenters of the vntrue doctrine of Transubstantiation not the kinges faythfull subiects but the Popes darlinges whose fayth and belefe hangeth of his onely mouth And I call it their doctrine not onely bycause they teach it but bycause they made it and were the first fynders of it And as in the third booke concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament you haue not shewed myne ignorance or wilfulnes but your owne so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation Which word say you albeit the same was fyrst spoken of in the generall counsell where the Byshop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older Here at the first brunt you confesse that the name of Transubstantiation was giuen at the counsell So that either the matter was not before as it was not in deed or at the least it was before a namelesse child as you do graunt vntill the holy father Innocent the thyrd which begat it assembled a company of his frendes as godfathers to name the child And by what authority the counsayle defined the matter of Transubstantiation it may easely appeare For authority of scripture haue they none nor none they do alleadge And what the authority of the Pope was there all men may see being present in the same no lesse then .800 Abbottes and Priours who were all the Popes owne chyldren of him created and begotten And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realme in an open counsell the authority of Rome ceasing you speake here a manifest vntruth wittingly agaynst your conscience For you know very well and if you will denie it there be enough yet aliue can testify that diuers of the clergy being of most godly liuing learning and iudgement neuer consented to the articles which you speake of And what meruayle was it that those articles notwithstanding diuers learned men repugning passed by the most voyces of the Parliament seing that although the authority of Rome was then newely ceased yet the darkenes and blindnes of errours and ignoraunte that came from Rome still remayned and ouershadowed so this Realme that a great number of the Parliament had not yet theyr eyes opened to see the truth And yet how that matter was enforced
sunne and the moone of a man and a beast of fish and flesh betwene the body of one beast and an other one herbe and an other one tree an other betwene a man and a woman Yea betwene our body and Christes and generally betwene any one corporall thing and an other For is not the distinction of all bodely substances knowen by their accidents without the which a mans body can not be knowen to be a mans body And as substances can not be substances without accidents so the nature of accidentes can not be without substāces whose being deffinitiō is to be in substāces But as you speake of substances and accidentes agaynst scripture sense reason experience and all learning so doe you also speake manifestly agaynst your selfe For you say that euery thing that is must haue a substance wherein it is stayde and that euery naturall visible thing is of two partes of substance and accidentes and yet by your Transubstantiation you leaue no substance at all to stay the accidentes of the bread and wine And moreouer this is a meruaylous teaching of you to say that the accidents of bread be one parte of breade and be called the outward kinde of bread the sensible parte of bread the nature and matter of bread and very bread Was there euer any such learning taught before this day that accidentes should be called partes of substances the nature of substances and the matter of substances and the very substāces themselues If euer any man so wrotte tell who it is or els knowledge the truth that all these matters be inuented by your owne imagination wherof the rude man may right well say Here is sophistry in deede and playne iuggling But you conuey not your iuggling so craftely but that you be taken as the Grekes terme it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen with the māner Now as concerning your expert lapidarie if his sences be deceaued how shall he iudge a true stone from a counterfaite Doth he not diligently looke vpon it with his sight to discerne truely of it For tell me I pray you how a man without sences shall iudge a true diamond Put out his eyes and is not a white saphire a diamond and a glas all one in his iudgemēt Mary if he be a man of cleare sight of true knowledge and experience in the iudgement of stones and be therewithall a man of good fayth and honesty as you tell the tale they that be ignorant will be ashamed to controll his iudgement But if he be blinde or be a man neither of fayth nor honesty but his experience hath ben euer exercised to deceaue all that trust him and to sell them white saphirs for diamondes then no man that wise is will take a glas or saphire at his handes of trust although he say it be a true diamond Euen so likewise the Papistes being so accustomed with these marchandises of glistering glasses and counterfayte drugges to deceaue the world what wise men will trust them with their fayned Transubstantiation being so manifestly agaynst the playne wordes of scripture agaynst all reason sence and auncient writers And although you haue taken neuer so great labor and paynes in this place to answere myne argumentes wherin you do nothing els but shew your ignorance in philosophy and logike yet all is in vayne except you could proue Transubstantiation to be a matter of our fayth which being not proued all that you haue spoken here serueth to no purpose nor concludeth nothing For you are not so ignorant in sophistry but you know well though that of a false Antecedent can no Consequent directly follow And as concerning these wordes of Christ This is my body by your owne teaching in these wordes he called bread his body which can be no formall and proper speach but spoken by a figure as the order of the text playnly declareth and all the old authors do testify And where you say that although the substance of bread and wine be gone yet the sences haue their proper obiect still remayning as they had before that is to say the colours greatnes thicknes weight sauour and tast expresse thē I pray you playnly what thing it is that is coloured great thinne or thicke heauy or light sauoury or tasted For seing you confesse that these do remayn you must confesse also that there remayneth bread For that greatnes thicknes thinnes colours and weight be not in the body of Christ nor in the ayre which can not be wayed and in some thing they must nedes be for by your owne saying euery thing hath a substance to stay it therfore they must nedes be in the substance of bread and wine And to say that the accidents of bread be the natures matters and substances therof is nothing els but to declare to the world that you make wordes to signify at your pleasure But other shift haue you none to defend your Transubstantiation but to deuise such monstrous kindes of speaches as neuer was heard of before For you say that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine remayne not but be changed into the body and bloud of Christ the olde writers say directly contrary that the nature matter and substance remayne Christ sayth Theodoret called bread and wine his body and bloud and yet changed not their natures And agayne he sayth The bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substance forme and figure which they had before And Origene sayth that the matter of bread auayleth nothing but as concerning the materiall part therof it goeth downe into the bealy and is auoyded downward And Gelasius sayth that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be Now seeing that your doctrine who teach that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine be changed and remayne not is as cleane contrary to these olde writers with many other as black is contrary to white and light to darknes You haue no remedy to defend your errour and wilfull opinion but to imagine such portentuous and wonderfull kindes of speaches to be spoken by these authors as neuer were vttered before by no man that is to say that the outward aparance and accidences of any thing should be called the nature matter and substance therof But such monsters had you rather bring forth then you would in one iote relent in your errour once by you vttered and vndertaken by you defended And yet bring you nothing for the profe of your saying but that if the authors wordes should be vnderstand as they be spoken this should follow thereof that bread and wine should be seene and felt which as no man doubteth of but all men take it for a most certayne truth so you take it for a greate inconuenience and absurdity So farre be you forced in this matter to vary in speach and iudgement from the sentence and opinion of all men And
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
mutation brought in by S. Ambrose the substances neuertheles remayned the same that skilleth not for the wonder of those meruayles serue for an induction to releeue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacrament and to represse the arrogancy of reason presuming to search such knowledge in Gods secret workes whereof if there might be a reason geuen it néeded no fayth And where there is a like there is no singularity as this miracle in the sacrament is notably singuler and therefore none other found like vnto it The Sacramentall mutation which this author newly so termeth is a mere shift to auoyd among such as be not learned the truth of Gods miracle in this chaunge which is in déed such as S. Ambrose speaketh of that of bread is made the body of Christ which S. Ambrose in an other place termeth it the grace of the body of Christ and all is one for it is a great grace to haue the body of Christ for our food present there And out of Christes mouth calling the bodye of Christ is making the body of Christ which wordes calling signifying naming vsed in S. Ambrose writinges do not limitte Christes wordes and restraynt them to an onely calling an onely signifiyng or an onely naming but geue an vnderstanding agréeable to other of S. Ambrose wordes that shew the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ the calling to be vnderstanded a real calling of the thing that so is made and likewise a reall signifying of the thing in déed present and a reall naming as the thing is in déed As Christ was named Iesus because he is the sauiour of his people in déede And thus perusing this authors answeres I trust I haue noted to the reader with how smal substaunce of matter this author impugneth transubstantiation and how slenderly hée goeth about to aunswere such authors as by their seuerall writinges confyrme the same besydes the consent of Christendome vniuersally receiuing the same And how in the meane way this author hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doctrine of the fyguratiue speach that himselfe so lately hath deuised or rather because this matter in his booke goeth before he hath in his second booke marred his frame or euer be commeth to the third booke to set it vp Caunterbury OH what a capitall cryme is here committed that I haue englished this word conficere to do whose proper signification is to accomplish or make an end of a thing which being once brought to passe we vse in common spech to say I haue done as I haue done my house I haue done my booke I haue done my worke I haue done my dayes iourney that is to say I haue perfectly done and finished And is not this fully as much in spech as to say I haue made my dayes iourney or I haue made my house or my booke But some fault you must finde where none is partly to keep in vse your old custome of calumniatiō and partly to satisfy a new toy that you haue in your head that making is in the substaunce of the sacrament and doing is in the effect But whether it be translate making or dooing S. Ambrose spake of the wonderfull effectuall working of God in the vse and ministration of the sacramentes and that as well in baptisme as in the Lordes supper and not of his working in the substaunces of the elementes reserued As for the authority of the booke I stand not in it so that all your wordes therein be more then nedeth but to length your book and yet was the book neuer allowed amongst men learned and of iudgement to be S. Ambroses And Melancthon whome you alleage for the allowaunce of it geueth it two nips which you haue left out of purpose to serue your affection For he saith not as you report that it seemeth not to him vnlike but that it seemeth not to him farre vnlike and yet he confesseth that it is confusedly written which is a slender approbation that it should be S. Ambroses And where you confesse that S. Ambrose sayth not in wordes that the substances of bread and wine be gone and yet sayth so in effect because he speaketh of chaunge either you know that your argument is naught and yet bring it in purposely to deceiue some simple reader or your ignoraunce is more then I would haue thought that of this word chaunge woulde argue chaunge in substaunce as though there could be no chaunge but it must be in substaunce But if you had well considered the examples of S. Ambrose by me alleadged which he bringeth forth for the proofes and similitudes of the chaunge of bread and wine in the sacrament you should haue found that in all the sayd examples remayne the substaunces notwithstanding the chaunge As in the water of Iordane staying to runue after the naturall course in the dry stone that contrary to his nature flowed out water in the bitter water of Marath that was turned into sweetnesse in the yron that contrary to nature swame aboue the water in the spirituall generation of man aboue all naturall operation in the sacramētall mutation of the water of baptisme and in the incarnation of our sauiour Christ which all being brought by S. Ambrose for example of the chaunge in bread and wine as in them the substaunces remayned notwithstanding the chaunges so is it in the bread and wine whereof other were brought for examples But in your handling here of S. Ambrose you seem to be vtterly ignoraunt and not to know difference betweene sacramentall signes in the vse whereof almighty God inwardly worketh and other vayne signes which be nothing els but outward shewes to the eye For if you vnderstood the matter would you resemble a knaue playing in a princes coate in whom nothing is inwardly wrought or altered vnto a man beyng baptised in water who hath put vpō him outwardly water but inwardly is aparelled with Christ and is by the omnipotent working of God spiritually regenerated and chaunged into a new man Or would you compare him that banketeth at a feast to represent an anniuersary or tryumph vnto that man that in remembraunce of Christes death eateth and drinketh at his holy supper geuing thankes for his redemption and comforting himselfe with the benefyte thereof If you haue this opinion and veneration of the sacramentes it is well knowen what spirite you haue how ignoraunt you be and what is to be iudged of you And if you haue no such opinion becommeth it you then to dally with such profane examples tending to the profanation of the Sacraments and deceiuing of the readers And as for the holines of bread I say now as I said before that neither bread wine nor water haue any capacity of holinesse but holines is onely in the receauers and by the bread water and wine is sacramentally signified And therefore the marueilous alteration to an hyer estate nature and condition is chiefly
mysterie of Christes incarnation the humanitie is extinguished by the presence of his Godhead and so there remayneth no more but the substaunce of his diuinitie as the Eutichians sayd And thus the similitude of Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete ioyned to the saying of the Papistes frameth a good Argument for the heretickes But those Authours framed their Argumēt cleane cōtrary on this wise that the bread and wyne be not transubstantiate or extinguished but continue still in their owne substaunces figures fashion and all naturall proprieties and therfore doth the humanitie of Christ likewise endure and remayne in proper substaunce with his naturall proprieties without extinction or transubstantiation For those Authours take no bread and wyne for the visible proprieties onely of bread and wyne but for very true bread and wyne with all their naturall qualities and conditions And the heretickes shall soone finde out your cauillation where to auoyde the matter you say that the mysterie of the Sacrament requireth not the truth of the substaunce For why should the Authours bryng them forth to proue the truth of the substaunce in Christ if there were no true substaunce in them Thus all your shiftes and Sophistications be but wynde or colours cast ouer the truth to bleare mens eyes which colours rubbed of the truth appeareth cleare and playne And your first marke is not clearely put out but turned to a marke spectacle for your selfe wherin you may clearely see your owne errour and how foule you haue bene deceaued in this matter and open your eyes if God will geue you grace to put away your inducate hart to see the cleare truth Winchester An other certaine token is the wondryng and great marueling that the old authors make how the substaunce of this Sacrament is wrought by Gods omnipotencie Baptisme is marueiled at for the wonderfull effect that is in man by it how man is regenerate not how the water or the holy Ghost is there But the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures how they be so chaunged into the body bloud of Christ which is a worke wrought of God before we receiue the Sacrament Which worke Cyprian sayth is ineffable that is to say not speakeable which is not so if it be but a figure for then it may be easely spoken as this authour speaketh it with ease I thinke he speaketh it so often of a presence by signification if it may so be called euery man may speake and tell how but of the very presence in déede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament no creature can tell how it may be that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body and therewith continually reignyng there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in déede which Christ in déede worketh being neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen as S. Chrisostome doth with a maruaile say If the maruaile were onely of Gods worke in man in the effect of the Sacrament as it is in Baptisme it were an other matter but I sayd before the wonder is in the worke of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receiued which declareth the old authours that so wonder to vnderstand the reall presence of Christes very body and not an onely signification which hath no wonder at all And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it and calleth the worke ineffable S. Chrisostome wondreth at it S. Ambrose wondreth at it Emissene wondreth at it Cyrill wondreth at it What should we now doubt whether their sayth were of a signification onely as this authour would haue it which is no wonder at all or of the reall presence which is in déede a wonderfull worke Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the old fathers there can no construction of sillables or wordes disswade or peruert the truth thus testified Caunterbury AS touchyng this your second marke in the ministration of the Sacramentes aswell of the Lordes holy Supper as of Baptisme God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receauers not in the outward visible signes For it is the person Baptised that is so regenerate that he is made a new creature without any reall alteration of the water And none otherwise it is the Lordes Supper for the bread wine remaine in their former substaunce neither be fed nor nourished yet in the man that worthely receiueth them is such a wonderfull nourishmēt wrought by the mighty power of God that he hath thereby euerlasting life And this is the ineffable worke of God wherof Cyprian speaketh So that aswell in the Lords Supper as in Baptisme the marueilous workyng of God passing the comprehension of all mans wit is in the spirituall receiuers not in the bread wine water nor in the carnall vngodly receauers For what should it auayle the liuely members of Christ that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures But in his members he is present not figuratiuely but effectually and effectually and ineffably worketh in them nourishyng and feedyng them so wonderfully that it passeth all wittes and toungues to expresse And neuerthelesse corporally he is ascended into heauen and there shall tarry vntill the world shall haue an end And therfore sayth Chrisostome that Christ is both gone vp into heauen and yet is here receaued of vs but diuersly For he is gone vp to heauen carnally is here receaued of vs spiritually And this wonder is not in the woorkyng of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receaued as you fayne it to be nor in thē that vnworthely receaue it carnally but in them that receaue Christ spiritually beyng nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated that they may be fed of the same thyng wherof they be regenerated and so be throughly Os ex ossibus eius caro ex carne eius Bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh And consideryng deepely this matter Cyprian wondreth as much at Gods worke in Baptisme as in the Lordes Supper Chrisostome wondreth as much Emissene wondreth as much Cyrill wondreth as much all Catholicke writers wonder as much as well how God doth spiritually regenerate vs to a new lyfe as how he doth spiritually feede and nourish vs to euerlastyng lyfe And although these thyngs be outwardly signified vnto vs by the Sacramentall bread wine and water yet they be effectually wrought in vs by the omnipotent power of God Therefore you had neede to seeke out some other marke or token for your purpose for this serueth nothyng at all For by his wonderfull workyng Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine then in the water of Baptisme Winchester A thyrd token there is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierome when he declareth vpon the Epistle Ad Titum so aduisedly at lēgth how Panes propositionis
not of his fleshe as it is vnited vnto his diuinitie pag. 27. lin 53. and. pag. 329. lin 24. God in Baptisme giueth onely the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the aultar the very body and bloud of Christ. pag. 34. lin 44. Unworthy receiuers of the sacrament receiue Christes body with mouth onely the worthy receiuers both with mouth and hart pag. 54. lin 47. c. We must beleue Christes workes to be most perfectly true accordyng to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in Scripture driueth vs from it how soeuer it seeme repugnaunt to reason pag. 62. lin 20. The Fathers did eate Christes body and drinke his bloud in truth of promise not in truth of presence pag. 74. lin 23. c. The Fathers did eate Christ spiritually but they did not eate his body present spiritually and sacramentally pag. eadem lin 26. Their Sacramentes were figures of the thynges but ours contayne the very thynges ibid. lin 27. Albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verified that the Fathers did eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud yet there is no such forme of wordes in scripture And it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the Fathers before Christes Natiuitie did not eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ. pag. 78. lin 28. And although S. Paule in the truth to the Corinthes be so vnderstanded of some that the Fathers should eate and drinke the spirituall meate and drinke that we doe yet to that vnderstandyng all doe not agree Ibidem lin 34. c. Their Sacramentes contayned the promise of that which in our sacramentes is geuen Ibidem lin 36. And although that willyng obedience was ended and perfected vpon the Crosse to the whiche it continued from the begynnyng yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham the earnest will and offeryng was accoumpted for the offeryng in deede so the declaration of Christes will in his last supper was an offeryng of him selfe to God the Father pag. 82. lin 2. c. In that mystery he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the world by the same will that he sayd his body should bee betrayed for vs. Ibidem lin 12. As Christ offered him selfe vpon the Crosse in the execution of his will so hee offered him selfe in his Supper in declaration of his will pag. 82. lin 13. c. Christes body in the supper or communion is represented vnto vs as a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world and it is the onely sacrifice of the Churche and the pure and cleane sacrifice wherof Malachie spake pag. 84. lin 4. pag. 88. lin vltima c. As Christ declareth in the supper him selfe an offeryng and sacrifice for our sinne offeryng him selfe to his Father as our Mediatour so the Church at the same supper in their offeryng of laudes and thankes ioyne them selues with their head Christ representyng and offeryng him pag. 89. lin 10. The sunne beames bee of the same substaunce with the sunne pag. 92. lin 5. We haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sunne Ibidem lin 7. When Christ sayd This is my body this word This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. To eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud is of it selfe a propre speach pag. 112. lin 35. Carnally Ibidem lin 50. with teeth and mouth pag. 112. lin 8. and pag. 34. lin 38. To eate Christes body carnally may haue a good signification pag. 113. lin 4. Origene doth not meane to destroy the truth of the letter in these words of Christ. Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. pag. 114. lin 40. S. Augustin taketh the same for a figuratiue speache bycause it seemeth to commaunde in the letter carnally vnderstanded an haynous and wicked thyng to eate the flesh of a man pag. 116. lin 40. The sayd woordes of Christ. Except you eate c. is to the vnfaythfull a figure but to the faythfull they be no figure but spirite and life Ibidem lin 48. The Fathers called it a figure by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecie apt onely to bee vnderstand of men beleuyng pag. 117. lin 3. That is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded Ibid. lin 13. This word Represent in S. Hierome and Tertullian signifieth a true reall exhibition pag. 120. lin 27. and pag. 128. lin 11. The word Eucharistia can not be well Englished pag. 161. In Gods word and in Baptisme we be made participant of Christes Passion by his spirite but in the Lordes Supper we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanitie exhibite to vs for foode So as in this mystery we receiue him as man and God and in the other by meane of his Godhead we be participant of the effect of his Passion suffered in his manhode In this Sacrament we receiue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the generall resurrection spirituall with our soule In Baptisme we haue bene made spirituall by regeneration of the soule pag. 158. lin 45. c. In Baptisme Christes humanitie is not really present though the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there pag. 159. lin 4. The maner of Christes beyng in the sacrament is onely spirituall Ibidem lin 16. To vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the Church Ibidem lin 34. Our perfect vnitie with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christ bodily naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode pag. 166. lin 32. By Christes flesh in the sacrament we be naturally in him and he is naturally in vs. Ibidem lin 45. c. Christ dwelleth naturally in vs and we bee corporally in him Ibidem lin 35. Christes flesh is very spirituall and in a spirituall maner deliuered vnto vs. pag. 167. lin 12. and pag. 243. lin 11. and pag. 243. lin 28. and pag. 295. lin 33. Christ dwelleth in vs naturally for the naturall communication of our body and his pag. 167. lin 19. When Christ vnited him selfe vnto vs as man which he doth geuyng his body in the sacrament to such as worthely receiue it then he dwelleth in them corporally pag. 172. lin 27. In Baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes Passion and bloud Christes Godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie pag. 181. lin 16. c. In Baptisme our vnitie with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue effect of Christes bloud pag. 181. lin 2. and. 16. In Baptisme our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body in deede but in hope onely pag. 181. lin 6. In Baptisme we be vnited to Christes manhode by his diuinitie but in the Lordes Supper
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the
1. Cor. 10. Ioh. 6. Ioh. 16. Heb. 7.9 10. Christ is spiritually present An issue No writer approued testifieth this authors faith The summe of the issue Outward teaching Your doctrine is not catholike by your owne description My issue I notable matter a man to be condemned by his owne former writinges Bertram confessed to be of this opinion This authors doctrine often reiected as false Actes v. My Catechisme Bertrame Berengarius Wickliffe Luther The Papistes haue bene the cause why the catholike doctrine hath bene hundered and hath not had good successe these late yeâ—es These wordes This is my body agre in sence with the rest of the scripture Vntrue report This author hath no wordes of scripture for the ground of his faith This is my body is no proper speach Gods omnipotencie Psal. 115. Rom. 9. An aunswer to the like speaches in apparance The fayth of this author is but to â—eleue a story The Lordes supper hath nâ— miracle in it by this authors vnderstanding No promise made to a token in the supper or in yâ— 6. of Iohn Iniury to baptisme Math. v â— Mark. vit Tokens be but tokens howsoeuer they be garnished with gay wordes without scripture For apparell pag. 30. numero 9. Untrue report Euery speciall sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a secret hiddeÌ„ truth Bread is not a vayn and bare token I warrant Ioh. 6. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10 A new teaching of onely figure How can â— fayth be called catholike that begunneth to be published nowe Marke 1. Tokens how to discern truth from falshood â— Reg. 3. A lesson of Salomons iudgement Truth nedeth no ayd of lies Truth loueth simplicity and playnnes The Church of Rome is not the true mother of the catholick fayth Absurda falsa The speaking of the true mother Rome to the mother of the papistical fayth The name of the Author great wherewith to put men to silence An impudent vntruth The sayth of the Sacrament in the Catechisme unproueth this Authors doctrine now Erasmus commendeth to the world the work of Algerus vpon the Sacrament The body of Christe hidden vnder the signes Erasmus would all to repent that follow Berengarius error Peter Martyr doth with lyes impugne the faith of the Sacrament An issue This Author would with the enuious words of papish oppresse the truth Foure manifest vntruthes The first vntruth that the faith of the reall presence to the faith of the papists Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Epinus Mine issue Cyrill and â—â—â—storius In baptisme we receaue Christs spirite to geue life in the Lords Supper we receaue his flesh bloud to continue life Chap. 1. The abuse of the Lordes supper Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. Iohn 6. The second vntrueth for verely meat translatyng very meat Origenes in Leuit. hom 7. Propterea er go caro cius verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus Et in Math. hom 12. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus verus est potus Hierom. in Eccle. cap. 3. Caro enim verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus August in Psal. 33. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus vere potus est Damas. lib. 4. ca. 14. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meus verus est potus Euthyimus in lo. cap. 9. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meas verus est potus The nature of a cuttil Plim lib. 9. ca. 29. Eccle. 37. Christ is verely and truely geueÌ„ in the Sacrament but yet spiritually Iohn 6 Cyrill Lanathematismo 11. Nestorius Iniury to baptisme Galat. 3 In the sixt chapiter of Iohn Christ spake not of corporall eating Iohn 6 Iohn 6. Iohn 8. Iohn 1. The 3. vntruth of the handling the wordes of S. Augustine Mine issue August in 10 an Tractat. 26. Eodem tract Aug. de Ciuit. lib. 21. cap. 25. worthely August de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 13. How Christes flesh is eaten Iohn 6. Cyprian in sermone de caena Domini August in Ioan. tra 26. Cap. 3. The eating of the Sacrament of his body Mat. 26. Marck 14. Luke 2â— 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 4. Christ called the materiall bread his body 1. Cor. 10. Marck vii 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 5. Euill men do eat the SacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 6. These thinges suffice for a christian mans faith concerning this Sacrament Cap. 7. The SacrameÌ„t which was ordayned to make loue and concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord Math. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. The 4. vntruth that by these words hoc est corpus meum Christ ment not to make the bread his body Neither Saint Paul nor the Euangelistes adde any words wherby to take away the signification of bread and wine The fourth vntruth the Christ intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body The variaunce between you Smith Against Smith Christ called bread his body Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. Ireneus Tertullianus Cyprianus Epiphanius Heironymus Augustinus Cyrillus Theodorus Gods miraculous workes in the Sacrament Imuty to baptisme Mine issue Gods omnipotency Mat. 16. Gen. 1. Eating signifieth beleeuing 3 vntruthes vttered by you in this one place The first Iohn 6. The secondâ— Iohn 6. The third That Christ fulfilled not his promise to geue vs life at his supper Iohn 6 Esay 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9. Gal. 6. Rom. 1. Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. Iohn 3. Gal. 3. Mat. 16. Marck 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. A warrant for apparrell Christes ambiguous speechess were not alwayes opened by the Euangelistes Luke 12. Luke 9. Iohn 12. 1 Math. 13. Psal. 77. This is my body is no proper speech Cap. 6. Cap. 9. The spirituall hunger thirstines of the soul. Eph. 2. Rom. 3 Psal. 41. Psal. 62. Rom. 4. Rom. 7. Rom. 8. Math. 5. Luke 1. Iohn 4. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. Cap. 10. Mat. 11. The spirituall foode of the soule Iohn 7. Iohn 6. Iohn 6. Gal. 2. Cap. 11. Christ farre excelleth all corporall foode Iohn 11. Cap. 12. The sacrameÌ„ts were ordayned to confirme our faith Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 13. Wherfore this sacrament was ordayned in bred and wine Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 14. The vnity of Christes misticall body 1. Cor. 10. Dionysios eccle Hie. cap. 31 Cap. 14. This sacrameÌ„t moueth all men to loue and freÌ„dship The doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—ion doth clean subuert our faith in Christ. Cap. 16. The spirituall eating in with the hart not with the teeth Iohn 6. Luke 21. 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. Luke 22. Mark 14. Iniury to both Sacramentâ—s D. Smith Cap. 17. 4 principall errors of the Papistes The first is of the presence of Christ. Innocent 3. De summa trin fide
not the flesh appeare He should haue aunswered say you that the flesh is not there in deed but the vertue of the flesh I pray you doth not he aunswer playnly the same effect Is not his aunswer to that question this as you confesse your selfe that the fourmes of bread and wine be chaunged into the vertue of the body of Christ And what would you require more Is not this as much to say as the vertue of the flesh is there but not the substaunce corporally and carnally And yet another third errour is committed in the same sentence because one sentence should not be without three errours at the least in your translation For wheras Theophilact hath but one accusatiue case your put therto other two mo of your owne heade And as you once taught Barnes so now you would make Theophilact your scholer to say what you would haue him But that the truth may appeare what Theophilact sayd I shall reherse his owne wordes in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes translated into latine be these Condescendens nobis benignus Deus speciem quidem panis et vini seruat in potestatem autemcarnis et sanguinis transelementat And in English they be thus much to say The mercifull God condesending to our infermitie conserueth still the kind of bread and wine but turneth them into the vertue of his flesh and bloūd To this sentence you do adde of yonr owne authoritie these wordes the bread wine which wordes Theophilact hath not which is an vntrue parte of him that pretendeth to be a true interpretour And by adding those wordes you alter clearly the authors meaning For wheare the authors meaning was that we should abhore to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud in theyr propre forme and kind yet almighty God hath ordeyned that in his holy supper we should receaue the fourmes and kindes of bread and wine and that those kindes should be tourned vnto them that worthely receaue the same into the vertue and effecte of Christes very flesh and bloud although they remayne still in the same kynd and fourme of bread and wine And so by him the nature and kinde of bread and wine remayne And yet the same be tourned into the vertue of flesh and bloud So that the word fourmes is the accusatiue case aswell to the verbe tourneth as to the verbe conserueth but you to make Theophilact serue your purpose adde of your own head two other accusatiue cases that is to say bread and wine besides Theophilactes words wherin all men may consider how little you regarde the truth that to mayntayne your vntrue doctrine once deuised by your selues care not what vntruth you vse besides to corrupt all doctours making so many faultes in translation of one sentence And if the wordes alleaged vpon marke were not Theophilactes wordes but the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus as you say at the least Theophilact must borow them of Theophilus bycause the wordes be all one xvi lynes together sauing this word Ueritie which Theophilact tourneth into vertue And then it is to be thought that he would not alter that word wherin all the contention standeth without some consideration And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the veritie of Christes body as you say if Theophilact had thought the body had bene there would he haue refused the word and changed veritie into vertue bringing his owne fayth into suspition and geuing occasion of errour vnto other And where to excuse your errour in translation you say that the wordes by you alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophilactes wordes and I deny that they be Theophilus wordes so then be they no bodies wordes which is no detriment to my cause at all bycause I tooke him for none of my witnes but it is in a maner a clere ouerthrow of your cause which take him for your cheif principall witnesse saying that no catholike writer among the Grekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then Theophilactus hath and here vpon you make your issue And yet haue I a good cause to call thē Theophilactes wordes for as much as I finde them in his workes printed abrode sauing one word which you haue vntruly corrupted bycause that worde pleaseth you not And yet am I not bound to admit that your witnesse is named Theophilus except you haue better proofes therof then this that one sayth he hath him in a corner and so alleadgeth him It is your parte to proue your owne witnes and not my parte that stand herein only at defence And yet to euery indiferent man I haue shewed sufficient matter to reiect him Heare now my answer to S. Hierom. Besydes this our aduersaries do alleadge S. Hierom vpō the epistle Ad titū that there is as great difference betwene the Loues called Panis propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene a shadow of a body and the body it self and as there is betwene an image and the thing itselfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them These wordes of S. Hierom truly vnderstand serue nothing for the intent of the Papists For he ment that the Shew bread of the law was but a darke shadow of Christ to come but the sacrament of Christes body is a cleare testimony that Christ is already come and that he hath performed that which was promised and doth presently comfort and feede vs spiritually with his precious body and bloud notwithstanding that corporally he is assended into heauen Winchester This Author trauayleth to aunswer S. Hierom and to make him the easier for him to deale with he cutteth of that followeth in the same S. Hierom which should make the matter open and manifest how effectually S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud There is sayth S. Hierome as greate difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thing it selfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalitie should be chiefly in a Bishop and among all layemen an excellency in them so there should be in him a speciall chastitie and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he should not onely absteyne from vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde free from errour of thought that should make the body of Christ. These be S. Hieroms wordes in this place By the latter parte whreof appeareth playnly how S. Hierome meaneth of Christes body in the Sacrament of which the loaues that were Panes propositionis were a shadow as S. Hierome sayth that bread being the image and this the truth that the
example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this author teacheth then were the bread of Proposition figure of a figure and shadow of a shadow which is ouer great an absurditie in our religion Therfore there can not be a more playne proofe to shew that by S. Hieromes mynd Christes body is verely in the Sacrament and not figuratiuely onely then wheÌ„ he noteth Panes propositionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christes body in the Sacrament For as Tertulian sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis esses corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that answered vnto it wer not of truth which is the sence of Tertulians wordes And therfore S. Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certaynly playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this author sayth For S. Hierome affirmeth playnly Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although S. Hierom attributeth to the minister yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the author and worker notwithstanding by reason of the minestry in the church the doing is ascribed to manne as minister bycause Christ sayd Hoc facite after which speach saluation remission of sinne and the worke in other SacrameÌ„tes is attribute to the minister being neuerthelesse the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde bicause some be vniustly offended to heare that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findth fault before at the word making which religiousely heard and reuerently spoken should offend no man for man is but a minyster wherin he should not glory And Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread nor maketh him selfe so oft of bread a new body but sitting in heauen dooth as our inuisible Priest worke in the mistery of the visible pristhood of his church and maketh present by his omnipotencie his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuertion of the visible creatures of bread and wine as Emissen sayth into the same This author of this booke as thou reader mayst perceaue applieth the figure of the breades called Panes propositionis to the body of Christ to come where as S. Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore doth fashion his argument in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so much cleanes in them that should eat them that they might not eate of them which a day or two before had lyen with theyr wiues what cleanes is required in him that should make the body of Christ Wherby thou mayst se how this author hath reserued this notable place of S. Hierom to the later ende that thou shouldest in the ende as well as in the middest see him euidently snarled for the better remembrance Caunterbury TO these wordes of S. Hierome I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And now to adde some thing therunto I say that he meaneth not that Panis Propositionis be figures of the sacrament but of Christes very body And yet the same body is not onely in the sacrament figuratiuely but it is also in the true ministration therof spiritually present spirituallye eaten as in my booke I haue playnely declared But how is it possible that Caius Vlpian or Sceuola Batholus Baldus or Curtius should haue knowledge what is ment by the spirituall presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the spirituall eating of his flesh and bloud if they be voyde of a liuely fayth feeding and comforting theyr soules with their owne workes and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ. The meat that the Papistes liue by is indulgences and pardons and such other remission of sinnes as cometh all from the Pope which giueth no life but infecteth and poysoneth but the meate that the true Christian man lyueth by is Christ him selfe who is eaten onely by fayth and so eaten is life and spirite giuing that life that endureth and continueth for euer God graunt that we may learne this heauenly knowledge of the spirituall presence that we may spiritually taste and feede of this heauenly foode Now where you say that there canne not be a more playne proofe to shew that Christes body is verely in the sacrament and not figuratiuely onely than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christes body in the sacrament For as Tertulian sayth the other were not to be called a figure if that which aunswereth to it were not of truth Here your for is a playne fallax à non causa vt causa and a wonderous subtiltie is vsed therin For where Tertulian proueth that Christ had here in earth a very body which Martion denied bicause that bread was instituted to be a figure therof and there canne bee no figure of a thing that is not you alleadge Tertulians wordes as though he should say that Christes body is in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread whereof neyther Tertulian intreated in that place nor it is not required that the body should be corporally where the figure is but rather it should be in vayne to haue a figure when the thing it selfe is present And therfore you vntruely reporte both of S. Hierome and Tertulian For neyther of them both do say as you would gather of theyr wordes that Christes body is in the sacrament really and corporally And where you say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matier of bread either you be very ignoraunt in the doctrine of the sacrament as it hath bene taught these fiue hundred yeares or els you dissemble the matter Hath not this bene the teaching of the schole diuines yea of Innocent him selfe that the matter of this Sacrament is bread of wheat and wine of grapes Do they not say that the substaunce of bread is tourned into the substaunce of Christes flesh and that his flesh is made of bread And who worketh this but Christ him selfe And haue you not confessed all this in your booke of the Deuils sophistry why do you then deny here that which you taught before and which hath bene the common aproued doctrine of the Papistes so many yeares And bycause it should haue the more authorite was not this put into the masse bookes and reade euery yeare Dognum datur christianis quod in caâ—nem transit panis uinum in sanguinem Now seing that you haue taught so many yeares that the matter and substaunce of bread is not consumed to nothing but is chaunged and tourned into the body of Christ so that the body of Christ is made of it what meane you now to deny that Christ is made of the matier of bread Whan water was tourned into wine was not the wine made of the
one of the body and soule which the Church doth professe in Symbolo Athanasij of all receaued For Christ is one person of two perfite natures whereof the one was before the other in perfection and creation of the other the one impassible and the other passible Man is of the soule and body one two different natures but such as for their perfection required that vnitie wherof none was before other perfect of Christ we say he is consubstantiall to his Father by the substaunce of his Godhead and consubstantiall to man by the substaunce of his manhoode but we may not say man is consubstantiall by his soule to Aungels and consubstantiall in his body to beastes because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantiall beastes And thus I write to shew that we may not presse the exāple in euery part of it as the author of this booke noteth vpon Gelasius who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure Caunterbury I Pitie you to see how ye swinke and sweate to confounde this author Gelasius And yet his woordes be so playne agaynst your Papisticall Transubstantiation that you haue clearely lost all your paynes labours and costes For these be his wordes spoken of the Sacrament Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substaunce or nature of bread and wine ceasseth not to be But to auoyde and dalye away these wordes that be so cleare and playne must needes bee layd on loade of wordes the wit must be stretched out to the vtmost all fetches must brought in that cā be deuised all colours of Rethorike must be sought out all the ayre must be cast ouer with cloudes all the water darkned with the cuttyls ynke and if it could be at the least asmuch as may be all mens eyes also must be put out that they should not see But I would wish that you stode not so much in your owne conceite trusted not so much in your inuentions and deuise of wit in eloquence and in craftines of speach multitude of wordes looking that no mā should dare encounter you but that all men should thinke you speake well bicause you speake much that you shuld be had in great reputation among the multitude of them that be ignoraunt can not discerne perfectly those that folow the right way of truth from other that would lead them out of the way into errour blindnesse This standyng in your conceite is nothyng els but to stand in your owne light But where you say that these heresies of Nestorius Eutiches were not so grosse as I report that the one should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other should say cleane cōtrary that he was very God but not mā of the grossenes of these two heresies I will not much contēd For it might be that they were of some misreported as they were in deede if credite be to be giuen to diuers auncient hystories but this I dare say that there be diuers authors that report of them as I do write and consequently you graunt the same in effect For you report of the Eutichiās that they did pernitiously say that there was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature in Christ. And of the Nestorians you say that they denyed Christ to be conceiued God or borne God but onely man and than could not he be naturally God but onely man And therfore neither by ignoraunce nor of purpose do I report them otherwise than you confesse your selfe and then I haue learned of other that were before my tyme. For S. Augustine in the place which you do cite of him hath these wordes of Nestorius Dogmatizare ausus est Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum hominem tantum he presumed to teach sayth S. Augustine that our Lord Iesus Christ was but man onely And of Eutiches he sayth Humanitatis in Christo denegauit veritatem he denied the truth of Christes manhode And Gelasius writeth also thus Eutichiani dicunt vnam esse naturam id est diuinam ac Nestorius nihilominus memerat singularem The Eutichians say that there is but one nature in Christ that is to say the Godhead and also Nestorius sayth there is but one nature meanyng the manhode By which wordes of S. Augustine and Gelasius appeareth as playnly as can be spokē the playne contradiction betwene the Nestorians and the Eutichians that the one denyed the humanitie of Christ and the other his diuinitie as I haue writtē in my booke so that neither of ignoraunce nor of purpose haue I fayned any thyng but you either of malice or of your accustomed maner to calumniate and find faulte with euery thyng that misliketh you be it neuer so well seeke occasion likewise hereto carpe and reprehend where no fault is being like vnto Momus which when he could finde no fault with Uenus person yet he picked a quarell to her slipper And not in this place onely but throughout your whole booke you vse this fashiō that when you cā not aunswere to the principall matter thē you finde fault with some bye matter wherby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the Readers mynde that he should not see how craftely you cōuey your selfe frō direct aūsweryng of the chief poynt of the Argumēt which when you come vnto you passe it ouer slenderly aūsweryng either nothyng or very litle nothyng to the purpose But yet this bye matter which you bryng in of the grossenes of these two errours helpeth litle your intēt but rather helpeth to fortifie my saying agaynst your doctrine of transubstātiation that your doctrine herein maketh a playne way for the Nestorians the Eutichians to defend their errours For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures and after the cōsecration in that mysterie is but one nature and that is the body of Christ into which the nature of bread in your fantasie is transformed and confounded and if also this mysterie be an example of the mysterie of Christes incarnation as the old authours report why may not then the Eutichians say that before the adunation in the virgins wombe the Godhead manhode were two natures yet after the adunation in that mysterie of Christes incarnation there was but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fantasie transfused and confounded And thus haue you made by your transubstantiation a goodly paterne and example for the Eutichians to folow in maintenaunce of their errour And yet although the Eutichians sayd that the nature of God and of mā before their vniting were two yet I read not that they sayd that they were two in the virgines wombe as you report of thē which is no great matter but to declare how ignoraūt you be in the thing wherof you make so great boast or how litle you regard the truth that wittingly wil
tell an vntruth But to say my mynde frankely what I thinke of your declaration of these two heresies I thinke a great part thereof you dreamed in your sleape or imagined being in some traunce or rapt with some Sophisticall vision and part of your dreame agreeth neither with approued Authours and histories nor with it selfe For first as touchyng the Eutichians where you say that Gelasius directeth his Argumētes of the two natures in man of the two natures in the Sacramēt chiefly agaynst the Eutichians to proue the nature of man to remaine in Christ after the adunation whosoeuer readeth Gelasius shall finde otherwise that he directed his Arguments indifferently as well agaynst Nestorius as agaynst Eutiches and no more agaynst the one then agaynst the other Nor no more did the Eutichians abhorre alius and alius although some gathered so of their wordes then did the Nestorians which wordes signifie diuersitie of person as aliud and aliud signifie diuersitie of nature So as the body soule in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diuersitie of natures yet be they not alius and alius bycause that both together make but one person By meanes of which difference betwene alius and alius we say Alius pater alius filius alius spiritus sanctus and not Aliud pater aliud filius aliud spiritus sanctus for asmuch as they be three in persons and but one in nature and substaunce And bycause Christ is two in nature that is to say of his deitie and humanitie and but one in person therefore we say Aliud aliud est diuinitas humanitas but not Alius sed vnus est Christus And although Nestorius graunted two natures in Christ yet not as you say frō his natiuitie nor by adunation but by cohabitation or inhabitatiō so that he made but one Christ although some otherwise take him and not alium alium after which sorte the Godhead is also in other godly men whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly nature although by their naturall generatiō they be but mē without the diuine nature vnited in person but after obteined by adoption grace As by your example a man is made Bishop which by naturall generation is borne but a man And that this was Nestorius opinion that Christ from his Natiuitie was but mā onely had his godhead after by adoptiō or accession is euident of your own wordes when you say that the Nestoriās denied Christ cōceiued God or borne God that the Godhead was an accessiō to Christ afterward by merite and that he was cōceiued but onely man although shortly after you go from the same saying that both the Godhead manhode were alwayes in Christ such cōstācie is in your dreamed phātasies And where you haue written thus much as you say because it should appeare that Gelasius by his Argumentes of the Sacrament and of the two natures of man went abont to proue that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation you might haue bestowed your tyme better than to haue lost somuch labour to impugne the truth For although neither Nestorius nor Eutiches denyed the Godhead of Christ to remaine yet Gelasius went not about onely to confute thē but also to set out playnly the true catholicke faith that Christ being incarnated was perfect God and perfect man and how that might be both the sayd natures and substaunces remainyng with all their naturall proprieties and conditions without transubstantiation abolition or confusion of any of the two natures And this he declareth aswell by the example of the Sacrament as of the body and soule of man Wherfore as true as it is that the body and soule of man and Godhead and manhode of Christ remaine in their proper substaunces natures and properties without transubstantiation or perishyng of any of them so must it be in the Sacrament And in the sayd heresies as you say was some appearāce of the truth euery one hauyng Scripture which in sounde of wordes seemed to approue their errours whereby they deceiued many But as for your fayned doctrine of Transubstātiation it hath no pretēce nor appearance of truth by Gods word for you haue not one Scripture that maketh mētion therof where as I hane many playne manifest Scriptures that speaketh in playne termes that bread is eaten and wine is dronken And this Author Gelasius with diuers other learned men aswel Greekes as Latins of the old Catholicke Churche affirme in no doubtfull wordes that the bread and wine be not gone but remaine still From which Scriptures and Doctours who soeuer dissenteth declareth him selfe at the least to be ignoraūt wherby yet he may excuse him selfe of a greater blot infamy And this matter being so cleare neither your fine disguising nor your painted colours nor your gay Rhetorike nor witty inuentions can so hyde and couer the truth that it shal not appeare but the more you labour to striue agaynst the streame the more faynt shall you waxe and at lēgth the truth hath such a violence that you shall be borne cleane down with the streame therof In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyrill togethers alludyng as it seemeth to this contention betwene you and me which comparison if it be throughly considered hath no small resemblance although there be no litle diuersitie also Nestorius say you was a great archebishop and so say I was Ciril also Nestorius say you as apeareth had much learnyng but cloked his heresie craftily But the Histories of his tyme who should know him best describe him in this sorte that he was a man of no great learnyng but of an excellent naturall witte and eloquence and full of craft and subtiltie by meanes wherof he was so proude and glorious that he contemned all men in respect of him selfe and disdained the old writers thinkyng him selfe more wise then they all Now let the indifferent Reader Iudge whom he thinketh in this your illusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius And all this that you haue brought in here of these two heresies although it be to no purpose in the principall matter yet it serueth me to this purpose that men may cōiecture whose nature and witte is most like vnto the description of Nestorius also how loth you be to come to the matter to make a direct aunswere to Gelasius wordes who sayth in playne termes that substaūce or nature of bread wine remaineth Euē as glad you be to come to this as a Beare is to come to the stake seeking to runne out at this corner or that corner if it were possible But all will not helpe for you be so fast tyed in chaynes that will you nill you at length you must come to the stake although you be neuer so loth And Gelasius byteth so sore hath catched so hard hold of you that you cā neuer escape although you attempt all