occasions men haue erred in reading the old fathers and wisheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error would also folow him in repentance I will not reader encombre thée with mo wordes of Erasmus Peter Martyr of Oxford taken for no Papist in a treatise he made of late of the Sacrament which is now translated into Englishe sheweth how as touching the real presence of Christes body it is not only the sentence of the papistes but of other also whom the sayd Peter neuerthelesse doth with as many shiftes and lyes as he may impugne for that point as well as he doth the Papistes for transubstantiation but yet he doth not as this author doth impute that fayth of the reall presence of Christs body and bloud to the only Papistes Wherupon Reader here I ioyne with the author an issue that the faith of the reall and substantiall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament is not the deuise of Papistes or their faith only as this author doth considerately slaunder it to be and desire therfore that according to Salamons iudgement this may serue for a note and marke to geue sentence for the true mother of the child For what should this mean so without shame openly and vntruely to call this fayth papishe but only with the enuious word of Papist to ouermatche the truth Caunterbury THis explication of the true catholicke fayth noteth to the Reader certayn euident manifest vntruthes vttered by me as he sayth which I also pray thee good reader to note for this intent that thou mayst take the rest of my sayinges for true which he noteth not for false doubtles they should not haue escaped noting as wel as the other if they had bin vntrue as he sayth the other be And if I can proue these thinges also true whichhe noteth for manyfest and euident vntruthes then mee thinketh it is reason that all my sayinges should be allowed for true if those be proued true which only be reiected as vntrue But this vntruth is to be noted in him generally that he either ignorantly mistaketh or willingly misreporteth almost all that I say But now note good Reader the euident and manyfest vntruthes which I vtter as he sayth The first is that the faith of the reall presence is the fayth of the papistes An other is that these wordâ—s my flesh is verely meate I doe translate thus My flesh is very meate An other is that I handle not sincerely the words of S. Augustine speaking of the eating of Christes body The fourth is that by these wordes this is my body Christ inteÌ„deth not to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receiue that worthely be members of Christes body These be the haynous and manifest errors which I haue vttered As touching the first that the faith of the real and substancial presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is the faith of the papistes this is no vntruth but a most certain truth For you confesse your selfe and defend in this booke that it is your faith and so do likewise all the papistes And here I will make an issue with you that the papistes beleeue the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament Aunswere me directly without colour whether it be so or not If they beleeue not so then they beleeue as I doe for I beleeue not so and then let them openly confesse that my belief is true And if they beleeue so then say I true when I say that it is the papistes faith And then is my saying no manifest vntruth but a meere truth so the verdict in the issue passeth vpon my side by your own confession And here the Reader may note well that once again you be faine to flye for succor vnto M. Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Aepinus whose names were wonte to be so hatefull vnto you that you coulde neuer with patience abide the hearing of them yet their sayinges helpe you nothing at all For although these men in this many other thinges haue in times past and yet peraduenture some doe the vayle of olde darcknes not cleerly in euery point remoued from their eyes agree with the papistes in part of this matter yet they agree not in the wholl and therfore it is true neuerthelesse that this fayth which you teache is the Papistes faith For if you would conclude that this is not the Papistes faith because Luther Bucer other beleue in many things as the papists do theÌ„ by the same reasoÌ„ you may conclude that the papists beleeue not that Christ was borne crucified dyed rose again ascended into heaueÌ„ which things Luther Bucer the other coÌ„stantly doth taught beleeued and yet the faith of the real preseÌ„ce may be called rather the fayth of the papists then of the other not only because the papists do so beleue but specially for that the papists were the first authors and inuentors of that faith and haue been the chief spreaders abroad of it and were the cause that other were blinded with the same error But here may the Reader note one thing by the way that it is a foule cloute that you would refuse to wipe your nose withal when you take such men to proue your matter whom you haue hetherto accounted moste vile and filthy heretickes And yet now you be glad to flye to them for succour whom you take for Gods enemyes and to whom you haue euer had a singular hatred You pretende that you stay your selfe vpon auncyent wryters And why runne you now to such men for ayde as be not onely new but also as you thinke be euill and corrupt in iudgement And to such as thinke you by your writinges and doinges as ranke a Papiste as is any at Rome And yet not one of these new men whom you alleadge doe throughlye agree with your doctrine either in transubstantiation or in carnall eating and drinking of Christes flesh and bloud or in the sacrifice of Christ in the masse nor yet throughlye in the reall presence For they affirme not suche a grosse presence of Christes body as expelleth the substance of bread and is made by conuersion therof into the substance of Christes body and is eaten with the mouth And yet if they did the auncyent authors that were next vnto Christs time whom I haue alleadged may not geue place vnto these new men in this matter although they were men of excellent learning and iudgement how so euer it liketh you to accept them But I may conclude that your faith in the Sacrament is popish vntill such time as you can proue that your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence was vniuersally receaued and beleeued before the bishops of Rome defined and determined the same And when you haue prooued that then will I graunt that in your first note you haue conuinced me of an euident
the faithfull people Thus the Reader may see that I misreport not the Papists nor charge them with any other words then they doe write that is to say that the body of Christ is naturally and sensibly in the Sacrament and broken and torne in peeces with our teeth But saith Smith the meaning of Berengarius in his recantatiō was otherwise that the formes of bread and wine are broaken and torne with our teeth but Christ is receaued wholly without breaking of his body or tearing with our teeth Well what so euer the meaninge of Berengarius was his wordes be as I report so that I make no false report of the Papistes nor vntruely charge them with that they say not But how should men know what the Papists meane when they say one thing and meane another For Berengarius said that not only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth and you say he ment contrary that only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth Berengarius said that also the very flesh and bloud of Christ be broken and torne and you say he ment clean contrary that the flesh and bloud of Christ be not broaken and torne Well then would I faine learne how it may be knowen what the Papists meane if they mean yea when they say nay and mean nay when they say yea And as for S. Iohn Chrisostom and other old authors by whom you would excuse this manner of speech they helpe you herein nothing at all For not one of them speake after this sorte that Berengarius doth For although though they say sometimes that we see Christ touch him and breake him vnderstanding that speech not of Christ him selfe but of the Sacraments which represent him yet they vse no such forme of speech as was prescribed to Berengarius that we see feele and break not only the sacraments but also Christ him selfe And likewise of Loth Abraham Iacob Iosue Mary Magdalen and the Apostles whom you bring forth in this matter there is no such speeche in the scripture as Berengarius vseth So that all these things be brought out in vame hauing no colour to serue for your purpose sauing that same thing you must say to make out your booke And as for al the rest that you say in this proces concerning the presence of Christ visible and inuisible nedeth no answere at all because you prooue nothing of all that you say in that matter which may easely therfore be denied by as good authoritie as you affirme the same And yet all the olde writers that speake of the diuersity of Christes substantiall presence and absence declare this diuersitie to be in the diuersity of his two natures that in the nature of his humanitie he is gone hence and present in the nature of his diuinitie and not that in diuers respectes and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent which I haue proued in my third booke the fifth chapter And for as much as you haue not brought one author for the proofe of your saying but your own bare wordes nor haue aunswered to the authorities alleadged by me in the forsaid place of my third booke reason would that my proofes should stand and haue place vntill such time as you haue proued your sayings or brought some euidēt matter to improue mine And this I trust shall suffice to any indifferent Reader for the defence of my first booke Winchester Wherein I will kéepe this order First to consider the third booke that speaketh against the faith of the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament then against the fourth and so returne to the second speaking of Transubstantiation wherof to talke the reall presence not being discussed were cleerely superfluous And finally I will somewhat say of the fifte booke also Caunterbury BUt now to returne to the conclusion of the Bishops booke As it began with a marueilous sleight and suttlety so doth he conclude the same with a like notable suttlety changing the order of my bookes not answering thē in such order as I wrote them nor as the nature of the thinges requireth For seeing that by all mennes confessions there is bread and wine before the consecration the first thing to be discussed in this matter is whether the same bread and wine remain still after the cōsecratiō as Sacraments of Christs most precious body and bloud And next by order of nature and reason is to be discussed whether the body and bloud of Christ represented by those Sacramentes be present also with the said Sacramentes And what manner of presence Christ hath both in the Sacraments and in thē that receiue the Sacramentes But for what intent the Bishoppe changed this order it is easie to perceiue For he saw the matter of Transubstantiation so flat plain against him that it was hard for him to deuise an answere in that matter that should haue any apparance of truth but all the world should euidētly see him cleerely ouerthrowen at the first onset Wherefore he thought that although the matter of the reall presence hath no truth in it at all yet for as much as it seemed to him to haue some more apparaunce of truth then the matter of Transubstantiatiō hath he thought best to beginne with that first trusting so to iuggle in the matter and to dasell the eyes of them that be simple and ignorant and specially of such as were alredy perswaded in the matter that they should not well see nor perceiue his lieger de main And whē he had won credite with them in that matter by making them to wonder at his crafty iuggeling then thought he it should be a fitte and meete time for him to bring in the matter of Transubstantiation For when men be amased they doe wonder rather then iudge And when they be muffeled and blindfolded they cannot finde the right way though they seek it neuer so fast nor yet follow it if it chaunce them to finde it but geue vp cleerely their own iudgement and follow whom so euer they take to be their guid◠And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of Transubstantiation thought the bishop if I can first perswade them and get their good willes in the reall presence This sleight and suttlety thou maist iudge certainly good Reader to be the cause and none other wherefore the order of my booke is chaunged without ground or reason The ende of the first booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE THIRD BOOKE IN the beginning of the third booke the author hath thought good to note certain differences which I wil also particularly consider It followeth in him thus They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine But we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine Note here Reader euen in the entry of the comparison of these differences how vntruly the true faith of the Church is reported
which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine which was the doctrine of Luther but the true faith is that Christes most precious body and bloud is by the might of his word and determination of his will which he declareth by his word in his holy Supper present vnder forme of bread and wine The substance of which natures of bread and wine is conuerted into his most precious body bloud as it is truely beleeued taught in the Catholick church of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant So as the Author of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittingly against his conscience to say they teach calling them papists that Christ is in the bread and wine but they agrée in forme of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holy Communion in that it is there said the body and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wine And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong vntrue report of the faith of the Catholick Church made of this Author in the setting forth of this difference on that parte which it pleaseth him to name Papistes And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference such as no Catholick man would deny For euery Catholick teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament vnles he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him For otherwise such one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condemnation Christ cannot be receued worthely but into his own temple which be ye S. Paul saith and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him is not his As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecration in substance Wherefore appeareth how the Author of this booke in the lieu and place of a difference which he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholick man must néedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud or the bread and wine as this Author speaketh But as this Author would haue speaken plainly and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges he should in the second parte haue said from what contrary to that the Catholick Church teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaration of the second parte to say that repugneth not to the first matter and that no Catholicke man will deny considering the said two teachinges be not of one matter nor shoote not as one might say to one marke For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely as before is sayd which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy so both the differences thus taught make but one Catholick doctrine Let vs sée what the Author saith further Caunterbury NOw the craftes wiles and vntruthes of the first booke being partly detected after I haue also answered to this booke I shall leaue to the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answere I shall rehearse the wordes of mine owne thirde boke which you attēpt next out of order to impugne My words be these Now this matter of Transubstantiatiō being as I trust sufficiently resolued which is the first part before rehearsed wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth order requireth next to intreate of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacramēt thereof wherin is no lesse cōtentiō thē in the first part For a plain explication whereof it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people that our Sauiour Christ being perfecte God and in all thinges equall and coeternall with his Father for our sakes became also a perfect man taking flesh and bloud of his blessed mother and virgin Mary sauing sinne being in all thinges like vnto vs adioyning vnto his diuinity a most perfect soul of man And his body being made of very flesh and bones not onely hauing all members of a perfect mannes body in due order and proportion but also being subiect to hunger thirst labour sweate werines cold heate and all other like infirmities and passions of a manne and vnto death also and that the most vile and painfull vpon the crosse and after his death he rose againe with the self same visible and palpable body and appeared therewith and shewed the same vnto his Apostles and specially to Thomas making him to put his handes into his side and to feele his woundes And with the selfe same body he forsooke this world and ascended into heauen the Apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father there shall remaine vntill the last day when he shall come to iudge the quick dead This is the true Catholick faith which the Scripture teacheth and the vniuersall Church of Christ hath euer beleeued from the beginning vntill within these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares last passed that the Bishop of Rome with the assistance of his Papistes hath set vp a new faith and beleefe of their own deuising that the same body really corporally naturally and sensibly is in this worlde still and that in an hundred thousand places at one time being inclosed in euery pixe and bread consecrated And although we doe affirme according to Gods word that Christ is in all persons that truly beleeue in him in such sort that with his flesh and bloud he doth spiritually nourish and feede them and geueth them euerlasting life doth assure them thereof as well by the promise of his word as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper which he did institute for the same purpose yet we doe not a little vary from the hainous errors of the Papists For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine but we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the bread wine Here it pleaseth you to passe ouer all the rest of my sayinges and to aunswere onely to the difference betweene the Papists and the true Catholicke faith Where in the first ye finde fault that I haue vntruely reported the Papisticall faith which you
bread and no bread called bread and no bread this is playne iugling where it hapneth Wherin this rude man for want of true vnderstanding of the wordes and perfect consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondly who if he should therupon require the scholler to shew him some difference of the very substance betwene bread cheese and ale what could the lerned scholler answere here but euen frankly declare his ignoraunce and say I know none which is as much to say as I know there is a difference but I wot not what it is Wherunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholler Then art thou with all thy lerning as very a foole as I to speake of a difference and can not tell what it is Now if the scholler should vtter euen the extremity of his learning in proper termes and say I know bread is no cheese and chese is no ale and of their accidentall partes I can indede shew differences but of the very substance none The rude man if his nature were not ouer dull would laugh roundly to heare a scholler vtter for a poynt of learning that bread is no cheese and cheese is no ale which who so knoweth not is a very foole and merely to knit vp the matter would kepe the accidents of his bread chese and all for him selfe and geue the substance to the scholler if he can deuide it as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture And this I write after this grosse sort to shew that this matter of substance is not commonly vnderstanded as sences exercised in learning perceaue it and how mans outward sences can not as this author would haue it be iudges of the inward nature of substance which reason perswadeth to be vsing the seruice of the sences for induction of the knowledge in which iudgement vpon their report hapneth many tymes much deceite Titus Liuius speaketh of a greate number of diuers dishes of meate made in a solemne supper wherat the gestes woundred to see such a variety at that tyme of the yeare and when they demaunded of it answere was made the substance was but one all hogges flesh so as the alteration in the accidentes deceaued their iudgements That stone which among many thought to haue some skill hath been taken for a precious diamond hath after by cunning lapidaries been iudged to be but a white saphire and contrariwise So easily may our iudgement vpon the report of our sences fall in errour not that the sences be properly deceaued but rather the man that is grossely sensuall and iudgeth fondly by them For the very substance is not the proper obiect of any of the fiue wittes but of their report considered in reason denied and sometyme gessed at wherof ensueth greate errour and quid pro quo among the poticaries and learned also in thinges strange whereof they haue but accidentall markes Wherefore vpon consideration of the premises it may easily appeare how the question of this author why the sences be not beleued in knowledge of substance as in knowledge of accidents may be resonably answered And then if the iudgement of reason in the estimation of Gods naturall workes and denying this or that substance when by accidents it should seeme otherwise reason doth stay sensuallity and when men of experience knowledge and credite haue determined such a certayne stone to be a very true diamond other ignorant will be ashamed to say the contrary And if a man fearing himselfe deceaued to haue bought one kinde of drugges for an other and yet mistrusting wisely his owne iudgement hauing caused it to be vewed by men of knowledge good fayth and honesty if they affirme it to be the very thing this man will then condemne his owne imagination and vpon credite call it so and take it so to be wherfore if in these thinges I say reason doth in a man stay sensuality and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the iudgement of rude vnderstanding and finally if credite among men be so much regarded how much more conuenient is it that fayth in Godds word wherin can be no deceite as there is in men should alter and change mans iudgement in reason and bring it into the obedience of fayth Of that is bread after the iudgement of our reason after the report of our sences Christ determineth vnto vs the substance of that to be his body saying This is my body why shall not now a true christen man answere euer according to his fayth to say and professe the same to be the substance of Christes body vpon credite of Christes wordes as well as the carnall man will vpon report of his sences conclude in reason there to be the substance of bread wherby is not taken away the credite of our sences as this author supposeth which haue their obiects still true as they had before For the collour greatnes sauour and tast all remayne truely with the experiences of them as before Upon whose report reason neuertheles now reduced to the obsequie of fayth forbeareth reuerently to conclude agaynst the truth of fayth but according to fayth confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christes body and the accidents to remayne in their very true nature bicause fayth teacheth not the contrary and that it agreeth with the rule of fayth so to be and therfore remayneth a very true greatnes thicknes and wayght which may be called in common speach substance signifying the outward nature And in that sense Theodoret reasoning with an heretique semeth to call it bicause hauing spoken of substance remayning he declareth what he meaneth by it adding it may be seene and felt as before which is not the nature of substance properly but by like common speach that remayneth may be called matter as Origen called it wherein also remayne the true sauour and tast with true propriety to corrupt or putrifie and also nourish God so ordering the vse of the creature of bread and likewise wine in this mistery as the inward nature of them which indeede is the substance but onely comprehended in reason and vnderstanding is conuerted into the most precious substance of Christes body and bloud which is indeede a substance there present by gods omnipotency onely to be comprehended by fayth so farre as may be vnderstanded of mannes weakenes and imbecilitie And where this author putteth a danger if sences be not trusted there is a gappe open to the Ualentinians and Marcionistes and therfore bringeth in the feeling of S. Thomas hereunto I say that the truth of that feeling dependeth vpon a true beliefe according to the scriptures that Christ was very man for els the body glorified of Christ as S. Gregory noteth was not of the owne glorified nature then eyther visible or palpable but therin Christ condescended to mannes infirmity and as he was truth it selfe left that a true testimony to such as humbly were disposed by grace to receaue it not to conuince heretiques who can
name all men may iudge that your doing herein is not for reuerence to be vsed vnto me but that by suppressing of my name you may the more vnreuerently and vnseemely vse your scoffing taunting rayling and defaming of the author in generall and yet shall euery man vnderstand that your speach is directed to me in especiall as wel as if you had appointed me with your finger And your reuerent vsing of your selfe before the kings highnes commissioners of late doth plainly declare what reuerent respect you haue to them that be in dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth Winchester THis author denieth the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament This author denieth Transubstantiation This author denieth euill men to eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne and tend to destroy that faith which this author fermeth the Popish to erre in calling now all popish that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth wherof shall hereafter be opened Now because faith affirmeth some certaintie if we aske this author what is his saith which he calleth true and catholike it is onely this as we may learne by his booke that in our Lordes supper be consecrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens only to signifie Christes body and bloud he calleth them holy tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he sayth neuerthelesse they be not bare tokens and yet coÌ„cludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but only as a thyng is present in that which signifieth it which is the nature of a bare token saying in an other place there is nothing to be worshipped for there is nothyng present but in figure in a signe which who so euer saith calleth the thyng in deede absent And yet the author sayth Christ is in the man that worthely receiueth spiritually present who eateth of Christes flesh and his bloud reigning in heauen whether the good beleuing man ascendeth by his faith And as our body is nourished with the bread and wyne receyued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fed with the body and bloud of Christ. And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the true catholike fayth Caunterbury I Desire the Reader to iudge my faith not by this short enuious and vntrue collection and reporte but by mine owne booke as it is at length set out in the first part from the 8. vnto the 16. chapter And as concerning holynes of bread and wine wherunto I may adde the water into baptisme how can a dombe or an insensible and liuelesse creature receiue into it selfe any foode and feede thereupon No more is it possible that a spiritlesse creature should receiue any spirituall sanctification or holynes And yet do I not vtterly depriue the outward sacrameÌ„ts of the name of holy thinges because of the holy vse wherunto they serue not because of any holynesse that lyeth hid in the insensible creature Which although they haue no holynes in them yet they be signes and tokens of the meruailous workes and holy effects which god worketh in vs by his omnipotent power And they be no vayne or bare tokens as you would perswade for a bare token is that which betokeneth only and geneth nothing as a painted fire which geueth neither light nor heate but in the due ministration of the Sacramentes God is present working with his worde and Sacramentes And although to speake properly in the bread and wine be nothing in dede to be worshipped yet in them that duely receiue the sacramentes is Christ himself inhabiting and is of all creatures to be worshipped And therfore you gather of my sayings vniustly that Christ is in deede absent for I say according to Gods worde and the doctrine of the olde writers that Christ is present in his sacramentes as they teach also that he is present in his worde when he worketh mightely by the same in the hartes of the hearers By which maner of speach it is not ment that Christ is corporally present in the voyce or sound of the speaker which sound perisheth as soone as the wordes be spoken but this speach meaneth that he worketh with his word vsing the voyce of the speaker as his instrument to worke by as he vseth also his sacramentes wherby he worketh therfore is said to be present in them Winchester Now a catholike faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receiued and beleued agreable and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writinges geuen knowledge therof which be the tokens and markes of a true catholike faith whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth catholike First there is no scripture that in letter maynteineth the doctrine of this authors booke for Christ sayth not that the bread doth oâ—â—ly signifie his body absent nor S Paul saith not so in any place ne any other Canonicall Scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence and vnderstanding of Christes wordes there hath not bene in any age any one approued and knowen learned man that hath so declared and expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signifie Christes body and the wyne his bloud as thinges absent Caunterbury THe first part of your description of a catholike faith is crafty and full of subtletie for what you meane by all you do not expresse The secoÌ„d part is very true and agreeth fully with my doctrine in euery thing as wel in the matter of transubstantiation of the presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the eating and drinking of him as in the sacrifice propitiatory For as I haue taught in these 4. matters of controuersie so learned I the same of the holy scripture so is it testified by all olde writers learned men of all ages so was it vniuersally taught and preached receiued beleued vntill the sea of Rome the chiefe aduersary vnto Christ corrupted all together and by hypocrisie and simulation in the stede of Christ erected Autichrist who being the sonne of perdition hath extolled and aduanced himselfe and sitteth in the temple of God as he were God himselfe losing and bynding at his pleasure in heauen hell and earth condemning absoluing canonising damning as to his iudgement he thinketh good But as concerning your doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body in the bread and bloud in the wyne that ill men do eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that Christ is many tymes offred there is no scripture that in letter mainteyneth any of them as you require in a catholike faith but the scripture in the letter doth mainteine this my doctrine plainly that the bread remaineth Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio
so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten in dede of al them that come therto in such sort as they ought to do which eating nourisheth them vnto euerlasting lyfe And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himselfe in the vj. of Iohn where Christ saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath lyfe euerlasting But they that to the outward eatyng of the breade ioyne not therto an inward eating of Christ by faith they haue no warrant by Scripture at all but the bread and wyne to them be vayne mide and bare tokens And where you say that Scripture expresseth no matter of signification speciall effect in the sacramentes of bread and wine if your eyes were not blynded with popish errours frowardnes and selfeloue ye might see in the 22. of Luke where Christ himselfe expresseth a matter of signification saying Hoc facite in mei commemorationem Do this in remembrance of me And S. Paule likewise 1. Cor. 11. hath the very same thing which is a plain and direct aunswer to that same your last question wherupoÌ„ you triumph at your pleasure as though the victory were all yours For ye say when this question is demaunded of me what to signifie Here must be a sort of good wordes framed without scripture But here S. Paule aunswereth your question in expresse wordes that it is the lordes death that shall be signified represented and preached in these holy mysteries vntill his commyng againe And this remembraunce representation and preaching of Christes death cannot be without special effect except you wil say that Christ worketh not effectually with his worde and sacramentes And S. Paule expresseth the effect when he saith The bread which we breake is the communion of Christes body But by this place and such like in your booke ye disclose your selfe to all men of iudgement either how wilful in your opinion or how flender in knowledge of the scriptures you be Winchester And therfore like as the teaching is new to say it is an only figure or only signifieth so the matter of significatioÌ„ must be newly deuised and new wyne haue new bottels and be throughly new after xv C. l. yeres in the very yere of Iubiley as they were wont to call it to be newly erected and builded in English mens hartes Caunterbury IT semeth that you be very desirous to abuse the peoples eares with this terme New and with the yeare of Iubiley as though the true doctrine of the sacrament by me taught should be but a new doctrine and yours old as the Iewes slaundered the doctrine of Christ by the name of newnesse or els that in this yere of Iubiley you would put the people in remembraÌ„ce of the full remission of sinne which they were wont to haue at Rome this yere that they might long to returne to Rome for pardons againe as the children of Israell longed to returne to Egipt for the flesh that they were went to haue there But all men of learning iudgement know well inough that this your doctrine is no elder then the bishop of Romes vsurped supremacy which though it be of good age by nomber of yeres yet is it new to Christ and his worde If there were such darkenes in the world now as hath ben in that world which you note for olde the people might drinke new wyne of the whore of Babilons cup vntil they were as dronke with hypocrisie and superstition as they might well stand vpon their legs and no man once say blacke is their eye But now thankes be to God the light of his worde so shineth in the world that your dronkennes in this yeare of Iubiley is espied so that you cannot erect and build your popish kingdome any longer in Englishmens hattes without your owne scorne shame and confusioÌ„ The old popish bottels must nedes brast when the new wyne of Gods holy word is poured into them Winchester Which new teaching whether it procedeth from the spirite of truth or no shall more plainly appeare by such matter as this author vttereth wherewith to impugne the true fayth taught hetherto For amoÌ„ng many other profes wherby truth after much trauail in contention at the last preuayleth and hath victory there is none more notable then when the very aduersaries of truth who pretend neuerthelesse to be truthes frendes do by some euident vntruth bewrap them selues According wherunto when the two women contended before King Salomon for the child yet aliue Salomon decerned the true naturall mother from the other by their speeches and sayinges Which in the very mother were euer conformable vnto nature and in the other at the last euideÌ„tly against nature The very true mother spake alwayes like her selfe and neuer disagreed from the truth of nature but rather then the thilde should be killed as Salomon the eatned when he called for a Sword required it to be geuen whole aliue to the other woman The other woman that was not the true mother cared more for victory then for the child and therfore spake that was in nature an euidence that she lyen callinge her selfe mother and saying let it be deuided which no natural mother could say of her own child Wherupon procéedeth Salomons most wise iudgement which hath this lesson in it euer where contention is on that part to be the truth where all sayinges and doinges appeare vniformely consonant to the truth pretended and on what side a notable â—yâ— appeareth the rest may be iudged to be after the same sort For truth néedeth no ayde of lyes exast or sleight wherwith to be supported or maintayned So as in the intreating of the truth of this high and ineffable mistery of the sacrament on what past thou reader séest crafte sleight shift obliquitie or in any one poynt an open manifest lye there thou mayst consider what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended which loueth simplicity playnnesse direct speach without admixtion of shift or colour Caunterbury IF either diuisioÌ„ or confusion may try the true mother the wicked church the Rome not in speech only but in all other practises hath long gone about to oppresse confound and deuide the true and liuely fayth of Christ shewing her selfe not to be the true mother but a most cruell stepmother deuiding confounding and counterfayting al thinges at her pleasure not coÌ„trary to nature only but chiefly against the playn wordes of scripture For here in this one matter of controuersy between you Smith and me you deuide against nature the accidentes of bread and wine from their substances and the substance of Christ from his accidences and contray to the scripture you deuide our eternall life attributing vnto the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse only the beginning therof and the continuance therof you ascribe vnto the sacrifice of popish priestes And in the sacramentes you separate Christes
in the second parte But what be you eased now by this We say as the scripture teacheth that Christ is corporally ascended in to heauen and neuerthelesse he is so in them that worthely eate the bread drinke the wine geuen and distributed at his holy Supper that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and bloud vnto eternal life But we say not as you doe cleerely without ground of Scripture that he is corporally vnder the formes of bread and wine where his presence should be without any profite or commoditie either to vs or to the bread and wine And here in this difference it seemeth that you haue either cleerely forgotten or negligently ouershotte yourselfe vttering that thing vnwares which is contrary is your wholl booke For the first parte which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramentall bread and wine is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued say you where it is true Christ to be present God and man the second part say you which is of the being of Christ in them that worthely eat and drink the bread and wine is of Christs spiritual presence Of your which words I se nothing to be gathered but that as concerning his substancial presence Christ is receaued into the Sacramental bread and wine and as for them that worthely receaue the Sacrament he is in them none otherwise then after a Spirituall presence For els why should ye say that the second parte is of Christes spirituall presence if it be as well of his corporall as of his spirituall presence Wherefore by your own words this difference should be vnderstanded of two different beings of Christ that in the Sacrament he is by his substance and in the worthy receauers spiritually and not by his substance for els the differences repugne not as you obiect against me Wherfore either you write one thing mean another or els as you write of other God so blindeth the aduersaries of the truth that in one place or other they confesse the truth vnwares Now follow my wordes in the second comparison They say that when any man eateth the bread and drinketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomacke with the bread and wine and no further But we say that Christ is in the wholl man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread drinketh the cup not in his mouth or stomack only Winchester In this comparison the Author termeth the true Catholick teaching at his pleasure to bring it in contempte Which doing in rude speach would be called otherwise then I will tearme it Truth it is as S. Augustine saith we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth and such speach other vse as a booke set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name called a Catechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ which I alleadge because it shall appeare it is a teaching set forth among vs of late as hath béene also and is by the booke of common prayer being the most true catholicke doctrine of the substance of the sacrament in that it is there so catholickly spoken of which booke this Author doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teaching doth improue it in that pointe So much is he contrary to him self in this worke and here in this place not caring what he saith reporteth such a teaching in the first parte of this difference as I haue not heard of before There wes neuer man of learning that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomack of the man that receaued and no further For that is written contra Stercoranistas is nothing to this teaching nor the speach of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholicke doctrine is that by the holy communion in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body which is a flesh geuing life And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in vs and attēpereth by heauēly nuriture our body and soule beyng partakers of his passion to be conformable to hys will and by such spirituall foode to be many more spirituall In the receauing of which foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duely communicate worke together in due order without other discussion of the mistery then God hath appointed that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to doe as God hath ordered knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer but to be most profitable vnto such as doe accustome worthely to receaue the same But to say that the church teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomacke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgement of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Now where this Author in the second parte by an aduersatiue with a But to make the comparison felleth what he and his say he telleth in effecte that which euery catholicke man must néedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christs most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthely they haue Christ dwelling in them who comforteth both body and soule which the church hath euer taught most plainly So as this comparison of difference in his two parties is made of one open vntruth and a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this Author and his which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is vsed in the matter Caunterbury IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to tearm the true catholicke faith for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papisticall faith which I haue tearmed none otherwise then I learned of their own tearming and therfore if my tearming please you not as in deede it ought to please no man yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inuentoures of that tearming and not in me that against them do vse their owne tearmes tearming the matter as they doe them selfe because they should not finde faulte with me as you doe that I tearme their teaching at my pleasure And as for receauing of the body of Christ with our mouthes truth it is that S. Augustine Ambros Chrysostome and other vse such speaches that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes see hym with our eyes feele hym with our handes breake hym teare hym with our teeth eate him and dygest him which speach I haue also vsed in my catechisme but yet these speeches must be vnderstand figuratiuely as I haue declared in my fourth booke the eyght chapiter and shall more fully declare hereafter for we doe not these thinges to
deceaued by him I will write here the very wordes of Cirill in Greeke as they be of Decolampadius brought forth and published in his name wherby the reader that vnderstandeth the Greeke as many do at this tyme may iudge of DecolaÌ„padius conscieÌ„ce in handling this matter The wordes of Ciril be alleaged of DecoclaÌ„padius to be these in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These wordes be by Decolampadius translated in this wise Nonne igitur â—um qui videtur filium Christum alium a deo verbo qui ex deo esse affirmant cui apostolatus functio tributa sit Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit mentes credentium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiose introtrudens humanis cogitationibus subijcere enitens ea qua sola pura inexquisita fide capiuntur This is Decolampadius translation of the Greeke as the same is by Decolampadius alleadged Which compared with the Greeke and the congruite and phrase of the Greeke tongue considered doth playnly open a corruption in the Greeke text First in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be a participle in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which participles depend of the third person reproued of Cirill and nominatiue case to the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath the nown 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his accusatiue case for congruity will not suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the nominatiue case as Decolampadius maketh it bicause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should then depend on it which be the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the neuter and besides that the sence hath so no good reason to attribute assertion to the mistery by the way of declaration the mistery of nature secret hath neede of declaration and maketh none but hideth rather and the mistery cannot declare properly that should lead or subdue men to vayne imagination But Cirill intending to reproue the conclution of him that attributeth to that is seene in Christ the nature meaning the person of his humanity the office of the apostle and so therby semeth to make in Christ two seuerall persons esteming that is seene an other sonne from the second person sheweth how that man so concluding doth affirme an absurdity That is to say declareth that mistery of our humanam commixtionem for so hath the publique translation and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should signifie eating of a man as Decolampadius would haue it and cannot with this construction to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accusatiue case haue any sence and then that man so concluding may be sayd therwith leaâ—ing the mynd of them that beleeue into slender and darke imaginations or thoughtes and so going about to bring vnder mans reasonings such things as be taken or vnderstanded by an onely simple bare and no curious faâ—th And this is vttered by Cirill by interogation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which continueth vnto the last word of all that is here written in Greeke ending in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Decolampadius to frame these wordes to his purpose corrupteth the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maketh it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby he might cut of the interrogatiue and then is he yet fayne to ad euidently that is not in the Greeke a copulatiue causal enim and then when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by the cutting of the interrogation and the addition of enim made the nominatiue case then can not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 depend of it bicause of the gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bicause of the article determineth the principall mistery in Christes person and after publique translation it should seeme the Greeke word was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the publique translatioÌ„ is expressed with these two wordes humanam commâ—xtionem This one place and there were no moâ— like may shew with what conscience Decolampadius handeled the matter of the sacrament who was learned in the Greeke tongue much exercised in translations and had once written a grammer of the Greeke and yet in this place abuseth himselfe and the reader in peruerting Cirill agaynst all congruites of the speach agaynst the proper significations of the wordes agaynst the conuenient connection of the matter with deprauation of the phrase and corruption of certayne wordes all agaynst the common and publique translation and when he hath done all this concludeth in the end that he hath translated the greeke faythfully when there is by him vsed no good fayth at all but credite and estimation of learning by him abused to deceaue well meaning simplicity and serueth for some defence to such as be bold to vse and follow his authority in this matter As the author of the booke semeth to haue followed him herin for els the publique autentique translations which be abroad as I sayd of the printes of Basill and Colon haue no such matter and therfore the fault of the author is to leaue publique truth and search matter whispered in corners But thus much must be graunted though in the principall matter that in the mistery of the sacrament we must exclude all grosenâ—s and yet for the truth of Gods secret worke in the sacrament graunt also that in such as receaue the Sacrament worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally as Cirill sayth and naturally and carnally as Hilary sayth And with this true vnderstanding after the simplicity of a Christian fayth which was in these fathers Hilary and Cirill the contention of these three enuious wordes in grose capacities grossely taken naturall carnall and corporall which carnality hath engendred might soone be much asswaged and this author also considering with him selfe how much he hath bene ouerseen in the vnderstanding of them and the speciality in this place of him selfe and Decolampadius might take occasion to repent and call home himselfe who wonderfully wandreth in this matter of the sacrament and hauing lost his right way breaketh vp hedges and leapeth ouer diches with a wonderous trauayle to goe whether he would not being not yet as appeareth determined where he would rest by the variety of his owne doctrine as may appeare in sundry places if they be compared togither Caunterbury I Sayd very truely when I sayd that such answere as I made to Hilary will serue for Cirill for so will it do indeede although you wrangle and striue therin neuer so much For Cirill and Hilary entreate both of one matter that we be vnited togither and with Christ not onely in will but also in nature and be made one not onely in consent of godly religion but also that Christ taking our corporall nature vpon him hath made vs partakers of his godly nature knitting vs togither with him vnto his father and to his holy spirit Now let the
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
yea conteineth a nay in it naturally Therfore Christ saying it is his body sayth it is no bread If this forme of Argument were infallible then I may turne the same to you agayne and ouerthrow you with your own weapon thus S. Paule sayd it is bread Ergo it is not Christes body if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the other And by such Sophistication you may turne vp all the truth quite and cleane and say that Christ was neither God nor man bycause he sayd he was a vine bread And euery yea say you conteineth a nay in it naturally And where you boast that you haue conuinced me in the matter of the reall presence of Christes body I trust the indifferent Reader wil say that you triumph before the victorie saying that you haue wonne the field when in deede you haue lost it and when Golyathes head is smitten of with his owne sword But the old English Prouerbe is here true that it is good beating of a proude man for whē he is all to beaten backe bone yet will he boast of his victorie and bragge what a valiant man he is And it is an other vayne bragge also that you make whē you say that you haue shewed before that Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body For you haue neither proued that you say nor haue aunswered to my proofes to the contrary as I referre to the iudgement of all indifferent Readers but you haue confessed that Christ called bread his body made demōstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body How can then this speach be true but by a figure that bread is Christes body seyng that in proper speach as you say euery yea conteineth a nay and the affirmation of one thyng is the deniall of an other And where you alledge as it were against me the wordes of Hylarie that there is both a figure and a truth of that figure for answere hereunto the truth is that your matter here is gathered of an vntruth that I would haue onely a figure where as I say playnly as Hylarie sayth that in the true ministration of the Sacrament is both a figure and a truth the figure outwardly and the truth inwardly For bread and wyne be sensible signes and Sacraments to teach vs outwardly what feedeth vs inwardly Outwardly we see and feele bread and wyne with our outward senses but inwardly by faith we see and feede vpon Christes true body and bloud But this is a spirituall feedyng by faith which requireth no corporall presence And here I aske you two questions One is this whither Hylarie say that the body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wyne and that corporally If he say not so as the Reader shall soone iudge looking vpon his wordes then stand I vpright without any fall or foyle for Hylarie sayth not as you do The other question is whither Hylarie doe not say that there is a figure let the Reader iudge also and see whither you be not quite ouerthrowen with your owne crooke in saying that Christes speach is not figuratiue And yet the third question I may adde also why S. Hylarie should say that bread and wine be figures if there be no bread nor wine there at all but be taken cleane away by transubstantiation And where as for aunswere hereto you take the example of Iacob who for his hearynes resembled Esau and was as you say a a figure of Christes very humanitie you doe like an vnskilfull Mariner that to auoyde a litle tempest runneth himselfe vpon a rocke For where you make Iacob who resēbled Esau and was not he in deede to be a figure of Christes humanitie you make by this example that as Iacob by his hearynesse resembled Esau and was not he in deede so Christ by outward apparence resembled a man and yet he was no man in deede And where you denye that these wordes of S. Paule is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ declare the meaning of Christes wordes this is my body because Christes wordes say you declare the substaunce and S. Paules wordes declare the vse I deny that Christes body is the substaunce of the visible Sacrament For the substaūce of the Sacramēt is bread and wine and the thing thereby signified is Christes body and bloud And this is notable which you say that these words the bread which we breake do signifie the whole vse of the Supper not onely breakyng but also blessing thankesgeuing dispensing receauyng and eatyng that bread in this place signifieth common bread taken to be consecrated In which saying it is a world to see the phantasies of mens deuises how vncertain they be in matters perteining to God How agreeth this your saying with your doctrine of transubstantiation For if S. Paule when he sayd the bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christes body ment by bread common bread and by breaking ment also the blessing thankesgeuing receauing and eating then is common bread broken blessed receaued eaten And then where becōmeth your transubstantiation yf cōmon bread be eaten in the Sacramēt And whē is the bread turned into the body of Christ if it remaine cōmō bread vntill it be eatē Yet now you seeme to begin some thing to sauour of the truth that the bread remaineth still in his proper nature enduring the whole vse of the Supper And as touching this place of S. Paule that God calleth things that be not as they were if it perteine vnto Sacrament where Christ called bread his body what could you haue alledged more against yourself For if in this place Christ call that which is not as it were then Christ called bread as it were his body and yet it is not his body in deede But in this your aunswere to the arguments brought in by me out of the very wordes of the Euangelistes is such a shamelesse arrogancie and boldnesse shewed as abhorreth all Christian eares for to heare which is that three Euāgelistes telling the maner of Christs holy Supper not one of them all doe tell the tale in right order but subuert the order of Christes doinges and sayinges and that in such a necessary matter of our Religiō that the diffinition of the whole truth standeth in the order The Euangelistes say you rehearse what Christ sayd and did simply and truely But is this a simple and true rehearsall of Christes wordes and deedes to tell them out of order otherwise then Christ did sayd them And S. Paule also if it be as you say speaking of the same matter cōmitteth the like errour And yet neuer no auncient authour expounding the Euangelistes or S. Paule could spye out this fault and in their Commentaries giue vs warning therof And I am not so ignoraunt but I haue many tymes read S. Augustine De doctrina Christiana where he sayth that
sometimes in Scripture a thing is told after that was done before But S. Augustine saith not that it is so in this matter nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the three Euangelistes with S. Paule also disordered the truth of the story in a matter wherein the truth can not be knowen but by the order S. Augustine De consensu Euangelistarum saith That that which Luke rehearseth of the chalice before the giuing of the bread was spoken by Christ after the distribution of the bread as the other two Euangelistes report the same And if these woordes Hoc est corpus meum had bene put out of the right place in all the three Euangelistes and also in S. Paule would not S. Augustine haue giuen warning therof aswell as of the other And would all other authors expounding that place haue passed ouer the matter in silence and haue spoken not one word therof specially being a matter of such waight that the Catholicke faith and our saluatiō as you say hangeth therof Do not all the profes that you haue hang of these wordes Hoc est corpus meum This is my body And shall you say now that they be put out of their place And then you must needes confesse that you haue nothing to defend your selfe but onely one sentence and that put out of order and from his right place as you say your selfe where in deede the Euangelistes and Apostles being true rehearsers of the story in this matter did put those wordes in the right place But you hauing none other shift to defend your errour do remoue the wordes both out of the right place and the right sense And can any man that loueth the truth giue his eares to heare you that turne vp side downe both the order and sense of Christes wordes contrary to the true narration of the Euangelistes contrary to the interpretation of all the old authors and the approued faith of Christes Church euen from the beginning onely to mainteine your wilful assertions and Papisticall opinions So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of learned Diuines it had the right sence but when it came to the handling of ignoraūt Lawyers and Sophisticall Papistes such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture and old Catholicke writers might declare and defend the truth at their perils but the Papisticall Sophisters and Lawyers would euer define and determine all matters as pleased them But all truthes agree to the truth and falsehode agreeth not with it selfe so it is a playne declaration of vntruth that the Papistes varie so among themselues For some say that Christ consecrated by his owne secret power without signe or wordes some say that his benediction was his cōsecration some say that he did consecrate with these wordes Hoc est corpus meum and yet those vary among themselues for some say that he spake these wordes twise once immediatly after benediction at what tyme they say he consecrated and agayne after when he commaunded them to eate it appointyng than to his Apostles the forme of consecration And lately came new Papistes with their v. egges and say that the consecration is made onely with these v. wordes Hoc est enim corpus meum And last of all come you and Smith with yet your newer deuises saying that Christ spake those wordes before he gaue the bread immediatly after the breakyng manifestly contrary to the order of the text as all the Euangelistes report and contrary to all old authours of the Catholicke Church which all with one consent say that Christ gaue bread to his Apostles and contrary to the booke of Common prayer by you allowed which rehearseth the wordes of the Euangelistes thus that Christ tooke bread and when he had blessed and geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to his disciples where all the relation is made to the bread Is this your faythfull handling of Gods word for your pleasure to turne the wordes as you list Is it not a thing much to be lamented that such as should be the true setters fourth of Christes Gospell do trifle with Christes wordes after this sort to alter the order of the gospell after their owne phantasie Can there be any trifling with Christes wordes if this be not And shall any christen man geue credite to such corrupters of holy scripture Haue you put vpon you harlots faces that you be past all shame thus to abuse gods worde to your owne vanity And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to bely me that I phansy that the apostles should be so hasty to drincke or Christ had told them what he gaue where as by my wordes appeareth cleane contrary that they drancke not before all Christes wordes were spoken And where you say that Christ gaue that he had consecrated and that he made of bread here you graunt that Christes body which he gaue to his disciples at his last supper was made of bread And then it must folow that eyther Christ had two bodyes the one made of the flesh of the virgine Mary the other of bread or els that the selfe same body was made of two diuers matters and at diuers and sundry tymes Now what doctrine this is let them iudge that be learned And it is worthy a note how vnconstant they be that will take vppon them to defend an vntruth and how good memories they had nede to haue if they should not be taken with a lye For here you say that Christes body in the Sacrament is made of bread and in the xi comparison you sayd that this saying is so fond as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And where you say that S. Paule speaketh not of materiall bread but of Christes body when he sayth that we be partakers of one bread the wordes of the text be playne against you For he speaketh of the bread that is broken whereof euerye man taketh parte whiche is not Christes body excepte you wyll say that we eate Christes bodye deuided in peaces as the grose Capernaites imagined And S. Augustine with other olde authors do write that Paule spake of such bread as is made of a great multitude of graynes of corne gathered togither and vnited into one materiall lofe as the multitude of the spirituall members of Christ be ioyned to gither into one misticall body of Christ. And as concerning Theodorete and Chrisostome they say as playnly as can be spoken that the bread remayneth after consecration although we call it by a more excellent name of dignity that is to say by the name of Christes body But what estimation of wisedome or learning so euer you haue of yourselfe surely there appeareth neyther in you in this place whereuppon the alteration of the name of bread you would gather the alteration of the substaunce or Transubstantiation Be not kinges 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
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
Chrisostome would by his wordes put vs in remembrance not denying therby the visible ministry no more then he doth in his other wordes deny the visible forme of bread and yet would not that we should looke only vpon that but whether fayth directeth vs that is to say vpon the very body of Christ there inuisibly present which fayth knoweth and knoweth it to be there the very body and there therfore to be no bread which bread this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth But touching the priest S. Chrisostomes wordes do by no meane teach vs that there is no visible priest but to thinke that the body of Christ is deliuered of Christes handes which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible as fayth doth the substance inuisible of bread in the Sacrament The one saying in Chrisostome is a godly exhortation according to the truth the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth we be not taught that the priest is Christ but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christes body And then the question in the wordes of Chrisostome Seest thou bread is as much to say as remembrest the fayth as being one of the faythfull that know which terme S. Augustine vsed And then Chrisostome to confirme our fayth in so high a mistery declareth how we should thinke Christ to deliuer his body him selfe as a thing farre exceding mans power to do it And with other heauenly wordes setteth forth the greatnes of that mistery which be wordes of godly and good meditation conuenient for so high a matter to adorne it accordingly which bicause they be holsome and meete allegories wherwith to draw and lift vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes we may not therby esteeme the substance of that mistery to be but in allegory Here in steed of a solution the author filleth three whole leaues with profe of that is not necessary how a deniall by cōparison is not vtterly a deniall which is in deed true And as one was answered at Cambridge when he pressed the responsall What say ye to myne argument which was not in deede of his making The responsall left his Latin and told the opponent before all his country friendes in playne English It is a good argument syr quoth he but nothing to the purpose And so is the intreating of this matter of deniall by comparison good but nothing to the purpose here and it is an obseruation that requireth good iudgement or els may therby be induced many absurdities Chrisostom as I sayd before speaking to the Christen man seemeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no. For if he seeth bread he seeth not with fayth which seeth the body of Christ there present and so no bread If the christen man thinke of passage through him of the celestiall foode he hath therin no spirituall thought such as fayth engendreth and therfore sayth Chrisostome absit here in these wordes of Chrisostom is no deniall with comparison and therfore this author myght haue spared his treatise in these thrée leaues For in those wordes when Chrisostome sayth Thinke not thou receauest the body of Christ by a man There this author neglecteth his owne rule as in his third booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those S. Chrisostoms wordes we receaue not the body of Christ at all seing Chrisostome sayth we may not thinke we receaue it by man So little substantially is this matter handled as a man might say here were many accidentall wordes without a substance or miracle how strange soeuer the same seeme to this author otherwise Caunterbury I Complayned not of your crafty handling of Chrisostome without a iust cause for when you had alleadged the wordes that seemed to make for your purpose you left out the wordes that make clearly agaynst you or which wordes at the least would open all the whole matter And yet the wordes which you leaue out follow immediately the wordes by you alleadged And where to discusse this whole matter you say in the beginning that Chrisostome doth not deny the visible minister no more then he doth the visible forme of bread here at the first chop you vse an other pollicie not much commendable altering pretely the wordes of Chrisostom making of bread the forme of bread For Chrisostome speaketh of bread and wine and not of the formes and accidents of them And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister and so is the priest nothing els but the puppy of a priest And then the communicants receaue no bread of the priest but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest For Chrisostome speaketh in like forme of wordes of the bread as he doth of the priest with these wordes thinke not Thinke not that thou seest bread thinke not that thou receauest of a priest And therfore if this forme of speach exclude the substance of bread it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest And if the priest remayne still not withstanding that speach then may the bread remayne also with the same speach And if your argument be good there is Christes body ergo there is no bread then may I conclude in the same forme of reasoning there is bread ergo there is not Christes body And so this author maketh nothing for you but ouerthroweth your foundation cleane both of transubstantiation and of the reall presence But to make the mind of Chrysostome somewhat more playne he teacheth them that come to that holy mistery with what things their minds should be chiefly occupyed not about earthly and visible thinges but about thinges celestiall and inuisible and not to consider so much what we see with our eies as what we beleue in our hartes not so much what wee receiue bodily as what we receiue spiritually And he teacheth not onelye what we should thinke we receiue but also of whome we should thinke to receiue it saying When you come to the misteries do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God but that you receiue fyre by the Aungell Seraphin The thing that we receiue sayth he is not the body of God and the person of whome we receiue is not a man like as before immediately he sayd that the thing which we see is not bread Now if it be not bread in deed that is seen then it is not the body of Christ indeed that is receiued nor he is not a priest indeed of whom we receiue it And on the other syde if it be the very body of Christ that is receiued and a very man of whom it is receiued then it is very bread in deed that is seene And where becommeth then your Transubstantiation But to declare brieflye and playnelye the very trueth according to the minde of Chrisostome as we see with our eyes and eat with our mouthes very bread and see also and
though men had inuented and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must beleeue that is to say the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament according to the wordes of Christ This is my body which exclude the substance of bread declaring the substance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the Sacrament by the true fayth of a christen man Compare with this what this author writeth in hys ninth difference in the 47. leafe of his boke and so consider the truth of this report and how this author agreeth with himselfe Caunterbury I Suspect not the iudgement of the indifferent reader so much but that he can perceaue how vndirectly you answere to this third absurdity and be loth as it seemeth to answere any thing at all But it is no little confirmation of the catholike fayth to see you Papists vary so much among your selues and you alone to diuise so many thinges contrary to all the rest and yet you be vncertayne your selfe what you may say They say also with one accord sauing onely Smith you that in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christes body For he is not there visible and sensible with his voyce to be heard his colours to be seene his softnes to be felt his quantities to be extended and to be locall in place with his other accidents so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament Smith sayth that he is there not naturally as you say but against nature with all his qualities and accidents You dare neither adde them nor drawe them away being vncertayue whether they be there or no and being also vncertayne whether in the sacrament he haue distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but iesting and rayling to you which for lacke of answer be glad to shift of the truth as a matter of iesting And it is not my terming without the booke and at my pleasure to speake of substances without accidents and accidents without substances For I speake none otherwise therein then as it hath pleased the Papistes before to terme the same in all their bookes of that matter but I termed this matter so vppon the papisticall bookes as they at their pleasure deuised or dreamed without all manner of bookes written before their tyme. And the force of scripture constrayneth no man to the beleefe of Transubstantiation although the body of Christ were really corporally and carnally present who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances as with the accidents of bread and wine as fully is declared before And where you alleadge the disagreing of me with my selfe if you would haue taken the payne to reade some of the schole authors you should haue learned that there is no disagrement in my sayings at all For they say that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper formes and quantities as I sayd in the 47. leafe But yet those accidents say they be in heauen and not in the sacrament as I say in this place not varying one mite from myne other saying But ignorance in you thinketh a difference where none is at all Now followeth the fourth absurdity Fourthly they say that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be hath no substance there to fill that place and so must they needes graunt vacuum which nature vtterly abhorreth Winchester This author goeth about to finde so many absurdities that he speaketh he wotteth not what and where he seeth and feeleth quantity accompteth the place voyd for want of substance as though in consideration of common naturall thinges seuerally as they be in nature it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantity although in the naturall order of thinges there is no quantity without substance and is in this Sacrament onely by miracle There wanted a substance in consideration of this absurdity and was such a vacuum as nature playnly endureth Caunterbury A Lithe authors that write what vacuum is account a place that is not filled with a substaunce which hath quantity in it to be void and emty So that my saying is not grounded vpon ignoraunce but vpon the mind of all that write in that matter Where as your saying that quantity alone filleth place without substaunce hath no ground at all but the Papistes bare imagination And if quantity in the sacrament be without substaunce by miracle it is maruaile that no auncient writer in no place of their bookes made any mention of such a miracle But your selfe graunt inough for my purpose in this place that it is an absurdity in nature and wrought onely by miracle that quantity occupieth a place alone without substaunce Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right fayth but onely of your errour of transubstantiation Now to the fift absurdity Fiftly they are not ashamed to say that substaunce is made of accidentes when the bread mouleth or is turned into wormes or when the wine sowreth Winchester True beleuing men are not ashamed to confes the trueth of theyr fayth whatsoeuer arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary For Christes workes we know to be true by a most certayne fayth what mouldeth in bread or sowreth in wine we be not so assured or wheron worms ingēder it is not so fully agréed on amōg men The learned lawyer Vlpian writeth as I haue before alleadged that wine and vineger haue in manner one substaunce so as when wine sowreth and is vineger in manner the same substaunce remayneth in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that meanes that the accidents onely sower And if we agrée with the Phylosophers that there is Materia prima which in all thinges is one and altereth not but as a newe forme commeth taketh a new name fansying that as one waue in the water thrusteth away an other so doth one forme an other It should séeme by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents and the corruption of accidentes to be the generation of new accidentes the same Materia prima being as it were substantia that altereth not And this I write that may be sayd as it were to make a title to this authors certainety which is not so sure as he maketh it Amonges men haue bene maruailous fansies in consideration of naturall thinges and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret and therfore to our certaine fayth But to come nerer to the purpose it is wrong borne in hand that we affirme wormes to be engendred of accidentes but when the wormes be ingendred we graunt the wormes to be and will rather say whereof they be we cannot tell then to say that substaunce is made of accidents and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation and such as intreat those chaunces and accidentes doe not induce that
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
seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request it is not like that he would write against the receiued doctrine of the church in those daies And if he had it is without all doubt that some learned man either in his tyme or fithens would haue written against him or at the least not haue commended him so much as they haue done Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish recantation as I haue declared in my first booke the 17. chapter And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple boasting himselfe as god hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres And as touching Martin Luther it semeth you be sore pressed that be faine to pray aide of him whom you haue hitherto euer detested The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift or to run for succour vnto a beast which he most hateth And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse more seuerely and earnestly then doth Martin Luther But it appeareth by your conclusion that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike that you haue forgotten your logike For this is your argumeÌ„t Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not Berengarius attempted the same and failed in his purpose Wickliffe enterprised the same whose teaching god prospered not therefore god hath not prospered fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching I will make the like reason The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of god to bring them from their abhominable superstitions and idolatry Ioell Amâ—s and Mitheas attempted the same whose doctrine preuailed not god prospered not their teaching among those people but they were condemned with their doctrine therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching If you will aunswer as you must nedes do that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not was by reason of the aboundant superstition idolatry that blinded their eies you haue fully answered your own argument and haue plainly declared the cause why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares the church of Rome which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry therfore might not abide to heare of the truth And the true doctrine of the sacrament which I haue set out plainly in my booke was neuer condemned by no councell nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second with his monkes and friers to condemne the truth and confirme these your heresies And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prosperous successe in this matter the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while persecute the truth And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife For he perceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those dayes to idolatry hypocrisie and superstition through traditions of Phariseis and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine religion which was approued by God least in so doing they should not onely resist the Apostles but God himselfe which counsail if you had marked followed you would not haue done so vnsoberly in many things as you haue done And as for the prosperitie of them that haue professed Christ his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes as S. Iohn Baptist prospered with Herode and our sauiour Christ with Pilate Annas and Caiphas Now which of these prospered best say you Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same Winchester But all this set apart and putting aside all testimonies of the olde church and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to search out an vnderstanding and in doyng therof to forget what hath bene taught hitherto How shall this author establish vpon scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is there in scripture that enâ—ountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body wherby to alter the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper verily and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God exclodeth that repugnance which mans reason would déeme of Christes departyng from this world and placing his humanitie in the glory of his Father Caunterbury THe Scripture is playne and you confesse also that it was bread that Christ spake of when he sayd This is my body And what nede we any other scripture to encounter with these words seyng that all men know that bread is not Christes body the one hauing sense and reason the other none at all Wherfore in that speach must nedes be sought an other sence meanyng then the wordes of themselues do geue which is as all olde writers do teach and the circumstances of the text declare that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christes body And yet as he geueth the bread to be eaten with our mouthes so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith And therfore I say that Christ geueth himselfe truely to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with fayth not with mouth And yet you would beare me in hand that I say that thing which I say not that is to say that Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body And because you be not able to confute that I say you would make me to say that you can confute As for the great power and omnipotency of God it is no place here to dispute what God can do but what he doth I know that he can do what he will both in heauen and in earth no man is able to resist his wil. But the question here is of his will not of his power And yet if you caÌ„ ioyne together these two that one nature singuler shal be here and not here both at one time and that it shal be gone hence when it is here you haue some stroÌ„g syment and be a cunning Geometrician but yet you shall neuer be good Logician that woulde
body from his spirite affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite and in the communion but his flesh And that Christes spirit renueth our life but increaseth it not and that his flesh increceth our life but geueth it not And agaynst all nature reasō and truth you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christes body and bloud in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all And against scripture and all comformity of nature you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacrament that you leaue no distinction proportion nor fashion of mannes body at all And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother of the true doctrine of Christ that thus vnnaturally speaketh deuydeth and confoundeth Christes body If Salomon were aliue he would surely geue iudgement that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh so vnnaturally and so vnlike his mother and be geuen to the true church of the faithful that neuer digressed from the truth of Gods word nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body but speake according to the same that Christes body although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body occupying one place and being of a certayne height and measure hauing all members distinct and set in good order and proportion And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye is not only the beginning but also the contynuance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life By him we be regenerated by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature as Christ doth in his without mixtion or confusion This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother and like a true and right beleeuing christian man Marye of that doctrine which you teach I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof which in scripture is called Babilō because of commixtion or confusion Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth superstition with religiō godlines with hipocrisie scripture with traditions that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant to confound all the doctrine of Christ yea Christ him selfe shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother and the true naturall mother of Antichrist And for the conclusion of your matter here I doubt not but the indifferent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts sleightes shiftes obliquities manifest vntruthes it may be easely iudged that what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet nothing is lesse intended then that truth should ether haue victory or appeare and be seene at all Winchester And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes which this author is not afraid to vtter a matter wonderfull considering his dignity if he that is named be the author in déede which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth First I will note vnto the reader how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament to be the faith of the papistes which saying what foundacion it hath thou mayest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish defended stoutly the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in England in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gospels professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany where Hosiander is chiefe preacher in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the word truly is there and as Buter saith that is substancially Which Catechisme was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from the beginning alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene Ciprian Chrisostome Hillary Cirill Ambrose and Theophilacte which authors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to idle wittes with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estéemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is published abroad in printe wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse and that in it is dispensed the true body true bloud of Christ which is plainly the same in essence that is to say substāce and the same bloud in essence signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye taken for no papist among vs to much estéemed as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Ciprian Hilary Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basill Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iudgement he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words this is my body rehearsed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what
foūd this matter so fully prooued that he neither is nor neuer shal be able to answere thereto For I haue alleadged the scripture I haue alleadged the consent of the old writers holy fathers and martirs to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud For the Euangelistes speaking of the Lords supper say that he took bread blessed it brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body and of the wine he sayd Take this deuide it among you drinke it this is my bloud I haue alleadged Irene saying that Christ confessed bread to be his body and the cup to be his bloud I haue cyted Tertulliā who sayth in many places that Christ called bread his body I haue brought in for the same purpose Cyprian who sayth that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he named his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes I haue written the wordes of Epiphanius which be these that Christ speakinge of a loafe which is round in fashion and can neither see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierom writing ad Hedibiam sayth that Christ called the bread which he brake his body And S. Augustine sayth that Iesus called meate his body and drinke his bloud And Cyrill sayth more plainly that Christ called the peeces of bread his body And last of all I brought forth Theodorete whose saying is this that when Christe gaue the holy mysteries he called bread his body and the cuppe mixt with wine and water he called his bloud All these Authors I alleadged to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud Which because they speak the thinge so plainly as nothing can be more and Smith seeth that he can deuise nothinge to answere these Authors like a wily fox he stealeth away by them softly as he had a flea in his eare saying nothing to all these authors but that they proue not my purpose If this be a sufficient answere let the Reader be iudge for in such sort I could make a short answere to Smithes whol booke in this one sentence that nothing that he sayth proueth his purpose And as for proofes of his saying Smith hath vtterly none but onely this fond reason That if Christ had called bread his body then should bread haue been crucified for vs because Christ added these words this is my body which shal be geuē to death for you If such wise reason shall take place a man may not take a loafe in his hand made of wheate that came out of Danske and say this is wheate that grew in Danske but it must follow that the loafe grew in Danske And if the wife shall say this is butter of my own cow Smith shall proue by this speach that her mayd milked butter But to this fantasticall or rather frantike reason I haue spoaken more in mine aunswere to Smithes preface How be it you haue taken a wiser way then this graunting that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud but adding thereto that Christs calling was making Yet here may they that be wise learn by the way how euil fauoredly you and Smith agree among your selues And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answere vnto the Authors by me alleadged in this parte I may iustly require that for lacke of answere in time and place where he ought to haue answered he may be condemned as one that standeth mute And being condemned in this his chiefe demur he hath after nothing to answere at al. For this foundation being ouerthrown all the rest falleth down withall Wherefore now will I returne to aunswere you in this matter which is the last of the euident and manyfest vntruthes wherof you appeach me I perceaue here how vntoward you be to learn the truth being brought vp all your life in Papisticall errors If you could forget your law which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth and specially the Canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of Gods word you should be much more apte to vnderstand and receaue the secretes of holy scripture But before those scales fall from your sawlish eyes you neither can nor will perceaue the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christes body bloud But yet I shall doe as much as lyeth in me to teach and instruct you as occasion shall serue so that the fault shall be either in your euill bringing vp altogether in popery or in your dulnes or frowardnes if you attaine not true vnderstanding of this matter Where you speake of the miraculous workinge of Christ to make bread his body you must first learne that the bread is not made really Christes body nor the wine his bloud but sacramētally And the miraculous working is not in the bread but in them that duely eate the bread and drink that drink For the marueylous worke of God is in the feeding and it is Christen people that be fed and not the bread And so the true confession and beleefe of the vniuersall Church from the beginning is not such as you many times affirme but neuer can proue for the Catholicke church acknowledgeth no such diuision betweene Christes holy flesh and his spirite that life is renued in vs by his holy spirite and increased by his holy flesh but the true fayth confesseth that both be done by his holy spirite and flesh iointly together as well the renouation as the increace of our life Wherfore you diminish here the effect of baptisme wherin is not geuen only Christes spirite but wholl Christ. And herein I will ioyne an issue with you And you shall finde that although you thinke I lacke law where with to follow my plea yet I doubt not but I shall haue helpe of Gods word inough to make al men perceiue that you be but a simple diuine so that for lacke of your proofes I doubt not but the sentence shall be geuen vpon my side by all learned and indifferent iudges that vnderstand the matter which is in controuersy betweene vs. And where you say that we must represse our thoughtes and imaginations and by reason of Christes omnipotency iudge his intent by his wil it is a most certayne truth that Gods absolute and determinate wil is the chiefe gouernour of all thinges and the rule wherby all things must be ordered and therto obey But where I pray you haue you any such will of Christ that he is really carnally corporally naturally vnder the formes of bread and wine There is no such will of Christ set forth in the scripture as you pretend by a false vnderstanding of these wordes this is my body Why take you then so boldly vpon you to say that this is Christs will and intent when you haue no warrant in scripture to beare you It is not a sufficient
proofe in Scripture to say God doth it because he can doe it For hee can doe many thinges which hee neither doth nor will doe He could haue sent moe then twelue Legions of Angels to deliuer Christ from the wicked Iewes and yet he would not doe it He could haue created the world and all thinges therin in one moment of time and yet his pleasure was to doe it in sixe dayes In all matters of our christen faith written in holy Scripture for our instruction and doctrin how farre so euer they seeme discrepant from reason we must represse our imaginations and consider Gods pleasure and will and yeald therto beleeuing him to be omnipotent And that by his omnipotent power such thinges are verelye so as holy scripture teacheth Like as we beleeue that Christ was borne of the blessed virgin Mary without company of man that our Sauyour Christ the third day rose agayn from death that he in his humanity ascended into heauen that our bodyes at the day of iudgement shall rise agayne and many other such like thinges which we all that be true christeÌ„ men do beleeue firmely because we finde these thinges written iu Scripture And therfore we knowing Gods omnipotency doe beleue that he hath brought some of the said things to passe already and those things that are yet to come he will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to passe Now if you can proue that your transubstantiatioÌ„ your fleshly presence of Christes body and bloud your carnall eating and drinking of the same your propitiatory sacrifice of the masse are taught vs as plainly in the scripture as the sayd articles of our faith be then I will beleeue that it is so in deede Otherwise neither I nor any man that is in his right wittes will beleeue your said articles because God is omnipotent and can make it so For you might so vnder pretence of Gods omnipotency make as many articles of our faith as you list if such arguments might take place that God by his omnipotent power can conuert the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of his flesh and bloud ergo he doth so in deede And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine yet Christ vsed not so many wordes in the mistery of his holy supper without effectual signification For he is effectually present and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine but in the godly receauers of them to whom he geeueth his own flesh spiritually to feede vpon and his own bloud to quench their great inward thirst And here I would wishe you to marke very wel one true sentence which you haue vttered by the way which is That Christ declared that eating of him signifieth beleeuing and start not from it an other time And marke the same I pray thee gentle Reader For this one sentence assoyleth almost all the argumentes that be brought by this Lawyer in his wholl booke against the truth And yet to the sayd true saying you haue ioyned an other vntruth haue yoaked them both together in one sentence For when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended froÌ„ heauen there was no murmuring thereat say you Which your saying I can not but wonder at to see you so farre deceaued in a matter so plaine and manifest And if I had spoaken such an euident and manifeste vntruth I doubt not but it should haue beene spoaken of to Rome gates For the text sayth there plainly Murmur abant Iudaei de illo qoud dixisset Ego sum panis vinus qui de coelo descendi The Iewes murmured at him because he sayd I am the bread of life that came from heauen But when you wrote this it seemeth you looked a litle to low and should haue looked higher And here by this one place the Reader may gather of your own wordes your intent and meaning in this your booke if that be true which you sayd before that euer where contention is on what parte the Reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lye there he may consider whatsoeuer excuse be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended An other vntruth also followeth incontinently that when Christ sayd The bread which I will geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world In these wordes say you Christ maketh mention of two gifts But what be those two giftes I pray you And by what wordes is the diuersitie of those two giftes expressed If the geuing as Smith sayth be geuing to death then those two giftes declare that Christ dyed for vs twise And if one of Christes giftes haue liuery and seisyn why hath not the other likewise And when was then that liuery and seisyn geuen And if eating of Christ be beleeuing as you sayd euen now then liuerey and seisyn is geuen when we first beleeue whether it be in baptisme or at any other time But what you mean by these wordes that Christ gaue in his supper his body as really to be eateÌ„ of vs as he did to be crucified for vs I vnderstand not except you would haue Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth as he was after crucified whipped and thrust to the hart with a speare But was he not then so really and corporally crucified that his body was rent and torne in peeces And was not he so crucified then that he neuer was crucified after Was he not so slayn then that he neuer dyed any more And if he were so eaten at his supper then did his Apostles teare his flesh at the supper as the Iewes did the day following And then how could he now be eaten agayn Or how could he be crucified the day following if the night before he were after that sort eaten all vp But aptly say you and conueniently Mary Sir I thanke you but what is the aptly and conueniently but spiritually and by faith as you said before not grosly with the teeth as he was crucified And so the manner was diuers I graunt and the substance all one But when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper as you say he did then what needed he after to dye that we might liue if he fulfilled his promise of life at his supper Why said the Prophets that he should be wouÌ„ded for our iniquities and that by his wounds we should be healed if we had life and were healed before he was wounded Why doth the catholick faith teach vs to beleue that we be redeemed by his blud sheading if he gaue vs life which is our redemâ—ion the night before hee shed his bloud And why sayth S. Paule that there is no remission without bloud sheading Yea why did he say Absit mihi
he is but beleeue them not And S. Peter saith in the Actes that heauen must receaue Christ vntill the time that all thinges shall be restored And S. Paule writing to the Colossians agreeth hereto saying Seeke for thinges that be a-aboue where Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father And Saint Paul speaking of the very Sacrament saith As often as you shall eate this bread and drinke this cuppe shew forth the Lordes death vntill he come Till he come saith Saint Paule signifying that he is not there corporally present For what speech were this or who vseth of him that is already present to say vntill he come For vntill he come signifieth that he is not yet present This is the catholicke faith which we learne from our youth in our common Creede and which Christ taught the Apostles followed and the Martirs confirmed with their bloud And although Christ in his humain nature substantially really corporally naturally and sensibly be present with his Father in heaueÌ„ yet Sacramentally and Spiritually he is here present For in water bread and wine he is present as in signes and Sacramentes but he is in deede Spiritually in those faithfull christian people which according to Christes ordinaunce be baptized or receaue the holy communion or vnfainedlye beleeue in him Thus haue you heard the second principall article wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of Gods word and from the Catholick faith Now the third thing wherein they vary is this The Papistes say that euill and vngodly men receaue in this Sacrament tâ—â— very body and bloud of Christ and eate and drinke the self same thing that the good and godly men doe But the truth of Gods word is contrary that all those that be godly members of Christ as they corporally eate the bread and drinke the wine so spiritually they eate and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud And as for the wicked members of the Deuill they eate the Sacramental bread and drinke the SacrameÌ„tall wine but they doe not spiritually eate Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud but they eate and drinke their own damnation The fourth thing wherein the Popish priestes dissent froÌ„ the manifest word of God is this They say that they offer Christ euery day for remission of sinne and distribute by their Masses the merits of Christs passion But the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists doe say that Christ himselfe in his own person made a sacrifice for our sinnes vpon the Crosse by whose woundes all our diseases were healed and our sinnes pardoned and so did neuer no priest man nor creature but he nor he dyd the same neuer more then once And the benefit hereof is in no mannes power to gyue vnto any other but euery man must receaue it at Christes handes himselfe by his own fayth and beliefe as the Prophet saieth Here Smith findeth him selfe much greeued at two false reports wherwith he saith that I vntruely charge the Papists One when I write that some say that the very naturall body of Christ is in the Sacrament naturally and sensibly which thing Smith vtterly denieth any of them to say and that I falsely lay this vnto their charge And moreouer it is very false saith he that you lay vnto our charges that we say that Christes body is in the Sacrament as it was borne of the virgin and that it is broken and torne in peeces with our teeth This also Smith saith is a false report of me But whether I haue made any vntrue report or no let the bookes be iudges As touching the first the Bishop writeth thus in his booke of the Deuils sophistry the 14. leafe Good men were neuer offended with breaking of the hoost which they daily saw being also perswaded Christes body to be present in the Sacrament naturally and really And in the 18. leafe he saith these words Christ God and man is naturally present in the Sacrament And in ten or twelue places of this his last booke he saith that Christ is present in the SacrameÌ„t naturally corporally sensibly and carnally as shall appeare euidently in the reading therof So that I make no false reporte herein who report no otherwise then the â—apistes haue written and published openly in their bookes And it is not to be passed ouer but worthy to be noted how manifest falshoode is vsed in the printing of this Bishoppes booke in the 136. leafe For where the Bishoppe wrote as I haue two coppies to shew one of his own hand and another exhibited by him in open court before the Kinges Commissioners that Christes body in the Sacrament is truely present therfore really present corporally also and naturally The printed booke now set abroad hath changed this word naturally and in the stede therof hath put these wordes but yet supernaturally corrupting and manifestly falsefying the Bishops booke Who was the Author of this vntrue acte I cannot certainly define but if coniectures may haue place I think the Bishop himselfe would not commaund to altar the booke in the printing and then set it forth with this title that it was the same booke that was exhibited by his own hand for his defence to the kinges maiesties commissioners at Lamhith And I thinke the Printer being a French man would not haue enterprised so false a deed of his own head for that which he should haue no thanks at all but be accused of the Author as a falsifier of his booke Now for as much as it is not like that either the Bishop or the Printer would play any such pranks it must then be some other that was of counsell in the printing of the booke which being printed in Fraunce whether you be now fled from your own natiue countrey what person is more like to haue done such a noble acte then you who being so full of craft and vntruth in your own countrey shew your selfe to be no changeling where soeuer you become And the rather it seemeth to me to be you then any other person because that the booke is altred in this word naturally vpoÌ„ which word standeth the reproofe of your saying For he saith that Christ is in the Sacrament naturally and you deny that any man so saith but that Christ is there supernaturally Who is more like therefore to change in his booke naturally into supernaturall then you whom the matter toucheth and no maÌ„ els but whether my coniectures be good in this matter I will not determine but referre it to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader Now as concerning the second vntrue report which I should make of the Papistes I haue alleadged the wordes of Berengarius recantation appointed by Pope Nicholas the 2. and written De consecrat dist 2. which be these that not only the Sacraments of bread and wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ are sensibly handeled of the Priest in the Altar broaken and torne with the teeth of
Christ made bread his body and wyne his bloud and vnder the figure of those visible creatures gaue inuisibly his precious body any bloud presently there And as he gaue sayth S. Barnarde his life for vs so he gaue his flesh to vs in that mistery to redéeme vs in this to féede vs. Which doings of Christ we must vnderstand to haue béene perfited not in an imagination in a figure and signification but really in very déede truely and vnfaynedly not because we beléeue it so but because he wrought it so whose works we must beleue to be most perfitly true according to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in scripture driueth vs from it howsoeuer it seme repugnant to our reason be we neuer so wise and wittie which mans reason now a dayes enflamed with fury of language is the only aduersary against the most blessed Sacrament as it may appeare by these comparysons of differences throughly considered Caunterbury DId not you beleue I pray you many yeares together that the bishop of Rome was Christs vicar and the head of his church If you did not you wittingly and willingly defended a false errour in the open Parliament But sithens that tyme you haue called that beléefe as it is in deede very folish And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter be no more abashed to confesse it in this if you haue respect more vnto Gods trueth then to your owne estimation It is lawfull and commendable for a man to learn from time to tyme and to go from his ignorance that he may receaue and embrace the trueth And as for me I am not I graunt of that nature that the Papists for the most part be who study to deuise all shamefull shiftes rather then they will forsake any errour wherewith they were infected in youth I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance as S. Paul S. Ciprian S. Augustine and many other holy men did who now be with Christ to bring other to the knowledge of the trueth of whose ignoraunce I haue much ruth and pitie I am content to geue place to Gods word that the victory may be Christs What a member had the church of God lost if Paule would haue been as froward as some Papistes be that will sticke to their errour tooth and nayle though the Scripture and auncient writers be neuer so plain and fâ—at against them Although S. Paule erred yet because his errour was not wilfull but of ignoraunce so that he gaue place to the trueth when it was opened vnto him he became of a most cruell persecutor a most seruent setter forth of the trueth and Apostle of Christ. And would God I were as sure that you be chaunged in déede in those matters of religion wherein with the alteration of this realme you preteÌ„d a change as I am glad euen from the bottom of my hart that it hath pleased almighty God in this latter end of my yeares to giue me knowledge of my former errour and a will to embrace the truth setting a part all maner of worldly respectes which be speciall hinderances that hold backe many from the free profession of Christ and his word And as for the booke of common prayer although it say that in ech part of the bread broken is receaued the whole body of Christ yet it sayth not so of the partes vnbroken nor yet of the partes or whole reserued as the Papistes teach But as in baptisme we receaue the holy ghost and put Christ vpon vs as well if wee be Christened in one dysh full of water taken out of the fonte as if we were chistned in the whole fonte or riuer so we be as truely fed refreshed and comforted by Christ receauing a peece of bread at the Lords holy table as if we dyd eat an whole loafe For as in euery part of the water in baptisme is wholl Christ and the holy spirit sacramentally so be they in euery part of the bread broken but not corporally and naturally as the Papists teach And I beare not the catholick church in hand as you report of me that it sayth and teacheth that whole Christ is in euery part of the bread consecrated but I say that the Papistes so teach And because you deny it read the chiefe pillers of the Papistes Duns and Thomas de Aquino which the Papists call S. Thomas who say that Christ is whole vnder euery part of the formes of bread and wine not only when the host is broken but wheÌ„ it is wholl also And there is no distance sayth he of partes one from an other as of one eie from another or of the eye from the eare or the head from the feet These be Thomas wrds Christus totus est sub qualibit parte specicruÌ„ panis vini non soluÌ„ cuÌ„ frangitur hostia sed etiaÌ„ cuÌ„ integra manet Nec est distaÌ„tia partiuÌ„ ab inniceÌ„ vt oculi ab oculo aut oculi ab aure eut capitis à pedibus sicut est in alijs corporibus orgameis Talis enim distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero sed non prout est in hoc Sacraâ—eÌ„to And not only the Papists do thus write and teach but the Pope himself Innocentius the third And so beare I in haÌ„d or report of the Papisies nothing but that which they say indeed And yet you say the church sayth not so which I affirme also and then it must needs follow that the doctrine of the Papistes is not the doctrine of the church Which Papists not by reason with out faith but agaynst aswell reason as fayth would direct our mindes to seeke in euery little crum of bread whole Christ and to find him in so many places there as be small crums in the bread And where you trauesse the matter of the iudgement of our senses herein it is quite and cleane from the matter and but a crafty shift to conuey the matter to an other thing that is not in question lyke vnto crafty male-factours whych perceauing them selues to be sore pursued with a hound make a new trayn to draw the hound to an other fresh suit For I speake not of the iudgement of our senses in this matter whether they perceaue any distinction of partes and members or no but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no which the Papistes do deny And therefore I say not vntruely of them that in the sacrament they say There is no distance of partes one from another And if the parts in theyr substance be distinct one from an other as you say and be not so distinct in the SacrameÌ„t as Thomas sayth theÌ„ must it follow that the partes in their owne substaunce be not in the sacrament And if this distinction of partes be in the true body of Christ and not in the sacrament as Thomas saith then followeth it again that the true body of Christ
bloud signifying to theÌ„ that worthely do eat that bread drink that cuppe that they be inwardly and inuisibly fed with Christes flesh and bloud as they outwardly and visibly receaue the sacraments of them To be short here in this processe you vse plenty of words at your pleasure to make the reader beleue that I should suppose confusion monstrousnes absurditie and vnseemelinesse to be in Gods holy sacraments where as I do no more but tel what monstrous absurdities and errors the Papists do teach in the sacraments But if the reader take good heede to your talk he shall finde that you lacking good matter to aunswere this comparison do fall vnto railing and enforce your pen to inuent such stuffe as might bring me into hatred vndeserued which kind of rhetorick is called Canma facunda and is vsed onely of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their aduersary which is yet an other trick of the deuils sophistry And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred you couple me with Sabellius and Arrius whose doctrines as you say were facile and easy as here you confesse mine for to be But if all such expositions as make the Scriptures plain should by and by be slaunderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius then should all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger because that by their paines they haue made hard questions facile and easy And yet whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to vnderstand or not I cannot define but it seemeth so hard that you cannot vnderstand it except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulnes that you can and wil not vnderstaÌ„d it Now followeth the sixt comparison Furthermore the Papistes say that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ if they by chaunce doe eate the Sacramentall bread We say That no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ nor drink his bloud but onely man Winchester I haue red that some intreate these chances of dogges and cattes but I neuer heard any of that opinion to say or write so as a doctrine that a dogge or a catte eateth the body of Christ and set it forth for a teaching as this author most impudently supposeth and I maruell much that such a worde and such a reporte can come out of a christian maÌ„nes mouth and therefore this is by the author a maruelous surmise Whereupon to take occasion to bring the aduersatiue But for the Authors parte being such a saying on that side as all christendome hath euer taught that no creature can eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ but onely man But this abhominable surmysed no truth in the former parte of his comparison may be taken for a proofe whether such beastly asseuerations procéede from the spirite of truth or now And whether truth be there intended where such blasphemy is surmised But let vs see the rest Caunterbury YEt stil in these comparisons you grauÌ„t that part of the difference to be true which I affirme but you say that I reporte vntruely of the Papistes impudently bearing them in hand to say such abhominable beastly asseuerations as you neuer heard Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in deniall of that thing which either you know the Papists do say or you are in doubt whether they say or saying hauing not read what it is that they say For why doe they reiect the Master of the sentences in this point that he said a mouse or bruite beast receaueth not the body of Christ although they seeme to receau it Wherin if you say as the Master did that the mouse receiueth not the body of Christ looke for no fauor at the papists hands but to be reiected as the Master was unles they forbeare you vpon fauour and because that in other matters you haue bene so good a captayne for them they will pardon you this one faulte Aâ—d so is this first parte of the difference no vntrue surmise of me but a determination of the Papistes condemning who so euer would say the contrary And this is a common proposition among the schoole diuines that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the forme of the bread is remayning where so euer it be whereof your S. Thomas wryteth thus Quidam vero dixerunt quod quaÌ„ primum Sacramentum sumitur à mure vel cane desinit ibi esse corpus Christi Sed hoc deregat veritati huius Sacramenti Substantia enim panis sumpta à peccatore I am diu manet dion per calorem naturalem est in digestione igitur tam diu manet corpus Christi sub speciebus Sacramentalibus And Perin in his booke printed and set abroad in this matter for all men to read saith That although the mouse or any other beast doe eate the Sacrament yet neuerthelesse the same is the very and reall body of Christ. And he asketh what inconuenience it is against the verity of Christs reall body in the Sacrament though the impassible body lye in the mouth or maw of the beast Is it not therfore the body of Christ Yes vndoubtedly saith he So that now these abhominable opinions and beastly asseuerations as you truely terme them meaning thereby to bite me as appeareth be fitte termes and meete for the Papists whose asseuerations they be Now followeth the seuenth comparyson They say that euery man good and euill eateth the body of Christ. We say that both doe eate the Sacramentall bread and drink the wine but none do eate the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud but only they that be liuely members of his body Winchester In this comparison the former part speaking of such men as be by baptisme receiued into Christes church is very true confirmed by S. Paule and euer since affirmed in the church in the proofe whereof here in this booke I wil not trauell but make it a demurre as it were in law whereupon to fly the truth of the hole matter if that doctrin called by this author the doctrine of the Papistes and is in déede the Catholick doctrine be not in this point true let all be so iudged for me If it be true as it is most true let that be a marke whereby to iudge the rest of this authors vntrue asseuerations For vndoubtedly S. Augustine sayth We may not of mens matters estéeme the Sacraments they be made by him whose they be but worthely vsed they bring reward vnworthely handled they bring iudgement He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely and he that vseth it vnworthely lie not one but that thyng is one whether it be handled worthely or vnworthely so as if is neither better ne worse but life or death of them that vse it Thus saith S. Augustine and therefore be the receauers worthy or vnworthy good or euil the substance of Christs Sacrament is all one as beyng Gods worke
comparison They say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantitie We say that Christ is there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitye Winchester In this comparison is both sleight and crafte in the first parte of it which is that they say there is mention of the body of Christ which is proper of the humanity of Christ. In the second parte which is of we say there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body Now the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud and because the diuine nature in Christ continueth the vnity with the body of Christ we must néedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is wholl Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie and therefore such as confesse the true Catholick faith they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body which although it hath all those truthes of forme and quantity yet they say Christes body is not present after the manner of quantitie nor in a visible forme as it was conuersant in this present life but that there is truely in the Sacramēt the very true body of Christ which good men beléeue vpon the credit of Christ that sayd so and knowledge therwith the maner of that presente to be an high mistery and the maner so spirituall as the carnall man cannot by discourse of reason reach it but in his discourse shalt as this author doth think it a vanitie and foolishnes which foolishnes neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisedome of the world And thus haue I opened what they say on the Catholick part Now for the other parte whereof this author is and with his faith we say the words séeme to imploy that Christes humain body is not in the Sacrament in that it is sayd Christ to be there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitie which saying hath no Scripture for it For the Scripture speaketh of Christes body which was betraied for vs to be geuen vs to be eaten Where also Christes diuinity is present as accompanyng his humanity which humanitie is specially spoken of the presence of which humanitie when it is denyed then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinity specially that is to say other wise then it is by his omnipotency presēt euery where And to conclude this peece of comparyson this maner of speach was neuer I thinke red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity And S. Paule speaketh of a forme in the Godhead Qui quam in forma Dei esset Who when he was in the forme of God So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all forme then is he there neither as God nor man which is a straunger teaching then yet hath bene heare or red of but into such absurdities in déed do they fall who intreat irreuerently and vntruly this high mistery This is here worthy a spesyall note how by the maner of the spéech in the latter part of this difference the teaching semeth to be that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament because of the word there which thou reader mayest compare how it agréeth with the rest of this authors doctrine Let vs go to the next Caunterbury SUch is the nature of many that they can finde many knots in a playne rush and doubtes where no doubtes ought to bee found So fynd you sleight and craft where I ment all thinges symply and playnly And to auoyd such sleight and craft as you gather of my words I shall expresse thē plainly thus The Papistes say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantity We say that the body of Christ hath not his proper forme and quantity neither in the sacrament nor in them that receaue the Sacrament but is in the sacrament sacramentally and in the worthy receauers spiritually without the proper forme quantity of his body This was my meaning at the first and no mā that had loked of this place indifferently would haue taken the second part of this comparison to be vnderstanded of Christs diuine nature for the bread and wyne be sacraments of his body and bloud and not of his diuinitie as Theodoretus sayth and therfore his diuine nature is not sacramentally in the sacramēt but his humayne nature onely And what maner of spech had this ben to say of Christes diuine nature that it is in the sacrament without quantity which hath in it no manner of quantitie where so euer it be And where I set foorth these comparysons to shew wherein we vary from the Papists what variance had ben in this comparison if I had vnderstanded the first part of Christs humanitie and the second of his diuinitie The reader by this one place among many other may easyly discerne how captious you be to reprehend what so euer I say and to peruert euery thing into a wrong sense So that in respect of you Smith is a very indifferent taker of my wordes although in deed he farre passeth the bondes of honesty But to come directly to the matter if it be true that you say that in the sacrament Christes body hath all the formes and quantities of a naturall body why say you then that his body is not there present after the manner of quantitie Declare what difference is betweene forme and quantitie the manner of quantitie And if Christes body in the Sacrament haue the same quantitie that is to say the same length breadth and thicknes and the same forme that is to say the same due order and proportion of the mēbers and partes of his body that he had when he was crucified and hath now in heauen as he hath by your saying here in this place then I pray you declare further how the length bredth and thicknes of a man should be conteined in quantitie within the compasse of a peece of bread no lōger nor broader then one or two inches nor much thicker then one leafe of paper How an inch may be as long as an elle and an elle as short as an inch How length and roundnes shall agree in one proportion and a thicke and thin thing be both of one thicknes which you must warrant to be brought to passe if the forme and quantitie of Christes body be conteined vnder the forme and quantity of such bread and wine as we now vse But as Smyth in the last comparison did me good seruice against you so shall you in this comparison do me good seruice against him For among the fiue lyes wherewith he chargeth me in these comparisons he accompteth this for one that I report of the Papists that Christes body in the sacrament hath his proper forme and quantity which you say
the olde heresy denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ in the virgins wombe at the same tyme to reuiue When the true deliuerance of Christs flesh in the holy supper to be of vs eaten is also denied For as it is a meere trueth without figure and yet an high mistery Gods worke in the incarnation of Christ wherein our flesh was of Christ truely taken of the virgins substance So is it a meere trueth without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing yet an high mistery and Gods worke in the geuing of the same true flesh truely to be in the supper eaten When I exclude figure in the sacrament I mene not of the visible part which is called a figure of the celestial inuisible part which is truely there without figure so as by that figure is not impayred the truth of that presence which I ad to auoyd cauilation And make an end of this comparison this I say that this article declareth wantonnes to make a difference in words where none is in the sence rightly taken with a noueltie of spéech not necessary to be vttered now Caunterbury NOte well here reader how the cuttill commeth in with his darke coulours Where I speake of the substaunce of the thing that is eaten you turne it to the manner and circumstaunces thereof to blynde the simple reader and that you may make therof a riddle of yea and nay as you be wont to make blacke white and white blacke or one thing yea and nay black and white at your pleasure But to put away your darke coulours and to make the matter playne this I say that the fathers and prophets did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in promise of redemptiō to be wrought and we eat and drink the same flesh and bloud in confirmation of our faith in the redemption all ready wrought But as the fathers did eat and drinke so did also the Apostles at Christ his supper in promise of redemtion to be wrought not in confirmation of redēption already wrought So that if wrought and to be wrought make the diuersitie of presence and not presence then the Apostles did not eat and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ really present because the redemption was not then already wrought but promised the next day to be wrought And although before the crucifiyng of his flesh and effusion of his bloud our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken not onely of the Apostles at his last supper before hee suffered his passion but also of the holy Patriarkes and fathers before his incarnation aswell as he is now of vs after his ascention And although in the manner of signifiyng there be great difference between their sacraments and ours yet as S. Augustine saith both we and they receaue one thing in the diuersitie of Sacraments And our Sacraments contain presently the very things signified no more then theirs did For in their sacraments they were by Christ presently regenerated and fed as we be in ours although their sacraments were figures of the death of Christ to com and ours be figurs of his death now past And as it is al one Christ that was to be borne and to dye for vs and afterward was borne in deede and dyed in deede whose byrth and death be now passed so was the same Christ and the same flesh and bloud eaten and drunken of the faithfull fathers before he was borne or dead and of his Apostles after he was born and before he was dead and of faithfull christen people is now dayly eaten and drunken after that both his natiuity and death be passed And al is but one Christ one flesh one bloud as concerning the sustance yet that which to the fathers was to come is to vs passed And neuerthelesse the eating drinking is all one for neither the fathers did nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouthes but both the fathers did and we do eat spiritually by true and liuely faith The body of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to vs but corporally and locally he was yet borne vnto them from vs he is gone and ascended vp into heauē So that to neither he was nor is carnally substantially and corporally present but to them he was to vs he is spiritually present and sacramentally also and of both sacramētally spiritually and effectually eaten and drunken to eternall saluation euerlasting lyfe And this is plainly enough declared in the Scripture to them that haue willing mindes to vnderstand the truth For it is written in the old Testament Eccle. 24. in the person of Christ thus They that eat me shall yet hunger and they that drinke me shall yet be thirsty And S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians saying Our fathers did all eat the same spirituall meat and did all drink the same spirituall drinke and they drank of that spirituall rock that followed them which rock was Christ. These words S. Augustine expounding sayth What is to eat the same meat but that they did eate the same which wee doe Who so euer in Manna vnderstood Christ did eat the same spirituall meat that we do that is to say that meat which was receaued with fayth and not with bodyes Therefore to them that vnderstood and beleued it was the same meat and the same drinke So that to such as vnderstoode not the meate was onely Manna and the drinke onely water but to such as vnderstood it was the same that is now For thē was Christ to come who is now come To come and is come be diuers wordes but it is the same Christ. These be S. Augustines sayings And because you say that it is more agreable to the scripture to say that the fathers before Christs natiuity did not eat the body and drink the bloud of Christ I pray you shew me one scripture that so saith And shew me also one approued author that disalowed S. Augustines mind by me here alleaged because you say that all doe not agree to his vnderstanding And in the 77. Psalme S. Augustine saith also The stone was Christ. Therefore the same was the meat drinke of the fathers in the mistery wich is ours but in significatiō the same not in outward forme For it is one Christ him selfe that to them was figured in the stone and to vs manyfestly appeared in flesh And saint Augustine sayth playnely that both Manna and our Sacrament signifieth Christ and that although the Sacraments were dyuers yet in the thing by them ment and vnderstand they were both like And so after the mynd of S. Augustine it is cleare that the same thinges were geuen to the faithfull receiuers in the Sacraments of the old Testament that be geuen in the new the same to them was circumcisiō that to vs is baptisme and to
declaration of his will wherby we might be the more assured of the effect of his death which he suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption of the world with a most perfect oblatiō and satisfaction for the sinnes of the world exhibited and offered by him to God the father for the reconciliation of mannes nature to Gods fauor and grace And this I write because this author speaketh so precisely how Christ offred himselfe neuer but once Wherby if he mean by once offering the hole action of our redemption which was consummate and perfected vpon the crosse All must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption by the oblation of Christ on the crosse to haue béene absolutely finished and so once offered for all But there is no Scripture whereupon we might conclude that Christ did in this mortall life but in one particular moment of time offer himselfe to his Father For S. Paul describeth it to the Philippians vnder the word of humiliation to haue continued the wholl time of Christes conuersation here euen to the death the death of the crosse And that this obedience to God in humilitie is called offering appeareth by S. Paule when he exhorted vs to offer our bodies which meaneth a continuall obedience in the obseruation of Gods will and he calleth oblationem gentium to bringe them to the faith And Abrahams willing obedience ready at Gods commaundement to offer Isaac is called the offering of Isaac and is in very deede a true offering And euery man offereth himself to God when he yealdeth to Gods calling and presenteth himselfe ready to doe Gods will and commaundement who then may be said to offer his seruice that is to say to place his seruice in sight and before him before whom it should be done And because our Sauiour Christ by the decrée of the wholl Trinity tooke mannes nature vpon him to suffer death for our redemption which death in his last Supper he declared plainly he would suffer We reade in S. Ciprian how Christ offered himselfe in his supper fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech who by the offring of bread wine signified that high mistery of Christs Supper in which Christ vnder the forme of bread and wine gaue his very body bloud to be eaten and dronken and in the geuing therof declared the determination of his glorious passion and the fruit and effect therof Which doing was a swéete and pleasant oblation to God the Father conteyning a most perfect obedience to Gods will and pleasure And in the mistery of this Supper was written made and sealed a most perfect testimony for an effectuall memory of Christes offering of him selfe to his Father of his death and passion with the fruite therof And therfore Christ ordayned this Supper to be obserued and continued for a memory of his comming So as we that saw not with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion may in the celebration of the Supper be most surely ascertayned of the truth out of Christes own mouth who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church This is my body that is betrayed for you This is my bloud that is shead for you in remission of sinne and therewith maketh his very body and his precious bloud truely present to be taken of vs eaten and dronken Whereby we be assured that Christ is the same to vs that he was to them and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them offereth himselfe to his Father for vs as well as for them declareth his will in the fruite of his death to pertayne as well to vs as to them Of which death we be assured by his own mouth that he suffred the same to the effect he spake of and the continuall feding in this high mistery of the same very body that suffred and féeding of it without consumption being continually exhibited vnto vs a liuing body and a liuely bloud not onely our soule is specially and spiritually cōforted our body therby reduced to more cōformable obedience to the soule but also we by the participation of this most precious body bloud be ascertained of the resurrection and regeneration of our bodies and flesh to be by Gods power made incorruptible and immortall to liue and haue fruition in God with our soules for euer Wherefore hauing this mistery of Christes Supper so many truthes in it the Church hath celebrate thē all and knowledged them all of one certainty in truth not as figures but really and in déede that is to say as our bodies shal be in the generall resurrection regenerate in déede so we beléeue we feede here of Christes body in deede And as it is true that Christes body in déede is betrayed for vs so it is true that he geueth vs to eate his very body in déede And as it is true that Christ was in earth did celebrate this Supper so it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrated by vs till he come And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotent and very man so it is true that he could doe that he affirmed by his word him selfe to doe And as he is most sincéere truth so may we be truly assured that he would and did as he said And as it is true that he is most iust so it is true that he assisteth the doing of his commaundement in the celebration of the holy Supper And therfore as he is author of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and bloud so is he the maker of it and is the inuisible priest who as Emissene saith by his secret power with his word changeth the visible creatures into the substance of his body bloud Wherin man the visible priest and minister by order of the church is onely a dispencer of the mistery doing and saying as the holy ghost hath taught the church to doe and say Finally as we be taught by faith all these to be true so when wanton reason faith being aslepe goeth about by curiositie to empaire any one of these truthes the chain is broaken the linkes sparckle abroad and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at Truthes haue béene abused but yet they be true as they were before for no man can make that is true false and abuse is mannes fault not the thinges Scripture in spéeche geueth to man as Gods minister the name of that action which God specially worketh in that mistery So it pleaseth God to honor the ministery of man in his Church by whom it also pleaseth him to worke effectually And Christ said they that beleue in me shall doe the workes that I doe and greater When all this honor is geuen to man as spiritually to regenerate when the minister saith I baptise thée and to remitte sinne to such as fall after to be also a minister in consecration of Christes most precious body with the ministration of other Sacramentes benediction
manner which we say not but in a spirituall maner and therefore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such maner as God onely knoweth yet dooth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence exceding our capacitie to comprehend the maner how This is the very true teaching to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament euen of the same body that suffred in playne simple euident termes and wordes such as can not by cauilation be mistaken and construed so néere as possibly mans infirmitie permitteth and suffreth Now let vs consider in what sort the author and hys company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the Sacrament who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne which sonne this author sayth is euer corporally in heauen and no where els and yet by operation and vertue is here in earth so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any language of man able to expresse God and hys mysteryes For and thinges that be sene or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible misteryes the nature wherof is that they can not throughly be expressed they were no misteries and yet it is true that of thinges visible wherein God worketh wonderfully there may be great resemblances some shadowes and as it were inductions to make a man astonied in consideration of thinges inuisible when he séeth thinges visible so wonderfully wrought and to haue so maruaylous effectes And diuers good catholicke deuoute men haue by diuers naturall things gone about to open vnto vs the mistery of the trinitie partely by the sonne as the author doth in the Sacrament partely by fyre partely by the soule of man by the Musitians science the arte the touch with the players fingers and the sound of the cord wherein wil hath all trauailed the matter yet remayneth darke ne can not be throughly set forth by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the sonne whiche sonne this author sayth is onely corporally in heauen and no where els and in the earth the operatiō and vertue of the sonne So as by this authors supposall the substance of the sonne should not be in earth but onely by operation and vertue wherein if this author erreth he doth the reader to vnderstande that if he erre in consideration of naturall thinges it is no maruayle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I will not of my selfe begin the contention with this author of the naturall worke of the Sonne I will bryng forth the saying of Martin Bucer now resident at Cambridge who vehemently and for so much truly affirmeth the trew reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament For he sayth Christ sayd not This is my spirite this is my vertue but This is my body Wherefore he sayth we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hang vpon the crosse our Lord hym selfe whiche in some parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the sonne for hys purpose to proue Christes body present really and substancially in the sacramēt where this author vseth the same similitude to proue the body of Christ really absent I will wryte in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin expounding the xrvi chapiter of Saynte Mathew and then I will put the same in english Bucers wordes bée these Vt Sol vere vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est radys tamen suis praesens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substantialiter quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini simbolis quam oculi vident habent Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res sidei non sunt igitur huc admittende cogitationes de presentatione corporis quae constar ratione huius vitae etiamnum patibilis fluxae Verbo Domini simpliciter inhaerendum est debet fides sensuum de fectui praebere supplimentum Which is thus much in English As the sonne is truely placed determinately in one place of the visible heauē and yet is truely and substantially present by meanes of hys beames els where in the world abroad So our Lord although he be comprehended in one place of the secrete and diuine heauen that is to say the glory of hys father yet neuerthelesse by hys word and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man and therfore in substance in his holy supper which presence mans mind geuing credite to his words and tokens with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see and haue the sonne presente exhibited and shewed with his corporally lyght This is a deep secrete matter and of the new testament and a matter of fayth and therfore herein thoughtes be not to be receiued of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of thys life transitorie and subiect to suffer We must simply cleaue to the word of Christ and fayth must releue the default of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his minde whereunto because the similitude of the sonne doth not aunswere in all partes he noteth wisely in th ende howe this is a matter of faith and therefore vpon the foundation of faith we must speake of it thereby to supply where our sences fayle For the presence of Christ and whole Christe God and man is true although we can not thinke of the maner how The chiefe cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shew how in hys iudgement we haue not onely in earth the operation and vertue of the sonne but also the substance of the sonne by incane of the sonne beames which be of the same substaunce with the sonne and can not be deuided in substance from it and therfore we haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sonne not onely the operation and vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sort yet the beames that touch the earth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papiste and yet for the reall and substantiall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pithely and playnly and here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the sonne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the sacrament which is one of the high misteries in our religiō And this may
his body which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body Wherfore it followeth by Tertullians confession whē Christ made the bread his body that Christ ended the figure and made it the trueth making now his body that was before the figure of his body For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still then did he not make it his body as Tertullian himselfe saith he did And Tertullian therfore being red thus as apeareth to me most probable that that is to say in Tertullian should be onely referred to the explicacion of the first this as when Tertullian had alleged Christes wordes saying this is my body and putteth to of his owne that is to say the figure of my body these wordes that is to say should serue to declare the demonstration this in this wise that is to say this which the Prophet called the figure of the body is now my body And so Tertulian sayd before the Chryst had made bread his body which bread was a figure of his body with the Prophet and now endeth in the very trueth being made his body by conuersion as Cyprian sheweth of the nature of bread into his body Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certayn vnfayned truth of that is signified seing Christes body was figured by bread in the prophet Hieremy it appereth Christ had a true body And that the bread was of Christ aproued for a figure he made now his very body And this may be sayd euidently to Tertullian who reasoning agaynst heretikes vseth the commoditie of arguing and giueth no doctrine of the sacrament to further this authors purpose And what aduantage should the heretiques haue of Tertulian if he should meane that these words This is my body had onely this sence this is the figure of my body hauing himselfe sayd before that Christ made bread his body If so playne speach to make bread his body conteyneth no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body Why should not they say that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure and so no certayntie of any trew body in Christ by Tertullianes wordes This place of Tertullian is no secret poynt of learning and hath bene of Decolampadius and other alleadged and by ether Catholique men aunswered vnto it wherof this author may not think now as vpon a wrangling argument to satisfie a coniecture deuised therby to confirme a new teaching Finally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure which this author must proue or els he doth nothing Caunterbury ON what a wrangling and wrasting is here made What crookes be cast what leaping about is here to auoyde a foyle And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall reade the place of Tertullain to iudge whether you haue truely expounded him or in the wrastling with him be quite ouerthrowen and haue a flat fall vpon your backe For Tertullian sayth not that the bread was a figure of Christs body only in the prophet as you expound Tertullian but sayth that bred and wine were figures in the old testament and so taken in the prophets and now be figures agayne in the new testament so vsed of Christ himself in his last supper And where Tertullian sayth that Christ made bread his body he expoundeth him self how Christ made bread his body adding by and by these wordes That is to say a figure of his body But if thou caust forbear good reader when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtill lawyer I pray thee laugh not for it is no matter to be laughed at but to be sorowed that the most auncient authors of Christes church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes O Lord what shall these men answer to thee at the last day whan no cauilations shall haue place These be Tertullians words Iesus taking bread and distributing it amōg his disciples made it his body saying This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Heare Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the Prophet but the saying of Christ this is my body And where Tertullian hath but once the word This you say the first this And so you make a wise speach to say the first where is but one And Tertullian speaketh of this in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body and you referre them to the Prophets wordes which be not there but the spoken of long after And if you had not forgotten your gramer and all kind of speach or els hurled away altogether purposely to serue your owne wilfull deuise you would haue referred the demonstration of his antecedent before and not to a thing that in order commeth long after And bread in the prophet was but a figuratiue speach but in Christes wordes was not onely a figuratiue speach but also a figuratiue thing that is to say very materiall bread which by a figuratiue speach Christ ordeyned to be a figure and a sacrament of his body For as the Prophet by this word bread figured Christes body so did Christ himsef institute very materiall bread to be a figure of his body in the sacrament But you referre this to the bread in the Prophet which Christ spake as Tertullian sayth of the bread in the gospell And Christes wordes must needes be vnderstanded of the bread which he gaue to his Apostles in the time of the gospell after he had ended the supper of the law And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his very body which was no materiall bread but this word bread then did Christ make this word bread his body and conuerted this word bread in to the substaunce of his body This is the conclusion of your subtell sophistication of Tertullians wordes Now as concerning Saynt Ciprian whome you here alledge he spake of a sacramentall and not of a corporall and carnall conuersion as shall be playnly declared when I come to the place of Ciprian and partely I haue declared alredy in myne other booke And Tertullian proued not in that place the veritie of Christes body by the figure of the Prophet but by the figure which Christ ordeyned of his body in his last supper For he went not about to proue that Christ should haue a body but that he had then a true body because he ordeined a figure therof which could haue had no figure as Tertullian sayth if it had ben but a phantasticall body and no true body in deed Wherfore this which you say in aunswering to the playn wordes of Tertullian may be sayd of them that care not what they say but it can not be sayd euidently that is spoken so sophistically But if so playne speech of Tertullian say you that Christ made bread his body conteyne no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body why should not the body of Christ euer be taken for a figure and
eares be vij yeares The scripture sayth not signifieth vij yeares And vij kine be seuen yeares and many other like And so sayd saynt Paule that the stone was Christ and not that it signified Christ but euen as it had ben hee indede which neuerthelesse was not Christ by substaunce but by signification Euen so sayth saynt Augustine bicause the bloud signifieth and representeth the soule therfore in a sacrament or signification it is called the soule And contra Adamantium he writeth much like saying In such wise is bloud the soule as the stone was Christ and yet the Apostle sayth not that the stone signified Christ but sayth it was Christ. And this sentence Bloud is the soule may be vnderstand to be spoken in a signe or figure for Christ did not stick to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here S Augustine rehearsing diuers sentences which were spoken figuratiuely that is to say when one thing was called by the name of an other and yet was not the other in substance but in signification As the bloud is the soule vij kyne be vij yeares vij eares be vij yeares the stone was Christ. Among such maner of speaches he reherseth those wordes which Christ spake at his last supper this is my body Which declareth playnly Saynt Augustines mind that Christ spake those wordes figuratiuely not meaning that the bread was his body by substance but by signification And therfore S. Augustine sayth contra Maximinum that in the sacramentes we must not consider what they be but what they signifie for they be signes of thinges being one thing and signifiyng another Which he doeth shew specially of this sacrament saying the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh by some maner of speach is called Christes body when in very deede it is the sacrament of his body And that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes is called Christes passion death and crucifiyng not in very dede but in a misticall signification Winchester As for saynt Agustine ad Bonifacium the author shall perceiue his fault at Martyne Bucers hand who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarations of the gospels reherseth his mind of Saynt Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi Corpus Christi sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secundum quem modum Vt significet tantum corpus sanguinem Domini absenta Absit Honorari enim percipi in simbolis visibilibus corpus sanguinem Domini idem passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saynt Augustine writeth the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certayn maner the body of christ the sacramēt of the bloud of christ the bloud of christ but after what maner that it should signifie onely the body and bloud absent Absit In no wise for the same Saynt Augustine writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored and to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not saynt Augustine to say the sacrament of Christes body to be Christes body after a certayn maner of speach as this author doth nor S. Augustine hath no such wordes but onely secundum quendam modum after a certayne maner wherunto to put of speach is an addition more then truth required of necessitie In these wordes of Bucer may apeare his whole indgement concerning S. Augustine who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament which truth established in the matter the calling it a signe or a token a figure a similitude or a shewing maketh no matter when we vnderstand the thing really present that is signified Which and it were not in dede in the Sacrament why should it after Bucers true vnderstanding of S. Augustine be honored there Arguing vpon mens speaches may be without end the authors vpon diuers repsectes speake of one thing diuersly Therfore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter and see what they say in expounding the speciall place without contention and not what they vtter in the heat of their disputation ne to search their dark and ambiguous places wherwith to confound that they speake openly and playnly Canterbury WHat nede you to bring Martine Bucer to make me answer if you could answer your selfe but bicause you be ashamed of the matter you would thrust Martine Bucer in your place to receaue rebuke for you But in this place he easeth you nothing at all for he sayth no more but that the body and bloud of Christ be exhibited vnto the worthy receiuers of the sacrament which is true but yet spiritually not corporally And I neuer sayd that Christ is vtterly absent but I euer affirmed that he is truly and spiritually present and truly and spiritually exhibited vnto the godly receiuours but corporally is he neither in the receiuors nor in or vnder the fourmes of bread or wine as you do teach clearly with out the consent of master Bucer who writeth no such thing And where I alleadge of Saynt Augustine that the sacrament of Christes body is called Christes body after a certayn maner of speach and you deny that saynt Augustine ment of a certayne maner of speach but sayth onely after a certayne maner Read the place of saynt Augustin who will and he shall find that he speaketh of the maner of speach and that of such a maner of speach as calleth one thing by the name of an other where it is not the very thing in dede For of the maner of speach is all the processe there as apeareth by these his wordes a day or two before good Friday we vse in common speach to say to morowe or this day two dayes Christ suffered c. Likewise vppon Easter day we say this day Christ rose And why do no men reproue vs as lyars whan we speake in this sort And we call those dayes so by a similitude c. And so it is called that day which is not that day in dede And sacramentes commonly haue the name of the thinges wherof they be sacramentes Therfore as after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is Christes body so likewise the sacramēt of fayth is fayth And likewise sayth Saynt Paule that in baptisme we be buried he sayth not that we signifie buriall but he sayth playnly that we be buried So that the sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the thing All these be S. Augustines wordes shewing how in the common vse of speach one thing may haue the name of another Wherfore when Doctor Gardiner sayth that S. Augustine spake not of that maner of speach thou mayst beleue him hereafter as thou shalt see cause but if thou trust his wordes to much thou shalt soone be deceiued As for the reall presence of Christ
in the sacrament I graunt that he is really present after such sort as you expound really in this place that is to say indede and yet but spiritually For you say your selfe that he is but after a spirituall maner there and so is he spiritually honored as S Augustine sayth But as concerning heat of disputation marke well the wordes of S. Augustine good reader cited in my booke and thou shalt see clerely that all this multiplication of wordes is rather a iugling then a direct answer For saynt Augustine writeth not in heate of disputation but temperatly and grauely to a learned Bishop his deare frend who demanded a question of him And if Saynt Augustine had aunswered in heate of disputation or for any other respect otherwise then the truth he had not done the part of a friend nor of a learned and godly Bishop And who so euer iudgeth so of Saynt Augustine hath small estimation of him and sheweth him selfe to haue litle knowledge of Saynt Augustine But in this your answer to saynt Augustine you vtter where you learned a good part of your diuinitie that is of Albertus Pighius who is the father of this shift and with this fleight eludeth Saynt Augustin when he could no otherwise answer As you do now shake of the same Saynt Augustine resembling as it were in that poynt the liuely countenauÌ„ce of your father Pighius Next in my booke foloweth Theodoret And to this purpose it is both pleasaunt comfortable and profitable to read Theodoretus in his Dialogs where he disputeth and sheweth at length how the names of things be chaunged in scripture and yet thinges remayne still And for example he proueth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vayle or coueryng sometime a cloth sometyme a vestment and sometyme a stole the bloud of the grape is called Christes bloud and the names of bread and wine and of his flesh and bloud Christ doth so chaunge that sometyme he calleth his body corne or bread and sometime contrary he calleth bread his body And likewise his bloud sometime he calleth wine and sometime contrary he calleth wine his bloud For the more playne vnderstanding wherof it shall not be amisse to recite his owne sayings in his foresayd dialogs touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud The speakers in these dialogs be Orthodoxus the right beleuer and Eranistes his companyon but not vnderstanding the right fayth Orthodoxus saith to his companion Doost thou not know that god caleth bread his flesh Eran. I know that Orth. And in an other place he calleth his body corne Eran. I know that also for I haue heard him say The houre is come that the sonne of man shal be glorified c. Except the grayne of come that falleth in the ground dye it remayneth sole but if it dye then it bringeth forth much fruite Orth. When he gaue the mysteries of sacraments he called bread his body and that which was mixt in the cup he called bloud Eran. So he called them Orth. But that also which was his naturall body may well be called his body and his very bloud also may be called his bloud Eran. It is playne Orth. But our sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to the body the name of the signe or token and to the token he gaue the name of the body And so wheÌ„ he called himself a vyne he called bloud that which was the token of bloud Eran. Surely thou hast spokeÌ„ the truth But I would know the cause wherfore the names were changed Orth. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments should not set their mindes vpon the nature of the things which they see but by the changing of the names should beleue the things which be wrought in them by grace For he that called that which is his naturall body corne and bred and also called himselfe a vyne he did honor the visible tokeÌ„s and signes with the names of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not Ortho. Seyng then that it is certayne that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell and that now we be entred to speak of godly sacraments tell me truely of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a tokeÌ„ and figure of Christes diuinity or of his body and bloud Eran. It is cleare that it is the figure of those thinges whereof it beareth the name Orth. Meanest thou of his body and bloud Eran. Euen so I meane Orth. Thou hast spoken as one that loueth the truth for the Lord when he tooke the token or signe he sayd not This is my diuinity but This is my body this is my bloud And in an other place The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whiche I will geue for the life of the world Eran. These things be true for they be Gods words All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue ' And in the second he writeth the same in effect yet in some thing more playnly agaynst such heretiques as affirmed that after Christes resurrection ascention his humanity was changed from the very nature of man turned into his diuinity Agaynst whom thus he writeth Orth. Corruption healeth sicknes and death be accedents for they goe come Era. It is meet they be so called Orth. Mens bodies after their resurrection be delyuered from corruption death mortalitie and yet they lose not theyr proper nature Eran. Truth it is ' Orth. The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption death and is impassible immortall glorified with the glory of God is honored of the powers of heauen and it is a body hath the same bignes that it had before Era. Thy saying seeme true according to reason but after he was ascended vp into heauen I thinke thou wilt not say that his body was not tourned into the nature of his godhead Orth. I would not so say for the persuation of mans reason nor I am not so arrogant and presumptious to affirme any thing which scripture passeth ouer in silence But I haue heard S. Paule cry that God hath ordayned a day when he will iudge all the world in iustice by that man which he appoynted before performing his promise to all men and raysing him from death I haue learned also of the holy angels that he will come aâ—ter that fashion as his disciples saw him goe to heauen But they saw a nature of a certayn bignesse not a nature which had no bignes I heard furthermore the lord say You shall see the sonne of man come in the cloudes of heauen And
I know that euery thing that men see hath a certayne bignes For that nature that hath no bignes can not be seene Moreouer to sit in the throne of glory and to sette the Lambes vpon his right hand and the goates vpon his left hand signifieth a thing that hath quantitie and bygnes Hitherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes and shortly after Eranistes sayth Eran. We must tourne euery stone as the prouerb sayth to seeke out the truth but specially when godly matters be propounded Orth. Tell me than the sacramentall signes which be offered to God by his priestes wherof be they signes sayst thou Eran. Of the Lordes body and bloud Orth. Of a very body or not of a very body Eran. Of a very body Orth. Very well for an image must be made after a true paterne for Paynters follow nature and paynt the images of such thinges as we see with our eyes Eran. Truth it is Orth. If therfore the godly sacramentes represent a true body than is the Lordes body yet still a body not conuerted into the nature of his Godhead but replenished with Goddes glory Eran. It cometh in good tyme that thou makest mention of Gods sacramentes for by the same I shall proue that Christes body is tourned into an other nature Answer therfore vnto my questions Orth. I shall answer Eran. What callest thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the priest Orth. We must not speake playnly for it is like that some be present which haue not professed Christ. Eran. Answer couertly Orth. It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like Eran. Than how call we the other signe Orth. It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drinke Eran. But how doest thou call them after the sanctification Orth. The body of Christ and the bloud of Christ. Eran. And doest thou beleue that thou art made partaker of Christes body and bloud Orth. I beleue so Eran. Therfore as the tokens of Gods body and bloud be other thinges before the priestes inuocation but after the inuocation they be chaunged and be other things so also the body of Christ after his assumption is chaunged into his deuine substaunce Ortho. 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 may be seene 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 Therfore cōpare their images to the paterne and thou shalt see them like For figure must be like to the thing it selfe For Christes body hath his former fashion figure and bignesse and to speake at one word the same substance of his body but after his resurrection it was made immortall and of such power that no corruption nor death could come vnto it and it was exalted vnto that dignity that it was sette at the right hand of the father and honoured of all creatures as the body of him that is the Lord of nature Eran. But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name for it is no more called as it was before but is called Christes body Therfore must his body after his ascention be called God and not a body Orth. Thou semest to me ignorant for it is not called his body onely but also the bread of lyfe as the Lord called it So the body of Christ we call a godly body a body that giueth life Gods body the Lordes body our masters body name ning that it is not a common body as other mennes bodies be but that it is the body of our Lord Iesu Christ both God and man This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus whom some of the Papists perceiuing to make so playnly agaynst them haue defamed saying that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition which is euen in a manifest matter rather to lie without shame than to giue place vnto the truth and confesse their owne errour And although his aduersaries falsely bruted such a fame agaynst him whan he was yet a liue neuerthelesse he was purged therof by the whole Councell of Calcedon about a leuen hundred yeares agoe And furthermore in his booke which he wrote agaynst heresies he specially condemneth Nestorius by name And also all his iij. bookes of his dialogues before rehersed he wrot chiefly agaynst Nestorius and was neuer here in noted of error this thousand yeare but hath euer bene reputed and taken for an holy Byshop a great learned man and a graue author vntill now at this present tyme whan the Papistes haue nothing to answer vnto him they begin in excusing of them selues to defame him Thus much haue I spoken for Theodoretus which I pray thee be not weary to read good reader but often and with delectation deliberation and good aduertisement to read For it conteineth playnly and breefly the true instruction of a Christian man concerning the matter which in this booke we treate vpon First that our sauiour Christ in his last supper whan he gaue bread and wine to his apostles saying This is my body This is my bloud it was bread which he called his body and wine mixed in the cup which he called his bloud so that he changed the names of the bread and wine which were the misteries sacramentes fignes figures and tokens of Christes flesh and bloud and called them by the names of the thinges which they did represent and signifie that is to say the bread he called by the name of his very flesh and the wine by the name of his bloud Second that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification yet neuertheles the thinges them selues remayned the selfe same that they were before the sanctification that is to say the same bread and wine in nature substance form and fashion The thyrd seing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed why be then their names changed and the bread called Christes flesh and the wine his bloud Theodoretus sheweth that the cause therof was this that we should not haue so much respect to the bread and wyne which we see with our eyes and tast with our mouthes as we should haue to Christ him selfe in whome we beleue with our hartes and fele and tast him by our faith and with whose flesh and bloud by his grace we beleue that we be spiritually fedde and norished These thinges we ought to remember the reuolue in our myndes and to lift vp our hartes from the bread and wine vnto Christ that sitteth aboue And bicause we should so do therfore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine but