if the very flesh of Christ were not in the sacrament truely present which is as much to say as in substaunce present if it were not in deede present that is to say really present if it were not corporally present that is to say the very body of Christ there present God and man If these truthes consenting in one were not there S. Augustine would neuer haue spoken of adoration there No more he doth sayth this author there but in heauen let S. Augustines wordes quoth I be iudge which be these No man eateth that flesh but he first worshippeth it It is found out how such a footestoole of the Lordes foot should be worshipped and not onely that we do not sinne in worshipping but we do sinne in not worshipping it These be S. Augustines wordes which I sayd before can not be drawen to an vnderstanding of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen where it remayneth continually glorified and is of all men christened continually worshipped For as S. Paule sayth Christ is so exalted that euery tongue should confesse that our sauiour Christ is in the glory of his father So as the worshipping of Christ there in the estate of his glory where he reigneth hath neither afore ne after but an euer continuall worshipping in glory Wherfore S. Augustine speaking of a before must be vnderstanded of the worshipping of Christes flesh present in the Sacrament as in the dispensation of his humility which Christ ceaseth not to do reigning in glory for although he hath finished his humble pafible conuersation yet he continueth his humble dispensation in the perfection of his misticall body and as he is our inuisible priest for euer and our aduocate with his father and so for vs to him a mediator to whom he is equall so doth he vouchsafe in his supper which he continueth to make an effectuall remembraunce of his offering for vs of the new Testament confirmed in his bloud and by his power maketh him selfe present in this visible Sacrament to be therein of vs truely eaten and his bloud truely drunken not onely in fayth but with the truth and ministery of our bodely mouth as God hath willed and commaunded vs to do which presence of Christ in this humility of dispensation to releaue vs and feed vs spiritually we must adore as S. Augustine sayth before we eate and we do not sinne in adoring but we sinne in not adoring remembring the diuine nature vnite vnto Christes flesh and therfore of flesh not seuered from the godhead Which admonishment of S. Augustine declareth he ment not of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen where can be no danger of such a thought where all tōgues confesse Christ to be in the glory of his father of which Christ as he is there in glory continually to be worshipped it were a colde saying of S. Augustine to say wee doe not sinne in worshipping Christ in heauen but sinne in not worshipping him as though any coulde haue doubted whether Christe shoulde bee worshipped in his humanitye in heauen being inseparably vnite to the diuinity And when I say in his humanity I speake not properly as that mistery requireth for as Christes person is but one of two perfite natures so the adoration is but one as Cirill declareth it and therfore abhorreth the addition of a sillable to speake of coadoration And will this author attribute to S. Augustine such a grossenes to haue written and giuen for a lesson that no man sinneth to worship Christes flesh in heauen reigning in glory wherfore taking this to be so farre from al probabilitie I sayd before these words of S. Augustine can not be drawen with any tenters to stretch so farre as to reach to heauen where euery christian man knoweth and professeth the worshipping of Christ in glory as they be taught also to worship him in his dispensation of his humility when he maketh present him selfe in this Sacrament whome we should not receaue into our mouth before we adore him And by S. Augustines rule we not onely not sinne in adoring but also sinne in not adoring him Caunterbury WHere you speake of the adoration of Christe in the Sacrament saying that if he were not there present substancially really and corporally S. Augustine would neuer haue spoken of adoration there in this word there you vse a great doublenes and fallax for it may be referred indiferently eyther to the adoration or to the presence If it be referred to the presence than it is neyther trew nor S. Augustine sayth no such thing that Christ is really substancially and corporally present there If it be referred to the worshipping than it is trew according to S. Augustines mynd that there in the receauing of the sacrament in spirite and truth we glorify and honor Christ sitting in heauen at his fathers right hand But to this adoration is required no reall substanciall and corporall presence as before I haue declared for so did Iacob worship Christ before he was borne and all faythfull christen people do worship him in all places where soeuer they be although he carnally and corporally be farre distant from them As they dayly honor the father and pray vnto him and yet say Qui es in coelis confessing him to be in heauen And therfore to auoyd all the ambiguitie and fallax of your speach I say that we being here do worship here Christ being not corporally here but with his father in heauen And although all christen men ought of duety continually to worship Christ being in heauen yet bicause we be negligent to doe our duties therin his word and sacramēts be ordeined to prouoke vs therunto So that although otherwise we forgat our dutyes yet when we come to any of his sacraments we should be put in remembrance thereof And therfore sayd Christ as S. Paule writeth As often as you shall eate this bread and drincke this cup shew forth the lordes death vntill he come And do this sayd Christ in remembraunce of me And the worshipping of Christ in his glory should be euer continuall without eyther before or after Neuertheles forasmuch as by reason of our infirmity ingratitude malice and wickednes we go farre from our offices and dueties herein the sacraments call vs home agayne to do that thing which before we did omit that at the least we may do at some tyme that which we should doe at all tymes And where you speake of the humiliatiō of Christ in the sacrament you speake without the booke For the scripture termeth not the matter in that sort but calleth his humiliation only his incarnation and conuersation with vs here in earth being obedient euen vnto death and for that humiliation he is now from that tyme forward exalted for euer in glory And you would plucke him downe from his glory to humiliation agayne And thus is Christ intreated when he commeth to the handling of ignoraunt lawyers blynd sophisters and
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
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
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
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
you say that he is corporally in all them that receaue the sacrament whether it be worthely or vnworthely Now foloweth thus in my booke And here may be well enough passed ouer Basilius Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Nazianzenus partely bicause they speake little of this matter partly bicause they may be easely āswered vnto by that which is before declared oftē repeted which is that a figure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure therfore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spokē of the thing it selfe And as cōcerning the eating of Christs flesh drincking of his bloud they spake of the spirituall eating drincking therof by fayth not of corporal eating and drincking with the mouth and teeth Winchester As for Basill Gregory Nissen and Gregory Nazianzen this author sayth they speake little of this matter and indeede they spake not so much as other doe but that they speake is not discrepant nor contrarieth not that other afore them had written For in the olde church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned openly and directly that we reade of before Berengarius v. C. yeares past and secretly by one Bertrame before that but onely by the Messalians who sayd the corporall eating did neither good nor hurt The Antropomorphites also who sayd the vertue of the misticall benediction endured not to the next day of whome Cirill speaketh and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning that deuided Christes flesh from the deity And where this author would haue taken for a true supposall that Basill Gregory Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue onely that is to be denyed And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it selfe And that I will declare thus Of the thing it selfe that is Christes very body being present indeede it may be sayd Adore it worship it there which may not besayd of the figure It may be sayd of the very thing being present there that it is a highe miracle to be there it is aboue nature to be there it is an high secret mistery to be there But none of these speaches can be conueniently sayd of the onely figure that it is such a miracle so aboue nature so high a mistery to be a figure And therfore it is no true doctrine to teach that we may say the same of the figure that may be sayd of the thing it selfe And where this author speaketh of the spiritual eating corporal eating he remayneth in his ignorāce what the word corporal meaneth which I haue opened in discussing of his answere to Cirill Fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually and the corporall eating institute in Christes supper requireth the reuerent vse of mans mouth to receiue our Lords meat drinke his owne very flesh and bloud by his omnipotency prepared in that supper which not spiritually that is to say not innocently as S. Angustine in one place expoūdeth spiritually receiued bringeth iudgement and condempnation according to S Paules wordes Caunterbury WHere you say that in the old church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned opēly you say herin very truly for the truth which I haue set forth was openly receiued and taught of al that were catholick without coutradiction vntil the papists diuised a contrary doctrine And I say further that the vntruth which you teach was not at that time improued of no man neither openly nor priuily For how could your doctrine be impugned in the olde church which was then neither taught nor knowen And as concerning Bertrame he did not write secretly for he was required by king Charles to write in this matter and wrot therin as the doctrine of the Church was at that tyme or els some man would haue reprehended him which neuer none did before you but make mention of his workes vnto his great prayse and commendation And the Massalians were not reproued for saying that corporall eating doth neither good nor hurt neither Epiphanius nor of S. Augustine nor Theodoret nor of any other auntient author that I haue red Mary that the sacraments do neither good nor hurt namely Baptisme is layd vnto the Massaliās charge and yet the corporall receiuing without the spirituall auaileth nothing but rather hurteth very much as appeared in Iudas and Simon Magus And as for the three heresies of the Massalians Anthropomorphites and Nestorians I allow none of them although you report thē otherwise thē either Epiphanius or S. Augustine doth And wherē you say that I would haue taken for a supposall that Basil Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue only still you charge me vntruly with that I nether say nor think For I knowledge as al good christen mē do that almighty God worketh effectually with his sacraments And where you report me to say an other vntruth that of a figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it self that I say true therin witnesseth plainly S. Augustin and Cyprian And yet I speake not vniuersally nor these examples that you bring make anything agaynst my sayings For the first example may be sayd of the figure if D. Smith say true And because you .ii. write both agaynst my book and a gree so euil one with an other as it is hard fo vntrue sayers to agree in one tale therfore in this poynt I commit you togither to see which of you is most valiant champion And as for your other iii. examples it is not true of the thing it selfe that Christes body is present in the sacrament by miracle or aboue nature although by miracle and aboue nature he is in the ministration of his holy supper amōg them that godly be fed therat And thus be your friuolous cauillations aunswered And where you say that I am ignorant what this word corporal meaneth surely then I haue a very grosse wit that am ignorant in that thing which euery plough man knoweth But you make so fine a cōstruction of this word corporall that neither you can tell what you meane your self nor no man can vnderstand you as I haue opened before in the discussing of Cyrils mind And as for the reuerent vse of mans mouth in the Lordes holy supper the bread and wine outwardly must be reuerently receaued with the mouth because of the things therby represented which by fayth be receaued inwardly in our hartes mindes not eatē with our mouthes as you vntruely allege S. Paule to say whose wordes be of the eating of the sacramentall bread and not of the body of Christ. Now followeth next mine aunswer to Eusebius Emissenus who is as it were your chefe trust and shot ancre Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly aunswered vnto for he speaketh not of
Gods worke in the sacrament but to exclude carnall imagination from musing of the manner of the worke which is in mistery such as a carnall man can not comprehend In which matter if S. Augustine had had such a fayth of the visible sacrament as the author sayth him selfe hath now of late and calleth it catholicke S. Augustine would haue vttered it as an expositor playnly in this place and sayd there is but a figure of Christes body Christes body and flesh is in heauen and not in this visible sacrament Christes speach that was estemed so hard was but a figuratiue speach And where Christ sayd This is my body he ment onely of the figure of his body which manner of saying S. Augustine vseth not in this place and yet he could speake playnly and so doth he declaring vs first the truth of the flesh that Christ geueth to be eaten that is to say the same flesh that he tooke of the virgine And yet bicause Christ giueth it not in a visible manner nor such a maner as the Capernaites thought on nor such a maner as any carnall man can conceaue being also the flesh in the sacrament giuen not a common flesh but a liuely godly and spirituall flesh Therfore S. Augustine vseth wordes and speach wherby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ which we did see and of the bloud that was shed so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen and the same not to be giuen the mistery should be thus farre opened that for the truth of the thing giuen it is the same and touching the manner of the giuing and the quality of the flesh giuen it is not the same And bicause it is the same S. Augustine sayth before we must worship it and yet bicause it is now an hidden godly mistery we may not haue carnall imaginations of the same but godly spiritually and inuisibly vnderstand it Caunterbury AS concerning the wordes of S. Augustine which you say I do wrong report let euery indeferēt reader iudge who maketh a wrong report of S. Augustine you or I. For I haue reported his wordes as they be and so haue not you For S. Augustine sayth not that Christes body is eaten in the visible sacrament as you report but that Christ hath giuen vs a sacrament of the eating of his body which must be vnderstand inuisibly and spiritually as you say truly in that poynt But to the spirituall eating is not required any locall or corporall presence in the sacrament nor S. Augustine sayth not so as you in that poynt vniustly report him And although the worke of God in his sacraments be effectuall and true yet the working of God in the sacraments is not his working by grace in the water bread and wine but in them that duely receaue the same which worke is such as no carnall man can comprehend And where you say that if S. Augustine had ment as I do he would in this place haue declared a figure and haue sayd that here is but a figure and we eate onely a figure but Christ himselfe is gone vp into heauen and is not here it is to much arrogancy of you to appoynt S. Augustin his wordes what he should say in this place as you would lead an hound in a line where you list or draw a beare to the stake And here still you cease not vntruly to report me For I say not that in the Lordes supper is but a figure or that Christ is eaten only figuratiuely but I say that there is a figure and figuratiue eating And doth not S. Augustine sufficiently declare a figure in Christes wordes when he sayth that they must be vnderstād spiritually And what man can deuise to expresse more playnly both that in Christes speach is a figure and that his body is not corporally present and corporally eaten then S. Augustine doth in a thousand places but specially in his epistle ad Bonifacium ad Dardanum ad Ianuarium De doctrina Christiana De catechisandis rudibus in quest super leuit De ciuitate Dei Contra Adamatium contra aduersarium legis prophetarum In epistolam Euangelium Iohannis In sermone ad infantes De verbis apostoli The flesh of Christ is a true flesh and was borne of a woman dyed rose agayne ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father but yet is he eaten of vs spiritually and in the maner of the eating there is the mistery and secret and yet the true worke of God And where you vnderstand the inuisible mistery which S. Augustin speaketh of to be in the diuersity of the body of Christ seene or not seene you be farre deceaued For S. Augustine speaketh of the mistery that is in the eating of the body and not in the diuersity of the body which in substaūce is euer one without diuersity The meaning therfore of S. Augustine was this that when Christ sayd Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in you he ment of spirituall and not carnall eating of his body For if he had entended to haue described the diuersity of the maner of Christes body visible and inuisible he would not haue sayd this body which you see but this body in such maner as you see it or in such like termes you shall not eate But to eate Christes flesh sayth S. Augustine is fructifully to remember that the same flesh was crucified for vs. And this is spiritually to eate his flesh and drincke his bloud Winchester And bicause S. Hierome who was of S. Augustines tyme writeth in his commentaries vpon S. Paule ad Ephesios that may serue for the better opening hereof I will write it in here The wordes be these The bloud and flesh of Christ is two wayes vnderstanded either the spirituall and godly of which him selfe sayd My flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drincke And vnles ye eate my flesh drincke my bloud ye shall not haue euerlasting lyfe Or the flesh which was crucified and the bloud which was shed with the spere According to this diuision the diuersity of flesh and bloud is taken in Christes sayntes that there is one flesh that shall see the saluation of God an other flesh and bloud that cannot possese the kingdome of heauen There be S. Hieromes wordes In which thou reader seest a deniall of that flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten that was crucified but the flesh geuen to be eaten to be a godly and spirituall flesh and a distinction made betwen them as is in our flesh of which it may be sayd that the flesh we walke in here shall not see God that is to say as it is corruptible according to the text of S. Paule flesh and bloud shall not possesse heauen and yet we must beleue and hope with Iobe truly that the same our flesh shall see God
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
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
the matter of the clay remayned in Adam and yet the materiall clay remayned not for it was altered into an other substance which I speake not to compare equally the forming of Adam to the Sacrament but to shew it not to be all one to say the materiall bread and the matter of bread For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread but not the materiall bread as I haue sumwhat spoken therof before but such shiftes be vsed in this matter notwithstanding the importunance of it Caunterbury WHat should I tarry much in Origene seeing that you confesse that he sayth the matter of bread remayneth and Origene sayth that the meate which is sanctified iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit that is to say as concerning the materiall parte therof goeth into the belly So that by Origens teaching both the bread and the materiall part of bread remayne So that your example of cley releueth you nothing in this your aunswer vnto Origene But when you see that this shift will not serue then you flie to an other and say that the accidentes of bread be called the matter of bread which is so shamefull a shift as all that haue any manner of knowledge may playnly see your manifest impudency But many such shiftes you vse in this matter not withstanding the importaunce of it Now let vs come to Ciprian of whome I write in this manner After Origene came Ciprian the holy martir about the yeare of our Lord 250. who writeth agaynst them that ministred this Sacrament with water onely and without wine For as much sayth he as Christ sayd I am a true vine therfore the bloud of Christ is not water but wine nor it can not be thought that his bloud wherby we be redemed and haue life is in the cup when wine is not in the cup wherby the bloud of Christ is shewed What wordes could Ciprian haue spoken more playnly to shew that the wine doth remayne than to say thus If there be no wine there is no bloud of Christ And yet he speaketh shortly after as playnly in the same Epistle Christ sayth he taking the cup blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saying Drincke you all of this for this is the bloud of the newe testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes I say vnto you that from hence forth I will not drincke of this creature of the vine vntil I shal drincke with you newe wine in the kingdome of my father By these wordes of Christ sayth S. Ciprian we perceaue that the cuppe which the Lord offered was not onely water but also wine And that it was wine that Christ called his bloud wherby it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wine in the Chalice And after it followeth How shal we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine In these wordes of S. Ciprian appeareth most manifestly that in this sacrament is not onely offered very wine that is made of grapes that come of the vine but also that we drincke the same And yet the same giueth vs to vnderstand that if we drincke that wine worthely we drincke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ which was shed for our sinnes Winchester S. Ciprians wordes do not impugne Transubstantiation for they tend onely to shew that wine is the creature appoynted to the celebration of this mistery and therfore water onely is no due matter according to Christes institution And as the name wine must be vsed before the consecration to shew the truth of it then so it may also be vsed for a name of it after to shew what it was which is often vsed And in one place of Ciprian by this author here alleadged it appeareth S. Ciprian by the word wine signifieth the heauenly wine of the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaâ—th calling it new wine and alluding therin to Dauid And this doth Cyprian shew in these wordes How shall we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice to God the father and Christ we do not offer wine Is not here mention of new wine of the creature of the vine what new wine can be but the bloud of Christ the very wine consecrate by Gods omnipotency of the creature of the vine offered And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Ciprian that as he vseth the word wine to signifie the heauenly drincke of the bloud of Christ made by consecration of the creature of wine so when he nameth the bread consecrate bread he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ who is the bread of life And so Ciprian can make nothing by those wordes agaynst Transubstantiation who writeth playnly of the change of the bread by Gods omnipotency into the flesh of Christ as shall after appeare where this author goeth about to answere to him Caunterbury CIprians wordes tend not onely to shew that wine is the creature appoynted to the celebration of the mistery but that it is also there present and dronken in the mistery For these be his wordes It cannot be thought that Christes bloud is in the cup when wine is not in the cup wherby the bloud of Christ is shewed And agayne he sayth It was wine that Christ called his bloud and that it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wine in the chalice And further he sayth How shall we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine In these wordes Ciprian sayth not that Christ is the wine which we drincke but that with Christ we drincke wine that commeth of the vine tree and that Christes bloud is not there wheÌ„ wine is not there And where is now your Transubstantiation that taketh away the wine For take away the wine and take away by Ciprians mind the blood of Christ also But least any man should stomble at Ciprians wordes where he seemeth to say that the bloud of Christ should be really in the cup he sayth nor meaneth no such thing but that it is there sacramentally or figuratiuely And his meaning needeth none other gathering but of his owne wordes that follow next after in the same sentence that by the wine the bloud of Christ is shewed And shortly after he sayth that the cup which the Lord offered was wine and that it was wine that Christ called his bloud Now come we to Emissen your principall stay in whome is your chiefe glory Of him thus I write Eusebius Emissenus a man of singuler fame in learning about CCC yeares after Christes ascention did in few wordes set out this matter so playnly both how the bread and wine be conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ and yet
similitude of the body and bloud of Christ so by and by he calleth the Sacrament the image of Christ. And here the wordes image and similitude expresse the manner of presence of the truth of the thinges represented to be vnderstanded onely by fayth as inuisibly present And S. Ambrose by this word image signifieth the exhibition of truth to man in this life And to shew the Sacrament to be such an image as contayneth the very truth of the thing wherof it is the image Gelasius declareth in framing his argument in these wordes As bread and wine go into the diuine substance the holy ghost bringing it to passe and yet remayne in the property of their nature so that principall mistery those natures remayning wherof it is declare vnto vs true and whole Christ to continue In these wordes of Gelasius where hee sayth the bread and wine goe into the diuine substaunce is playnly declared the presence of the diuine substaunce and this diuine substaunce can signifie none other substaunce but of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche heauenly nature and earthly nature of the bread and wine consisteth this Sacrament the Image of the principall mistery of Christes person And therefore as in the Image bee two diuers natures and different remayning in their property So likewise in the person of Christ whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argument should remayne two natures And here were a great daunger if we should say that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacrament were there present but in a figure for it should then imply that in Christes person the principall mistery it were also but in a figure And therefore as in the mistery of Christes person ordayned to redeeme vs beyng the principall mistery there is no figure but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures whereof Christ is So in the Sacrament being a mistery ordered to feede vs and the image of that principall mistery there is not an onely figure but truth of the presence of the natures earthly and celestiall I speake of the truth of the presence and meane such an integrity of the natures present as by the rules of our fayth is consonant and agreable to that mistery that is to say in the person of Christ perfect God and perfect man perfect God to be incarnate and perfect man to be deitate as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it In the Sacrament the visible matter of the earthly creature in his propriety of nature for the vse of signification is necessarily required and also according to the truth of Christ his wordes his very body and bloud to be inuisibly with integrity present which Gelasius calleth the diuine substance And I thinke it worthy to be noted that Gelasius speaking of the bread and wine reciteth not precisely the substance to remayne but sayth the substance or nature which nature he calleth after the propriety and the disiunctiue may be verified in the last And it is not necessary the examples to be in all partes equall as Rusticus Diaconus handleth it very learnedly ConiraAcephalos And Gelasius in opening the mistery of the Sacrament speaketh of transition of the bread and wine into the godly substance which word transition is meete to expresse Transubstantiation and therfore S. Thomas expressed Transubstantiation with the same word transire writing Dogma datur Christianis quod in carnem transit panis venū in sanguinem But in the mistery of Christes person there is no trāsition of the Deitie into the humanitie or humanitie into the Deitie but onely Assumptiō of the humanity with the adunation of those two perfect natures so different one person one Christ who is God incarnate and man Deitate as Gregory Nazianzene sayth without mutation cōuersion transition transelementation or transubstātiation which wordes be proper and speciall to expresse how Eucharistia is constitute of two different natures an heauenly and earthly nature a mystery institute after the exāple of the principall mystery wherwith to féede vs with the substaūce of the same glorious body that hath redéemed vs. And bicause in the constitution of this mystery of the Sacrament there is a transition of the earthly creature into the diuine substaunce as Gelasius and S. Thomas terme it and mutation as Cypriā and Ambrose teach it which Theophilactus expresseth by the word transelementation Emissen by the word conuersion and all their wordes reduced into their owne proper sence expressed in one word of transubstantiation it can not be conuenient where the maner of constitution of the two mysteries be so different there to require a lyke remainyng of the two natures wherof the mysteries be In the mystery of Christes person bycause there was not of any of the two different natures either mutation transition conuersion or transelementation but onely assumption of the humanitie and adunation in the virgins wombe we can not say the Godhead to haue suffered in that mystery which were an absurditie but to haue wrought the assumption and adunation of mans nature with it nor mans nature by that assumption and adunation diminished and therfore professe truly Christ to be whole God and whole man and God in that mystery to be made man and man God where as in the Sacrament bicause of trāsition mutation and conuersion of their earthly creatures wrought by the holy ghost which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conuersion mutation and transition we knowledge no assumptiō of those creatures or adunation with the heauenly nature and therfore say not as we do in the principall mystery that ech nature is wholly the other and as we professe God incarnate so the body of Christ breaded and as man is Deitate so the bread is corporate which we should say if the rules of our faith could permit the constitution of ech mystery to be taught a lyke whiche the truth of Gods word doth not suffer Wherfore although Gelasius and other argue from the Sacrament to declare the mystery of Christes person yet we may not presse the Argument to destroy or confounde the propertie of ech mystery and so violate the rules of our fayth and in the authors not presse the wordes otherwise then they may agrée with the Catholique teachyng as those did in the wordes of Cyrill when he spake of nature and subsistence wherof I made mētion before to be remembred here in Gelasius that we presse not the word substaunce and nature in him but as may agree with the transition he speaketh of by which word other expresse transubstantiation And agaynst the Eutichians for to improue their confusion it suffiseth to shew two different natures to be in the Sacrament and to remaine in their proprietie and the diuine nature not to confound the earthly nature nor as it were to swalow it which was the dreame of the Eutichiās And we must forbeare to presse all partes of the example in the other Argument from the person of man beyng
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