so no certayntie of any true body to be in Christ This reason had been more fitte to be made by a man that had lost both his witte and reason For in this place Tertullian must needes be so vnderstand that by the body of Christ is vnderstand the figure of his body because Tertullian so expoundeth it him selfe And must it be always so bicause it is here so Must euer Christes body be taken for a figure bicause it is here taken for a figure as Tertullian sayth Haue you so forgotten your Logike that you will make a good argument à particulari ad vniuersale By your owne manner of argumentation bicause you make a naughty argumēt here in this place shall I conclude that you neuer make none good Surely this place of Tertullian as you haue handled it is neither secret nor manifest poynt eyther of learning witte or reason but a meere sophistication if it be no worse What other papistes haue aunswered to this place of Tertullian I am not ignoraunt nor I am sure you be not so ignoraunt but you know that neuer none aunswered as you do But your answer varieth as much from all other papists as yours theyrs also do varie from the truth Here the reader may note by the way how many fowle shiftes you make to auoyd the saying of Tertullian First you say that bread was a figure in the prophets mouth but not in Christes wordes Second that the thing which the prophet spake of was not that which Christ spake of Third that other haue aunswered this place of Tertullian before Forth that you call this matter but a wrangling argument Fift that if Tertulian call bread a figure yet he termeth it not onely figure These be your shiftes Now let the reader looke vpon Tertullians playn wordes whyche I haue rehearsed in my booke and then let him iudge whether you meane to declare Tertullians mynd truely or no. And it is not requiset for my purpose to proue that bread is onely a figure for I take vpon me there to proue no more but that the bread is a figure representing Christes body and the wine his bloud And if breade be a figure and not onely a figure than must you make bread both the figure and the truth of the figure Now heare what other authors I do here alleadge And saynt Ciprian the holy marter sayth of this matter that Christs bloud is shewed in the wine and the people in the water that is mixt with the wine so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spirituall commixtion and ioyning of vs vnto Christ. By which similitude Ciprian ment not that the bloud of Christ is wine or the people water but as the water doeth signifie and represent the people so doeth the wine signify and represent Christs bloud and the vniting of the water and wine together signifieth the vniting of Christian people vnto Christ himselfe And the same saynt Ciprian in an other place writing here of sayth that Christ in his last supper gaue to his apostles with his owne handes bread and wine which he called his flesh and bloud but in the crosse he gaue his very body to be wounded with the handes of the souldiours that the apostles might declare to the world how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and bloud of Christ. And the manner he straight wayes declareth thus that those things which do signifye and those thinges which be signified by them may be both called by one name Here it is certain by saynt Ciprians mind wherfore and in what wise bread is called Christes flesh and wine his bloud that is to say because that euery thing that representeth and signifieth an other thing may be called by the name of thing which it signifieth And therfore Saynt Iohn Chrisostom sayth that Christ ordayned the table of his holy supper for this purpose that in that sacramēt he should dayly shew vnto vs bread and wine for a similitude of his body and bloud Saynt Hierom likewise sayth vpon the gospell of Mathew that Christ took bread which comforteth mans hart that he mght represent thereby his very body and bloud Also Saynt Ambrose if the booke be his that is intituled De his qui misterijs initianter sayth that before the consecration an other kind is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified Christ sayd his bloud beefore the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration is signified the bloud of Christ. And in his booke De sacramentis if that be also his he writeth thus Thou doost receiue the sacrament for a similitud of the flesh and bloud of Christ but thou doost obtayne the grace and vertue of his true nature And receiuing the bread in that foode thou art partaker of his godly substaunce And in the same booke he sayth As thou hast in baptisme reciued the similitude of death so likewise dost thou in the sacramēt drink the similitude of Christes precious bloud And agayne he sayeth in the sayd booke The priest sayth Make vnto vs this oblation to be acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ. And vpon the epistle of Saynt Paule to the Corinthians he sayth that in eating and drinking the bread and wine we doe signifie the flesh and bloud which were offered for vs. And the olde tastament he sayeth was instituted in bloud because that bloud was a witnes of gods benefite in signification and figure wherof we take the mistical cup of his bloud to the tuitiō of our body soule Of these places of saynt Chrisostom saynt Hierom and saynt Ambrose it is cleare that in the sacramentall bread and wine is not rially and corporally the very naturall substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ but that the bread and wine be similitudes misteries and representations significations sacramentes figures and signes of his body and bloud and therfore be called and haue the name of his very body flesh and bloud Winchester Ciprian shal be touched after when we speake of him agayn Chrisostom shall open himselfe hereafter playnly Saynt Hierom speaketh here very pithely vsing the word represent which signifieth a true reall exhibision for saynt Hierom speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an onely figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure the inuisible part is a truth which saynt Hierom sayth is here represented that is to say made present which onely signification doth not Saynt Ambrose shall after declare himselfe and it is not denied but the authors in speaking of the sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude token but those speaches exclude not the veritie and truth of the body and bloud of Christ for no approued author hath this exclution to say an onely signe an only token an
like speaches which were not vnderstande of the very things but only of the images of them So doth S. Ihon Chrisostom say that we see Christ with our eyes touch hym feele him and grope him with our handes fixe our teeth in his flesh taste it breake it eate it and digest it make redde our tongues and dye them with his bloud and swallow it and drincke it And in a Catechisme by me translated and set forth I vsed like maner of speach saying that with our bodily mouthes we receaue the body and bloud of Christ. Which my saying diuers ignorant persons not vsed to reade olde auncient authors nor acquanted with theyr phraâ—â— and manner of speach dyd carpe and reprehend for lacke of good vnderstanding For this speach and other before rehersed of Chrisostom and all other like be not vnderstaÌ„d of the very flesh and bloud of our sauiour Christ which in very deede we neither feele nor see but that which we doe to the bread and wine by a figuratiue speach is spoken to be done to the flesh and bloud bicause they be the very signes figures and tokens instituted of Christ to represent vnto vs his very flesh and bloud And yet as with our corporall eyes corporall handes and mouthes we do corporally see feele tast and eate the bread and drincke the wine being the signe and sacrameÌ„ts of Christes body euen so with our spirituall eyes handes and mouthes we do spiritually see feele taste and eate his very flesh and drincke his very bloud As Eusebus Emissenus sayth Whan thou comest to the reuerend aulter to be filled with spiritual meates with thy fayth looke vpoÌ„ the body bloud of him that is thy God honor him touch him with thy mynd take him with the hand of thy hart and drincke him with the draught of thine inward man And these spirituall thinges require no corporall presence of Christ himselfe who sitteth continually in heauen at the right hand of his Father And as this is most true so is it full and sufficient to answere all thinges that the Papistes can bring in this matter that hath any apparaÌ„ce for their partie Winchester And yet these playne places of authority dissembled of purpose or by ignoraunce passed ouer this author as though all thinges were by him clerely discussed to his entent would by many conceptes furnish and further his matters and therfore playeth with our Ladyes smiling rocking her Child and many good mowes so vnsemely for his person as it maketh me almost forget him and my selfe also But with such matter he filleth his leaues and forgetting him selfe maketh mention of the Catechisme by him translate the originall wherof confuteth these two partes of this booke in few wordes being Printed in Germany wherin besides the matter written is set forth in picture the manner of the minestring of this sacrament where is the aulter with candle light set forth the priest apparaled after the old sort and the man to receaue kneling bare-head and holding vp his handes whiles the priest ministreth the host to his mouth a matter as cleare contrary to the matter of this Booke as is light and darkenesse which now this Author would colour with speaches of authors in a boke written to instruct rude children which is as sclender an excuse as euer was heard and none at all when the originall is loked one Emissene to stire vp mens deuotion comming to receaue this sacrament requireth the roote and foundation therof in the mynd of man as it ought to be and therfore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with the hand of the hart and drincke with the draught of the inward man which men needes do that will worthely repayre to this feast And as Emissen speaketh these deuout wordes of the inward office of the receiuer so doth he in declaration of the mistery shew how the inuisible priest with his secret power by his word doth conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud wherof I haue before intreated The author vpon these wordes deuoutly spoken by Emissen sayth there is required no corporall precense of Christes precious body in the sacrament continuing in his ignorance what the woord Corporall meaneth But to speake of Emissene if by his fayth the very body and bloud of Christ were not present vpon the aultar why doth he call it a reuerend aultar Why to be fed there with spirituall meat and why should fayth be required to looke vpon the body bloud of Christ that is not there on the aultar but as this Author teacheth onely in heauen And why should he that cometh to be fedde honor these misteries there And why should Emissene allude to the hand of the hart and draught of the inward man if the hand of the body and draught of the outward man had none office there All this were vaine eloquence and a mere abuse and illusion if the sacramental tokens were only a figure And if there were no presence but in figure why should not Emissen rather haue followed the playne speach of the angell to the women that sought Christ Iesum queritis non est hic Ye seeke Iesus he is not here and say as this author doeth this is onely a figure do no worship here goe vp to heauen and downe with the aulter for feare of illusion which Emissen did not but called it a reuerend alter and inuiteth him that should receiue to honour that foode with such good wordes as before so far discrepant from this authors teaching as may be yet froÌ„ him he taketh occasioÌ„ to speake agaynst adoratioÌ„ Caunterbury HErefor lacke of good matter to answere you fall agayne to your accustomed maner tryfling away the matter with mocking and mowing But if you thought your doctrine good and myne erronious and had a zeale to the truth and to quiet mens conciences you should haue made a substanciall and learned answere vnto my wordes For daliyng and playing scoulding and mowing make no quietnes in mens consciences And all men that know your conditions know right well that if you had good matter to answere you would not haue hid it and passed ouer the matter with such trifles as you vse in this place And S. Ihon Chrisostom you scip ouer eyther as you saw him not or as you cared not how sclenderly you left the matter And as coÌ„cerning the Catechisme I haue sufficiently answered in my former booke But in this place may apeare to them that haue any iudgement what pithy arguments you make and what dexteritie you haue in gathering of authors myndes that would gather my mynd and make an argument here of a picture neyther put in my booke nor by me deuised but inuented by some fond paynter or caruer which paynt and graue whatsoeuer theyr idle heades can fansy You should rather haue gathered your argument vpon the other side that I mislike the matter bycause I left out of my booke the
with whose burnyng and bloud his handes had bene before any thyng polluted But especially he had to reioyce that dying in such a cause hee was to be numbred amongest Christes Martyrs much more worthy the name of S. Thomas of Caunterbury then he whom the Pope falsely before did Canonise The end of Cranmers lyfe Archb. of Cant. The burnyng of the Archbyshop of Canterbury Doct. Cranmer in the Townedich at Oxford thrustyng his hand first into the fire flame wherewith he had subscribed A craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by M. Steuen Gardiner Doctor of Law late Bishop of Winchester against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ called by him An explication assertion therof with an aunswer vnto the same made by the most reuerend father in God Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitane The title of the booke of Steuen Gardiner late Bishop of Winchester ¶ An Explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth touching the most blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutation of a booke written against the same ¶ The aunswer of Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury c. HERE before the beginning of your booke you haue prefixed a goodly title but it agreeth with the argument and matter therof as water agreeth with the fire For your booke is so farre from an explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth in the matter of the sacrament that it is but a crafty cauillation and subtile sophisticatiō to obscure the truth therof and to hyde the same that it should not appeare And in your whole booke the reader if he marke it wel shal easily perceiue how little learning is shewed therin and how few authors you haue alleadged other then such as I brought forth in my booke and made aunswer vnto but there is shewed what may be done by fine wit and new deuises to deceiue the reader and by false interpretations to auoyde the plain wordes of scripture and of the old authors Wherfore in as much as I purpose God willing in this defēce of my former book not only to aunswer you but by the way also to touch D. Smith two things I would wish in you both The one is truth with simplicitie the other is that either of you both had so much learning as you think you haue or els that you thought of your selfe no more then you haue in dede but to aūswer both your bokes in few words that one sheweth nothing els but what rayling without reason or learning the other what frowardnes armed with wit and eloquence be able to do against the truth And Smith because he would be vehement and shew his heat in the maner of speach where the matter is cold hath framed in a maner all his sentēces through out his whole booke by interrogations But if the reader of both your bookes do no more but diligently read ouer my booke once agayn he shal fynde the same not so slenderly made but that I haue foreseene all that could be sayd to the contrary and that I haue fully aunswered before hand all that you both haue sayd or is able to say Winchester FOrasmuch as amonge other myne allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued against me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kinges most excellent maiestie touching partly the catholike fayth of the most precious sacrament of the aulter which I see now impugned by a booke set forth vnder the name of my lord of Canterburies grace I haue thought expedient for the better opening of the matter and considering I am by name touched in the sayd booke the rather to vtter partly that I haue to say by confutation of that booke wherin I thinke neuerthelesse not requisite to direct any speach by speciall name to the person of him that is entituled author because it may possible he that his name is abused wherwith to set forth the matter beyng himselfe of such dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which consideration I shal in my speach of such reproofe as the vntruth of the matter necessarily requireth omitting the speciall title of the author of the booke speake onely of the author in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be meruayled at that such matter should now be published out of my lord of Canterburies pen but because he is a man I will not wonder and because he is such a man I will reuerently vse him and forbearing further to name him talke only of the author by that general name Caunterbury THe first entrie of your booke sheweth to them that be wise what they may looke for in the rest of the same except the beginning vary from all that followeth Now the beginning is framed with such sleight subtletie that it may deceiue the reader notably in two thinges The one that he should thinke you were called into iudgement before the kinges maiesties commissioners at Lamhith for your catholike faith in the Sacrament The other that you made your booke for your defence therein which be both vtterly vntrue For your booke was made or euer ye were called before the said commissioners and after you were called then you altered only two lines in the beginning of your booke and made that beginning which it hath now This am I able to proue as well otherwise as by a booke which I haue of your owne hand writing wherin appeareth plainly the alteration of the beginning And as concerning the cause wherfore ye were called before the Commissioners whereas by your owne importune sute and procurement and as it were enforcing the matter you were called to iustice for your manifest contempt and continuall disobedience from tyme to tyme or rather rebellion against the kinges maiestie and were iustly depriued of your estate for the same you would turne it now to a matter of the sacrament that the world should thinke your trouble rose for your fayth in the sacrament which was no matter nor occasion therof nor no such matter was obiected against you wherfore you nede to make any such defence And where you would make that matter the occasion of your worthy depriuation and punishment which was no cause therof and cloke your wilfull obstinacie and disobedience which was the onely cause therof all mē of iudgement may well perceiue that you could meane no goodnes therby neither to the kinges maiestie nor to his realme But as touching the matter now in controuersie I impugn not the true catholike faith which was taught by Christ and his Apostles as you say I do but I impugne the false Papisticall faith inuented deuised and imagined by Antichrist and his ministers And as for further forbearing of my name and talking of the Author in generall after that you haue named me once and your whole booke is directed against my booke openly set out in my
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
neighboures and cause him to put out of his hart all enuy hatred and malice and to graue in the same all amity frendshippe and concord he deceaueth him selfe if he thinke that he hath the spirite of Christ dwelling within him But all these foresayd godly admonitions exhortations and comforts doe the Papistes as much as lyeth in them take away from all christen people by their transubstantiation For if we receaue no bread nor wine in the holy Communion then all these lessons and comfortes be gone which we should learne and receaue by eating of the bread and drinking of the wine and that fantasticall imagination geueth an occasion vtterly to subuert our wholl faith in Christ. For seeing that this Sacrament was ordeyned in bread and wine which be foodes for the body to signifie and declare vnto vs our spirituall foode by Christ then if our corporal feeding vpon the bread and wine be but fantasticall so that there is no bread nor wine there in deede to feede vpon although they appeare there to be then it doth vs to vnderstand that our spirituall feeding in Christ is also fantastical and that in deede we feede not of him which sophistry is so deuilish and wicked and so much iniurious to Christ that it could not come from any other person but only from the Deuill himselfe and from his specyall minister Antichrist The eight thing that is to be noted is that this spiritual meat of Christs body and bloud is not receaued in the mouth and digested in the stomack as corporall meates and drinkes commonly be but it is receaued with a pure hart and a sincere fayth And the true eating and drinking of the said body and bloud of Christ is with a constant and liuely faith to beleeue that Christ gaue his body and shed his bloud vpon the crosse for vs and that he doth so ioyne and incorporate him selfe to vs that he is our head and we his members and flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones hauing him dwelling in vs we in him And herein standeth the wholl effecte and strength of this Sacrament And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hartes by his holy Spirit confirmeth the same outwardly to our eares by hearing of his worde and to our other sences by eating and drinking of the Sacramentall bread and wine in his holy Supper What thing then can be more comfortable to vs then to eate this meate drinke this drinke whereby Christ certifieth vs that we be spiritually truely fed and nourished by him and that we dwell in him and he in vs. Can this be shewed vnto vs more plainly then when he sayth him selfe He that eateth me shall liue by me Wherefore who so euer doth not contemne the euerlasting life how can he but highly esteeme this Sacrament how can he but imbrace it as a sure pledge of his saluation And when he seeth godly people deuoutly receaue the same how can he but be desirous oftentimes to receaue it with them Surely no man that well vnderstandeth and diligently wayeth these thinges can be without a great desire to come to this holy Supper All men desire to haue Gods fauour and when they know the contrary that they be in his indignation and cast out of his fauour what thing can comfort them how be their minds vexed what trouble is in their consciences all Gods creatures seeme to be against them and doe make them afrayd as thinges being ministers of Gods wrath and indignation towardes them and rest or comforte can they finde none neither within them nor without them And in this case they doe hate as well God as the Deuill God as an vnmercifull and extreeme Iudge and the Deuill as a most malicious and cruell tormentor And in this sorrowfull heauines holy Scripture teacheth them that our heauenly Father can by no meanes be pleased with thē again but by the Sacrifice and death of his only begotten Sonne whereby God hath made a perpetuall amity and peace with vs doth pardon the sinnes of them that beleue in him maketh them his children and geueth them to his first begotten Sonne Christ to be incorporate into him to be saued by him and to be made heires of heauen with him And in the receauing of the holy Supper of our Lord we be put in remembrance of this his death and of the wholl mistery of our redemption In the which Supper is made mention of his testament and of the aforesaid communion of vs with Christ and of the remission of our sinnes by his Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Wherfore in this Sacrament if it be rightly receaued with a true faith we be assured that our sinnes be forgiuen and the league of peace and the Testament of God is confirmed betwene him and vs so that who so euer by a true fayth doth eate Christs flesh and drink his bloud hath euerlasting life by him Which thing whē we feele in our hartes at the receauing of the Lords supper what thing can be more ioyfull more pleasaunt or more comfortable vnto vs. All this to be true is most certayne by the wordes of Christ him selfe whē he did first institute his holy Supper the night before hys death as it appeareth as well by the wordes of the Euangelistes as of S. Paule Do this sayth Christ as often as you drinke it in remembraunce of me And S. Paule sayth As often as you eate this bread and drinke this cup you shall shew the Lordes death vntill he come And agayne Christ sayd This cup is a newe testament in myne own bloud which shall be shed for the remission of sinnes This doctrine here recyted may suffice for all that be humble and Godlye and seeke nothing that is superfluous but that is necessary and profitable And therfore vnto such persons may be made here an ende of this booke But vnto them that be contentious Papistes and Idolaters nothing is inough And yet because they shall not glory in their subtill inuentions and deceiuable doctrine as though no man were able to aunswere them I shall desire the readers of patience to suffer me a litle while to spende some time in vayne to confute their most vaine vanities And yet the time shal not be al together spent in vain for thereby shall more clearely appeare the light from the darcknes the truth from false sophisticall subtilties and the certaine worde of God from mens dreames and phantasticall inuentions ALthough I neede make no further aunswere but the rehearsall of my wordes yet thus much will I aunswere that where you say that I speake some wordes by the way not tollerable if there had bene any suche they should not haue fayled to be expressed and named to their reproche as other haue bene Wherfore the reader may take a day with you before he beleue you when you reproue me for vsing some intollerable wordes and in conclusion name not one of them And as
call the faith of the Church which teacheth not say you that Christ is in the bread and wine but vnder the formes of bread and wine But to aunswere you I say that the Papists do teach that Christ is in the visible signes and whether they list to call them bread and wine or the formes of bread and wine all is one to me for the truth is that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine nor in or vnder the formes figures of them but is corporally in heauen and spiritually in his liuelye members which be his tēples where he inhabiteth And what vntrue reporte is this when I speake of bread and wine to the Papistes to speak of them in the fame sence that the Papistes meane taking bread and wine for the formes and accidences of bread and wine And your selfe also doe teach to vnderstand by the bread and wine not their substances but accidentes And what haue I offended then in speaking to you after your own māner of speach which your self doth approue and allow by and by after saying these wordes As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name If a Catholick man forbeareth not that name and Catholick men be true men then true men forbeare not that name And why then charge you me with an vntruth for vsing that name which you vse your selfe and affirme Catholicke men to vse But that you be geuen altogether to finde faultes rather in other then to amend your own and to reprehend that in me which you allow in your selfe and other and purposely will not vnderstand my meaning because ye would seeke occasion to carpe and controll For els what man is so simple that readeth my booke but he may know well that I meane not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine For I know that you say ther is nether bread nor wine although you say vntruely therein but yet for as much as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine and say that in them is Christ therfore I reporte of you that you say Christ is in the bread and wine meaning as you take bread and wine the accidentes thereof Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent Reader of my booke then you in this place who vnderstoode my wordes as I meante and as the Papistes vse and therefore would not purposely calūniate and reprehend that was well spoaken But there is no man so dull as he that will not vnderstand For men know that your witte is of as good capacitie as D. Smithes is if your will agreed to the same But as for any vntrue reporte made by me herein willingly against my conscience as you vntruely report of me by that time I haue ioyned with you throughout your booke you shall right well perceiue I trust that I haue sayd nothing wittingly but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day in the sight of the euerliuing God and that I am able before any learned and indifferent iudges to iustifie by holy Scriptures and the auncient Doctors of Christes church as I will appeale the consciences of all godly men that be any thing indifferent ready to yealde to the truth when they reade and consider my booke And as concerning the forme of doctrine vsed in this church of Englād in the holy Communiō that the body and bloud of Christ be vnder the formes of bread and wine whē you shall shew the place where this forme of words is expressed then shall you purge your selfe of that which in the meane time I take to be a plain vntruth Now for the second parte of the difference you graunt that our doctrine is true that Christ is in them that worthely eate and drunke the bread and wine and if it differ not from youres then let it passe as a thing agreed vpon by both partes And yet if I would captiously gather of your wordes I could as well prooue by this second parte that very bread and wine be eatē and drunken after consecration as you could prooue by the first that Christ is in the very bread and wine And if a Catholick man call the bread wine as you say in the second parte of the difference what ment you then in the first parte of this difference to charge me with so hainous a crime with a note to the Reader as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost because I said that the Papistes doe teach that Christ is in the bread and wine doe not you affirme here yourselfe the same that I reporte that the Papistes which you call the Catholickes doe not forbeare to call the Sacrament wherein they put the reall and corporall presence bread and wine Let the Reader now iudge whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the successe of them that study to wrangle in wordes without any respecte of opening the truth But letting that matter passe yet we vary from you in this difference For we say not as you doe that the body of Christ is corporally naturally and carnally either in the bread and wine or formes of bread and wine or in them that eate and drinke thereof But we say that he is corporally in heauen onely and spiritually in them that worthely eate and drink the bread and wine But you make an article of the faith which the olde Church neuer beleeued nor heard of And where you note in this second parte of the difference a sleight and crafte as you note an vntruth in the first euen as much crafte is in the one as vntruth in the other being neither sleight nor vntruth in either of both But this sleight say you I vse putting that for a difference wherein is no difference at all but euery Catholick man must needes confesse Yet once againe there is no man so deafe as he that will not heare nor so blinde as he that will not see nor so dul as he that wil not vnderstand But if you had indifferent eares indifferent eyes and indifferent iudgement you might well gather of my wordes a plain and manifest difference although it be not in such tearmes as contenteth your mind But because you shall see that I meane no sleight nor crafte but goe plainly to worke I shall set out the difference truely as I ment and in such your own tearmes as I trust shall content you if it be possible Let this therfore be the difference They say that Christ is corporally vnder or in the formes of bread and wine We say that Christ is not there neither corporally nor spiritually but in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine he is spiritually and corporally in heauen Here I trust I haue satisfied as well the vntrue report wittingly made as you say in the first parte of the difference against my conscience as the crafte and sleight vsed
the iudgement of the liuing childe may discerne the very true mother from the other that is to say who plainly entend the true childe to continue aliue and who could be content to haue it be destroyed by deuision God of his infinite mercy haue pitie on vs and graunt the true faith of this holy mistery vniformely to be conceiued in our vnderstandinges and in one forme of wordes to be vttered and preached which in the booke of common prayer is well tearmed not distant from the Catholick faith in my iudgement Caunterbury YOu haue so perused these differences that you haue made more difference then euer was before for where before there were no more but two partes the true catholick doctrine and the papisticall doctrine now come you in with your new fantasticall inuentions agreeing with neither part but to make a song of three partes you haue deuised a new voluntary descant so farre out of tune that it agreeth neither with the tenor nor mean but maketh such a shamefull iarre that godly eares abhorre to heare it For you haue taught such a doctrine as neuer was written before this time aud vttered therein so many vntruthes and so many strange sayinges that euery indifferent Reader may easely discern that the true christen faith in this matter is not to be sought at your handes And yet in your own writinges appeareth some thing to confirme the truth quite against your own enterprise which maketh me haue some hope that after my answere heard we shall in the principall matter no more striue for the child seeing that your selfe haue confessed that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present with vs. And there is good hope that God shall prosper this child to liue many yeares seeing that now I trust you will help to foster and nourish it vp as well as I. And yet if diuisyon may shew a stepmother then be not you the true mother of the child which in the Sacrament make so many diuisions For you deuide the substances of bread and wine from their proper accidences the substances also of Christes flesh and bloud from their own accidences and Christes very flesh Sacramentally from his very bloud although you ioyne them again per concomitantiam and you deuide the sacrament so that the priest receaueth both the Sacrament of Christs body and of his bloud and the lay people as you call them receiue no more but the sacrament of his body as though the sacrament of his bloud and of our redemption pertayned onely to the priestes And the cause of our eternall life aud saluation you deuide in such sort betweene Christ and the priest that you attribute the beginning therof to the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and the continuance therof you attribute to the sacrifice of the priest in the masse as you doe write plainly in your last booke Oh wicked Stepmothers that so deuide Christ his Sacramentes and his people After the differences followeth the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters of my book which you binde as it were all together in one fardel and cast them quite away by the figure which you call reiection not answering one word to any Scripture or olde wryter which I haue there alleadged for the defence of the truth But because the Reader may see the matter plainly before his eyes I shall heare rehearse my words againe and ioyne thereto your answere My wordes be these Now to returne to the principall matter lest it might be thought a new deuise of vs that Christ as concerning his body and his humaine nature is in heauen and not in earth therefore by Gods grace it shal be euidently proued that this is no new deuised matter but that it was euer the olde fayth of the catholicke Church vntill the Papistes inuented a new fayth that Christ really corporally naturally and sensibly is here still with vs in earth shutte vp in a boxe or within the compasse of bread and wine This needeth no better nor stronger proofe then that which the olde authors bryng for the same that is to say the generall profession of all Christen people in the common creede wherein as concerning Christes humanitye they be taught to beleeue after this sort That he was conceiued by the holy Ghost borne of the virgin Mary That he suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Was crucified dead aud buried that he decended into hel and rose againe the third day That he ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his almighty Father And from thence shal come to iudge the quick and dead This hath beene euer the catholick faith of Christen people that Christ as concerning his body and his manhode is in heauen and shall there continue vntill he come down at the last iudgement And for as much as the Creede maketh so expresse mention of the Article of his ascention and departing hence from vs if it had been an other article of our faith that his body taryeth also here with vs in earth surely in this place of the Creede was so vrgent an occasion geuen to make some mention thereof that doubtlesse it would not haue been passed ouer in our Creede with silence For if Christ as concerning his humanity be both here and gone hence and both those two be articles of our faith when mention was made of the one in the Creede it was necessary to make mention of the other least by professing the one we should be disswaded from beleeuing the other being so contrary the one to the other To this article of our Creed accordeth holy Scripture and all the old auncyent doctors of Christes church for Christ him self sayd I leaue the world and goe to my father And also he sayd you shall euer haue poore folkes with you but you shall not euer haue me with you And he gaue warning of this error before hand saying that the time would come when many deceauers should be in the world and say Here is Christ and there is Christ but beleue them not said Christ. And S. Mark wryteth in the last chapter of his gospell that the Lord Iesus was taken vp into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father And S. Paul exhorteth all men to seeke for thinges that be aboue in heauen where Christ saith he sitteth at the right hand of God his father Also he saith that we haue such a bishoppe that sitteth in heauen at the right hand of the throne of Gods maiesty And that he hauing offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth continually at the right hand of God vntill his enemies be put vnder his feete as a footstoole And hereunto consent all the olde doctors of the church First Origen vpon Mathew reasoneth this matter how Christ may be called a stranger that is departed into another countrey seeing that he is with vs alway vnto the worldes end aud is among all them that be gathered together in his name and
ease it with other wordes of calling beleuing reputing and esteming and for adoration reuerence Consider what prayse this author geueth Theodoret which prayse condemneth this author sore For Theodoret in his doctrine would haue vs beleue the mistery and adore the sacrament where this author after in his doctrine professeth there is nothing to be worshiped at all If one should now say to me Yea syr but this Theodoret semeth to condemne transubstantiation bicause he speaketh so of the bread Therunto shall be answered when I speake of transubstantiation which shall be after the iij. and iiij booke discussed For before the truth of the presence of the substance of Christes body may appeare what should we talke of transubstantiation I will trauayle no more in Theodoret but leaue it to thy iudgment reader what credite this author ought to haue that handleth the mater after this sorte Canterbury THis blader is so puffed vp with wind that it is maruayll it brasteth not Bnt be patient a while good reader and suffer vntill the blast of wind be past and thou shalt see a great calme the bladder broken and nothing in it but all vanitie Ther is no difference betwene your translation and mine sauing that myne is more playne and geueth lesse occasion of errour and youres as all your doinges be is darke and obscure and conteineth in it no little prouocation to Idolatrie For the wordes of Theodoret after your interpretation contayne both a playne vntruth and also manifest idolatry for the signes and tokens which he speaketh of be the very fourmes and substances of bread and wine For the nominatiue case to the verb of adoring in Theodoret is not the body and bloud of Christ but the misticall tokens by your owne translation which misticall tokens if you will haue to be the very body and bloud of Christ what can be spoken more vntrue or more folish And if you will haue them to be worshiped with godly worship what can be greater Idolatry Wherfore I to eschew such occasious of errour haue translated the wordes of Theodoretus faythfully and truly as his mynd was and yet haue auoyded all occasions of euill for tanquam or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not the truth as you say but is an aduerbe of similitude as it is likewise in this place of S. Paul Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam sint For S. Paul sayth asthough they were Which indede were not as he sayd the next word before non sunt they be not And neuerthelesse vnto God all thinges be present and those thinges which in their nature be not yet present vnto God were euer present in whome be not these successions of tyme before and after for Christ the Lambe in his present was slayne before the world began and a thousand yeare to his eyes be but as it were yesterday and one day before him is as it were a thousand yeare and a thousand yeare as one day And if you had read and considered a saying of Saynt Augustine De doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 9. you myght haue vnderstand this place of The odoret better than you do He serueth vnder a signe sayth Augustine who worketh or worshipeth any signe not knowing what it signifieth But he that worketh or worshipeth a profitable signe ordayned of God the strength and signification wherof he vnderstandeth he worshipeth not that which is seene and is transitory but rather that thing wherto all such signes ought to be referred And anon after he sayth further At this tyme when our Lord Iesus Christ is risen we haue a most manifest argument of our fredome and be not burdeined with the heauy yoke of signes which we vnderstand not but the Lord and the teaching of his Apostles hath geuē to vs a few signes for many and those most ease to be done most exellent in vnderstanding and in performing most pure as the sacrament of baptisme and the celebration of the body and bloud of our Lord which euery man when he receiueth knoweth wherunto they be referred being taught that he worship not them with a carnall bondage but rather with a spirituall fredom And as it is a vile bondage to follow the letter and to take the signes for the thinges signified by them so to interpret the signes to no profit is an errour that shewdly spreadeth abroad These wordes of Saynt Augustine being conferred with the wordes of Theodoret may declare playnly what Theodoretes meaning was For where he sayth that we may not worship with a carnall bondage the visible signes meaning of water in baptisme and of bread and wine in the holy communion when we receaue the same but rather ought to worship the thinges wherunto they be referred he ment that although those signes or sacraments of water bread and wine ought highly to be estemed and not to be taken as other common water bakers bread or wine in the tauern but as signes dedicated consecrated and referred to an holy vse and by those erthly thinges to represent thinges celestiall yet the very true honor and worship ought to be geuē to the celestial things which by the visible signes be vnderstād not to the visible signes themselues And neuertheles both S. Augustine and Theodoret count it a certayn kind of worshiping the signes the reuerent esteming of them aboue other common prophane things yet the same principally to be referred to the celestial thīgs represented by the signs and therfore sayeth S. Augustin potius rathar And this worship is as wel in the sacramēt of baptisme as in the sacrament of Christs body and bloud And therfore although whosoeuer is baptised vnto Christ or eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud in his holy supper do first honor him yet is he corporally and carnally neither in the supper nor in baptisme but spiritually and effectually Now where you leaue the iudgment of Theodoret to the reader euen so do I also not doubting but the indifferent reader shall soone espy how litle cause you haue so to boast and blow out your vayne glorious wordes as you do But heare now what followeth next in my booke And meruayle not good reader that Christ at that tyme spake in figures whan he did institute that sacrament seing that it is the nature of all sacramentes to be figures And although the scripture be full of Schemes tropes and figures yet specially it vseth them whan it speaketh of sacraments When the Ark which represented Godes maiestie was come into the army of the Isralites the Philistians sayd that God was come into the army And God him selfe sayd by his prophet Nathan that from the tyme that he had brought the Children of Israell out of Egipt he dwelled not in howses but that he was caried about in tentes and tabernacles And yet was not God him selfe so caried about or went in tentes or tabernacles but bicause the arke which was a figure of God was so remoued
christian man ought to come to Christes sacraments with great feare humility fayth loue and charitie And S. Augustine sayth that the Gospell is to be receaued or heard with no lesse feare and reuerence than the body of Christ. Whose wordes be these Interrogo vos fratres sorores dicite mihi Quid vobis plus esse videtur verbum dei an corpus Christi Si vere vultis respondere hoc vtique dicere debetis quod non sit minus verbum dei quam corpus Christi Et ideo quanta solicitudine obseruamus quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur vt nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in terram cadat tanta solicitudine obseruemus ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur dum aliquid aut cogitamus aut loquimur de corde nostro pereat quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negligenter audierit quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua negligentia permiserit I ask this question of you brethren and sisterne sayth S. Augustine aunswer me Whether you think greater the word of God or the body of Christ If you will answer the truth verely you ought to say thus That the word of God is no lesse then the body of Christ. And therfore with what carefullnes we take heed when the body of Christ is ministred vnto vs that no part therof fall out of our handes on the earth with as great carefulnes let vs take heede that the word of God which is ministred vnto vs when we think or speake of vayne matters perish not out of our hartes For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be giltie of no lesse fault then he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall vpon the ground thorough his negligence This is the mynd of S. Augustine And as much we haue in Scripture for the reuerent hearing and reading of God his holy word or the neglecting therof as we haue for the sacramentes But it semeth by your penne and vtteraunce of this matter that you vnderstand not the ground and cause wherupon should arise the great feare and trembling in their hartes that come to receaue the sacramentes for you shew another consideration therof than the scripture doth For you seeme to driue all the cause of feare to the dignitie of the body of Christ there corporally present and receaued but the scripture declareth the feare to ryse of the indignitie and vnworthines of the receauers He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely threatneth Gods word eateth and drinketh his owne damnation And Centurio considering his own vnworthines was abashed to receaue Christ into his house saying Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vnder the couering of my house And the same thing made Peter afrayd to be neare vnto Christ and to say Go from me O Lord for I am a sinner And all Christian men ought not to feare tremble onely whan they receaue the sacramentes but when soeuer they heare Gods word and threatninges pronounced agaynst sinners Now as concerning the third note thou shalt see playnly good reader that here is nothing here aunswered directly but meere cauilations sought and shift to auoyde For if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound as the people did communicate with the priest as you say they do and so they do in dede and that as well in the communion of drinking as eating than eyther the people did cōmunicate with them indeede and receaued the Sacrament vnder both the kindes or else the prayers had ben false the ceremonies frustrate and in vayne And is it like that the priests in that time would haue vsed vnto God such vntrue prayers as should declare that the people did communicate with thē if indeed none did communicate with them as it should haue bene by your imagined chances and cases But it apeareth by the wordes of the Epistle that the whole multitude of the people that was present did communicate at those dayes so that the priest could not communicate alone except he would communicate whan no man was in the church But by the aunswer of this sophister here in this place thou mayst see an experience good reader whether he be as redy to see those thinges that make agaynst him as he is paynfull and studious to draw as it were by force all thinges to his purpose to make them at the least to seme to make for him although they be neuer so much agaynst him As appeareth by all these his suppositions that all the people which were prepared for should in those dayes withdraw them selues from the communion and not one of them come vnto it that the clarkes should receaue all that was prouided for the people that one clerke should receaue that which many clerkes ought to haue receaued And so in conclusiō by onely his fayned suppositions he would perswade that the priest should receaue all alone By such prety cases of the people disapoynting the priestes and of lacke of store of clerkes you might dayly finde cauilations with all godly ordenaunces For where as God ordayned the pascall lambe to be eaten vp cleane in euery house and where there were not inough in one house to eat vp the Lambe they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eate vp the hole Lambe so that nothing should remayne Here you might bring in your vpon a chance that they that lacked company to eate vp a hole Lambe dwelt alone far from other houses and could not come together or could not gette any such Lambe as was appoynted for the feast or if their neighbours lacked company also And what if they had no spitte to rost the lambe And where as it was commaunded that they should be shooed what if perchance they had no shooes And if perchaunce a mans wife were not at home and all his seruaunts falled sike of the sweat or plague and no man durst come to his house then must he turne the spitte him selfe and eate the Lambe all alone Such chances you purposely deuise to establishe your priuat Masse that the priest may eate all alone But by such a lyke reason as you make here a man might proue that the priest should preach or say mattens to him selfe alone in case as you say that the people which should come would disapoynt him For what if the people disapoynt the priest say you and come not to the communion What if the people disapoynt the priest say I and come not to mattens nor sermon shall he therfore say mattens and preach whan no man is present but him selfe alone But your imagined case hath such an absurditie in it as is not tollerable to be thought to haue beene in Christian people in that tyme when Clements Epistles were written that when all the people should receaue the communion with the priest yet not one would come but all would disapoynt him And yet in that case I
nourisheth the right beleuers Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier and thou shalt euidently perceiue that either he wil not or can not or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer and in my booke also by the receauing and feding vpon Christ spiritually But it is no maruaile that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ before they be borne a new and forsaking their papisticall leauen haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God then flesh bloud can teach them Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth that Christes body is corporally there where the visible formes of bread wine be of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture which teacheth vs to beleue professe that Christ as concerning his bodily presence hath forsaken the world is ascended into heauen shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud there is no mouth and teeth can serue but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes and speake very little And the cause why is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes Caparnaites that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity spirituall circumcition spirituall honger and thirst and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ but they hang all together so in the letter that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit which knowledge if that you had you should soone perceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made And where you peruert the order of the bookes setting the carte before the horse that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second saying that the naturall order of the matter so requireth here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes which is vnder the pretence coulour of order to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light For when they perceaue a window open wherby the light may shine in and the truth appeare then they busily go about to shut that window and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is and les light can be sene And when besides the darkenes of the matter they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes that he is become blind thē dare they make him iudge be the matter neuer so vntrue And no meruail for he is now becōe so blindfeld subiect vnto them that he must say what so euer they bid him be it neuer so much repugnāt to the euidēt truth In such sort it is in the matter of that sacramēt For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined that plaine wordes of the scripture the consent of aūcient writers the articles of our fayth the nature of a sacrament reason all sences making so euidently agaynst it therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation but they will alwayes beare men in hand that other matters must fyrst be examined as the late Bishop doth here in this place Now in the second place of Chrisostome where you say that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen which shall suffice for answere here also And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre here with vs in our handes truth it is that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment But that we shoud not think that he is corporally here with vs S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum saying Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man that we should therby take away the truth of his body And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body to be in two places at one tyme therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally and also naturally in the sacrament For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule But like as it is not to be thought that Quicquid est in deo est putandum vbique vt dens that whatsoeuer is in god is euery where as God is so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme euery where where his godhead is But Christ is sayth S. Augustine Vbique per id quod est deus in coelo autem per id quod est homo Euery where in that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence and the presence of his diuinitie of his grace of his truth of his maiestie and power is reall and effectuall in many places according to his worde Now as concerning your issue I refuse it not but say that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred and which our sauiour Christ ment and the old fathers speake of is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life Now if you can bring good testimony for you that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud and that it shall lyue for euer which neuer had lyfe and that Gods operation worke is more in domme creatures then in man then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you And when I heare your testimonies I shall make answer but before I here them I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne and beate the wind to no purpose Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alleadge sayth thus Christ geuing thankes dyd breake which also we doe adding thereto prayer And he gaue vnto them saying Take this is my body this that I do now geue and that which ye now do take For the bread is not a
example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this author teacheth then were the bread of Proposition figure of a figure and shadow of a shadow which is ouer great an absurditie in our religion Therfore there can not be a more playne proofe to shew that by S. Hieromes mynd Christes body is verely in the Sacrament and not figuratiuely onely then wheÌ„ he noteth Panes propositionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christes body in the Sacrament For as Tertulian sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis esses corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that answered vnto it wer not of truth which is the sence of Tertulians wordes And therfore S. Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certaynly playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this author sayth For S. Hierome affirmeth playnly Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although S. Hierom attributeth to the minister yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the author and worker notwithstanding by reason of the minestry in the church the doing is ascribed to manne as minister bycause Christ sayd Hoc facite after which speach saluation remission of sinne and the worke in other SacrameÌ„tes is attribute to the minister being neuerthelesse the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde bicause some be vniustly offended to heare that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findth fault before at the word making which religiousely heard and reuerently spoken should offend no man for man is but a minyster wherin he should not glory And Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread nor maketh him selfe so oft of bread a new body but sitting in heauen dooth as our inuisible Priest worke in the mistery of the visible pristhood of his church and maketh present by his omnipotencie his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuertion of the visible creatures of bread and wine as Emissen sayth into the same This author of this booke as thou reader mayst perceaue applieth the figure of the breades called Panes propositionis to the body of Christ to come where as S. Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore doth fashion his argument in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so much cleanes in them that should eat them that they might not eate of them which a day or two before had lyen with theyr wiues what cleanes is required in him that should make the body of Christ Wherby thou mayst se how this author hath reserued this notable place of S. Hierom to the later ende that thou shouldest in the ende as well as in the middest see him euidently snarled for the better remembrance Caunterbury TO these wordes of S. Hierome I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And now to adde some thing therunto I say that he meaneth not that Panis Propositionis be figures of the sacrament but of Christes very body And yet the same body is not onely in the sacrament figuratiuely but it is also in the true ministration therof spiritually present spirituallye eaten as in my booke I haue playnely declared But how is it possible that Caius Vlpian or Sceuola Batholus Baldus or Curtius should haue knowledge what is ment by the spirituall presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the spirituall eating of his flesh and bloud if they be voyde of a liuely fayth feeding and comforting theyr soules with their owne workes and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ. The meat that the Papistes liue by is indulgences and pardons and such other remission of sinnes as cometh all from the Pope which giueth no life but infecteth and poysoneth but the meate that the true Christian man lyueth by is Christ him selfe who is eaten onely by fayth and so eaten is life and spirite giuing that life that endureth and continueth for euer God graunt that we may learne this heauenly knowledge of the spirituall presence that we may spiritually taste and feede of this heauenly foode Now where you say that there canne not be a more playne proofe to shew that Christes body is verely in the sacrament and not figuratiuely onely than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christes body in the sacrament For as Tertulian sayth the other were not to be called a figure if that which aunswereth to it were not of truth Here your for is a playne fallax à non causa vt causa and a wonderous subtiltie is vsed therin For where Tertulian proueth that Christ had here in earth a very body which Martion denied bicause that bread was instituted to be a figure therof and there canne bee no figure of a thing that is not you alleadge Tertulians wordes as though he should say that Christes body is in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread whereof neyther Tertulian intreated in that place nor it is not required that the body should be corporally where the figure is but rather it should be in vayne to haue a figure when the thing it selfe is present And therfore you vntruely reporte both of S. Hierome and Tertulian For neyther of them both do say as you would gather of theyr wordes that Christes body is in the sacrament really and corporally And where you say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matier of bread either you be very ignoraunt in the doctrine of the sacrament as it hath bene taught these fiue hundred yeares or els you dissemble the matter Hath not this bene the teaching of the schole diuines yea of Innocent him selfe that the matter of this Sacrament is bread of wheat and wine of grapes Do they not say that the substaunce of bread is tourned into the substaunce of Christes flesh and that his flesh is made of bread And who worketh this but Christ him selfe And haue you not confessed all this in your booke of the Deuils sophistry why do you then deny here that which you taught before and which hath bene the common aproued doctrine of the Papistes so many yeares And bycause it should haue the more authorite was not this put into the masse bookes and reade euery yeare Dognum datur christianis quod in caâ—nem transit panis uinum in sanguinem Now seing that you haue taught so many yeares that the matter and substaunce of bread is not consumed to nothing but is chaunged and tourned into the body of Christ so that the body of Christ is made of it what meane you now to deny that Christ is made of the matier of bread Whan water was tourned into wine was not the wine made of the
men eate and drincke the body and bloud of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors playnly which I haue alleadged without your addition of spirituall manducation and not one of them all say as you do that in the visible Sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do But I make no such vayne proofes as you fayne in my name that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present bycause euil men receaue it But this argument were good although I make no such Euell men eate and drincke the sacrament and yet they eate and drincke not Christes flesh and bloud Ergo his flesh and bloud be not really and corporally in the sacrament And when you say that Christ may be receaued of the euel man to his condemnation is this the glory that you geue vnto Christ that his whole presence in a man both with flesh bloud soule and spirite shall make him neuer the better and that Christ shal be in him that is a member of the deuell And if an euill man haue Christ in him for a tyme why may he not then haue him still dwelling in him For if he may be in him a quarter of an houre he may be also an whole houre and so a whole day and an whole yeare and so shall God and the diuell dwell together in one house And this is the croppe that groweth of your sowing if Christ fall in euell men as good seed falleth in euell ground And where you say that all that euer I bring to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ may be shortly aunswered truth it is as you sayd in one place of me that all that I haue brought may be shortly aunswered if a man care not what he aunswer as it seemeth you pas not much what you aunswer so that you may lay on lode of wordes For where as I haue fully proued as well by authoritie of scripture as by the testimony of many olde writers that although euell men eate the sacramentall bread and drincke the wine which haue the names of his flesh and bloud yet they eate not Christes very flesh nor drincke his bloud Your short and whole aunswer is this that euell men may be sayd not to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud bycause they do it not frutefully as they ought to do And that may be called a not eating as they may be sayd not to heare godes word that heare it not profitably and a thing not well done may be in speach called not done in the respect of the good effect I graunt such speaches be sometyme vsed but very rarely and when the very truth commeth in discussion then such Paradoxes are not to be vsed As if it come in question whether a house be builded that is not well builded then the diffinition of the matter must not be that it is not builded although the carpenters and other workemen haue fayled in theyr couenaunt and bargayne and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to haue done So our sauiour Christ teacheth that all heard the word whether the seed fell in the high way or vpon the stones or among the thornes or in the good groūd Wherfore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers whether euell menne eate Christes body or no if the truth had bene that euill men eate it the olde writers would not so precisely haue defined the contrary that they eate not but would haue sayd they eate it but not effectually not frutefully not profitably But now the authors which I haue alleaged define playnly and absolutely that euell men eate not Christes body without any other addition But after this sort that you do vse it shall be an easy matter for euery man to say what liketh him and to defend it well inough if he may adde to the scriptures and doctours wordes at his pleasure and make the sense after his owne phantasye The scriptures and Doctoures which I alleadge do say in playne wordes as I do say that euell menne do not eate the body of Christ nor drincke his bloud but onely they that haue life therby Now come you in with your addition and glose made of your owne head putting therto this word effectually Yf I should say that Christ was neuer conceaued nor borne could not I auoyd all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary by adding this word apparantly and defend my saying stoutly And might not the Ualentinians Marcianistes and other that sayd that Christ dyed not for vs defend their errour with addition as they did of this word putatiue to all the scriptures that were brought agaynst them And wat herisie can be reproued if the heretikes may haue the liberty that you do vse to adde of their owne heades to the wordes of scripture contrary vnto Godes word directly who cōmaundeth vs to adde nothing to his word nor to take any thing away And yet more ouer the authorities which I haue brought to approue my doctrine do clerely cast away your addition adding the cause why euell men can not eate Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud And you haue taught almost in the beginning of your booke that Christes body is but a spirituall body and after a spirituall manner eaten by fayth And now you haue confessed that who so fedeth vpon Christ spiritually must nedes be a good man How can you than defend now that euell men eat the body of Christ except you will now deny that which you graunted in the beginning and now haue forgotten it that Christes body cannot be eaten but after a spirituall maner by fayth Wherin it is meruayle that you hauing so good a memory should forgette the common prouerbe Mendacem memorem esse oportet And it had ben more conuenient for you to haue answered fully to Cyprian Athanasius Basyll Hierom and Ambrose then when you cannot answer to wipe your handes of them with this slender answer saying that you haue answered And whether you haue or no I refer to the iudgement of the reader And as concerning S. Augustine De ciuitate Dei he sayth that euell men receaue the sacrament of Christes body although it auayleth them not But yet he sayth in playne wordes that we ought not to say that any man eateth the body of Christ that is not in the body And if the reader euer saw any meare cauilation in all his lyfe tyme let him read the chapter of S. Augustine and compare it to your answer and I dare say he neuer sawe the like And as for the other places of S. Augustine by me alleadged with Origen and Cirill for the more ease you passe them ouer with silence and dare eate no such meate it is so hard for you to digest And thus haue you with post hast runne ouer all my scriptures and doctours as it were playing at the post with still passing and geuing ouer euery game And yet shal you
by some persons they know right well that were then present But after when it pleased almighty God more clearly to shine vnto vs by the light of this word our eyes by his goodnes were opened darkenes discussed and that which was done in ignoraunce and darkenes was by knowledge and light in publique Counsell rehersed and taken away as well concerning the doctrine as the hardnes of the law For if the doctrine had bene true and godly there is no christen harted man but he would haue desired the establishment and continuaunce therof But the doctrine being false and such as came onely from Rome they be not worthy to be likened to those truthes which came from God and were vttered by Balaam and Cayphas but to be numbred among those lyes which came from his vicar who when he speaketh lyes ex proprijs loquitur he speaketh properly of himselfe And the Byshop of Rome was not cleane gone out of England as sone as the lawes were made agaynst his authority but remayned still by his corrupt doctrine as I feare me he doeth yet in some mennes hertes who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresayd law But yet is all togither to be imputed to the Byshop of Rome forasmuch as from thens came all the foresayd errours ignorance and corruption into these parties Now where you take vpon you here to purge your selfe of Papistry by me and Zuinglius if you haue no better compurgators then vs two you be like to fayle in your purgation For neyther of vs I dare say durst swere for you in this matter though Zuinglius were aliue Or if your purgatioÌ„ stand to this poynt that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body although in a formall and proper speach bread is not in deede his body you may be as rancke a Papist as euer was for any purgation you can make by this way For Christ called bread made of wheate his body as the wordes of the Euangelistes playnly declare and all old writers teach and in your booke of the deuils sophistrie you haue confessed saying that Christ made demonstration of bread when he sayd This is my body And therfore bring some better purgation then this or els had you bene better not to haue offered any purgation in a matter that no man charged you withall than by offering a purgation aud fayling therin to bring your selfe into more suspition And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation you make your argument thus That forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament there is of necessity TransubstantiatioÌ„ also This your argument hath two great faultes in it The first is that your antecedent is false and then you can not conclude therof a true consequent The second fault is that although the autecedent were graunted vnto you that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament yet the consequent can not be inferred therof that there is of necessity Transubstantiation For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament as well with the substance of the bread as without it and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents forasmuch as neyther Christes body there occupieth any place as you say yourselfe nor no more doth the substance of bread by it selfe but by meanes of the accidentes as you say also Now forasmuch as you say that you will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes which you heard me once more seriously reherse in solemne open audience I knowledge that not many yeares passed I was yet in darkenes concerning this matter being brought vp in scholasticall and Romish doctrine wherunto I gaue to much credite And therfore I graunt that you haue heard me stand and defend the vntruth which I then tooke for the truth and so did I heare you at the same tyme. But prayse be to the euerliuing God who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from myne eyes and I pray vnto his diuine maiesty with all my hart that he will likewise do once the same to you Thy will be fulfillid O Lord. But forasmuch as you passe ouer my handling of Christes wordes as you vse commonly to passe in post when you haue no direct answer to make I shall here repete my wordes agayne to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I haue handled them and then iudge whether you ought so slenderly to pas them ouer as you do My wordes be these ¶ The second booke THus haue you heard declared fower thinges wherin chiefly the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the trew word of God and from the olde catholique Christian fayth in this matter of the Lordes supper Now least any man should thinke that I fayne any thing of myne owne head without any other grounde or authority you shall heare by Gods grace as well the errors of the Papistes confâ—ted as the catholique truth defended both by gods most certayne word and also by the most old approued authors and Martirs of Christes Church And first that bread and wine remayne after the wordes of consecration and be eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper is most manifest by the playn wordes of Christ himselfe when he ministred the same supper vnto his desciples For as the Euangilistes write Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body Here the Papistes triumph of these wordes when Christ sayd This is my body which they call the wordes of Consecration For say they assone as these wordes be fully ended there is no bread left nor none other substance but onely Christes body When Christ sayd this the bread say they remayned And when he sayd is yet the bread remayned Also whan he added my the bread remayned still And when he sayd bo yet the bread was there still But when he had finished the whole sentence This is my body then say they the bread was gone and there remayned no substance but Christes body as though the bread could not remayne when it is made a Sacrament But this negatiue that there is no bread they make of theyr owne braynes by their vnwritten verities which they most highly esteme Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread but Christ spake not that negatiue This is no bread but sayd affirmingly This is my body not denying the bread but affirming that his body was eaten meaning spiritually as the bread was eaten corporally And that this was the meaning of Christ appeareth playnly by S. Paule in the tenth chap. to the Corinth the first epistle where he speaking of the same matter sayth Is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ Who vnderstood the mynd of Christ better then S. Paule to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsailes And S. Paule is not afrayd for our better
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
so the Sacrament consisteth of to natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament These be this authors owne wordes who trauayling to confound Transubstantiation confoundeth euidently himselfe by his owne wordes touching the reall present For he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ must remayne in the sacrament and as truely as the natures of the manhod and Godhead were in Christ for therupon he argueth And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures the manhode or the godhead were but figuratiuely in Christ which and he do then may be the better say for the agrement of his doctrine The nature of the body and bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the Sacrament And if he say as he must nedes say that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament and therby call backe all that he hath written agaynst the real presence of Christes body in the sacrament and abandon his deuise of a presence by significatiō which is in truth a playne absēce as himselfe also speaketh openly which open speach can not stand and is improued by this open speach of his owne Likewise where he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the Sacrament the word remayne being of such signification as it betokeneth not onely to be there but to tary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church which mistery of sacrifice is perfited before the perception and so it must be euident how the body of Christ is there that is to say on the alter before we receaue it to which aulter S. Augustine sayth we come to receaue it There was neuer man ouerturned his own assertions more euidently then this author doth herein this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haue written agaynst this Sacrament who haue by he way sayd somewhat for it or they haue brought their treatise to an end It will be sayd here how soeuer this author doth ouerthrow him selfe in the reall presence of Christes very body yet he hath pulled downe Transubstantiation and done as crafty wrastlers do falling themselues on theire backe to throw there fellowe ouer them But it is not like for as long as the true fayth of the reall presence standeth so longe Transubstantiation standeth not by authority of determination but by a necessary consequence of the truth as I sayd before and as Zuinglius defendeth playnly and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered vnto for they speake of the visible nature and element which remayne truely in the propriety of their nature for so much as remayneth so as there is true reall and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine not in fantasy or imagination wherby there should be illution in the sences but so in deede as the experience doth shew and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance should not impayre the truth of that remayneth but that remayneth doth in deede remayne with the same naturall effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one maruaile in this mistery as there were diuerse more in Manna the figure of it And then a miracle in gods working doth not empayre the truth of the worke And therfore I noted before how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truely and yet it was by miracle as S. Gregory writeth And further we may say touching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made of the Sacrament to Christes person or contrariwise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality in consideration of each part by it selfe but onely haue respect to the ende wherfore the resemblance is made In the person of Christ be ioyned two whole perfite natures inseperably vnite which fayth the Nestorians impugned and yet vnite without confusion of them which confussion the Eutichians in consequence of their error affirmed and so arguments be brought of the sacrament wherewith to conuince both as I shall shew answering to Gelasius But in this place S. Augustine vseth the truth most certayne of the two natures in Christes person wherby to declare his beleefe in the Sacrament which beleefe as Hilary before is by this author alleadged to say is of that is inwardly For that is outwardly of the visible creature we see he sayth with our bodely eye and therfore therin is no poynt of fayth that should neede such a declaration as S. Augustine maketh And yet making the comparison he reherseth both the truthes on both sides saying As the person of Christ cōsisteth of God man so the sacrifice of the church cōsisteth of two thinges the visible kind of the element the inuisible flesh bloud finishing the conclusiō of the similitude that therfore There is in the Sacrifice of the church both the Sacramēt and the thing of the Sacramēt Christes body that which is inuisible therfore required declaratiō that is by S. Augustine opened in the cōparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely and therwith that needed no declaration that is to say the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true but not as a thing which was intended to be proued for it neded not any proofe as the other part did And therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblance so as bicause in the nature of Christs humanity there was no substance conuerted in Christ which had bene contrary to the order of that mistery which was to ioyne the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ that therfore in this mistery of the Sacrament in which by the rules of our fayth Christes body is not Impanate the conuersion of the substance of the visible elements should not therfore be If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mistery that is sufficient For els the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasy in the mistery of the Sacrament as there be in Christes person and the flesh of man in Christ by vnion of the diuinity is a diuine spirituall flesh and is called and is a liuely flesh and yet the author of this booke is not afrayd to teach the bread in the Sacrament to haue no participation of holines wherein I agree not with him but reason agaynst him with his owne doctrine and much I could say more but this shall suffice The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be such as no man can wrest or wreth to an other sence and with their force haue made this author to ouerthrow
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
accepted and pleasaunt in the sight of God And this maner of shewyng Christes death and kèepyng the memorie of it is grounded vpon the Scriptures written by the Euangelistes and S. Paule and accordyng thereunto Preached beleued vsed and frequented in the Church of Christ vniuersally and from the beginnyng This authour vtteryng many wordes at large besides Scripture and agaynst Scripture to depraue the Catholike doctrine doth in a few wordes which be in déede good wordes and true confounde and ouerthrow all his enterprise and that issue will I ioyne with him which shall suffise for the confutation of this booke The fewe good wordes of the authour which wordes I say confounde the rest consist in these two pointes One in that the authour alloweth the Iudgement of Petrus Lombardus touchyng the oblation and sacrifice of the Church An other in that the authour confesseth the Councell of Nice to be holy Councell as it hath bene in déede confessed of all good Christen men Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fift booke to be ouerthrowen Caunterbury MY fift booke hath so fully so playnly set out this matter of the sacrifice that for aūswere to all that you haue here brought to the cōfutation therof the reader neede to do no more but to looke ouer my booke agayne and he shall see you fully aunswered before hand Yet wyll I here and there adde some notes that your ignoraūce and craft may the better appeare This farre you agree to the truth that the sacrifice of Christ was a ful and a perfect sacrifice which needed not to be done no more but once and yet it is remembred and shewed forth dayly And this is the true doctrine accordyng to Gods word But as concernyng the reall presence in the accidents of bread and wine is an vntrue doctrine fayned onely by the Papistes as I haue most playnly declared and this is one of your errours here vttered An other is that you cast the most precious body and bloud of Christ the sacrifice Propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world which of it selfe was not the sacrifice but the thyng whereof the sacrifice was made and the death of him vpon the Crosse was the true sacrifice propiciatorie that purchased the remission of sinne which sacrifice continued not long nor was made neuer but once where as his flesh and bloud continued euer in substaunce from his incarnation as well before the sayd sacrifice as euer sithens And that sacrifice propitiatorie made by him onely vpon the Crosse is of that effect to reconcile vs to Gods fauour that by it be accepted all our sacrifices of landes and thankes geuyng Now before I ioyne with you in your issue I shall rehearse the wordes of my booke which when the indifferent Reader seeth he shal be the more able to iudge truely betwene vs. My booke conteineth thus The fift Booke THe greatest blasphemy and iniurie that can be agaynst Christ and yet vniuersally vsed through the Popishe kyngdome is thys that the Priestes make their Masse a sacrifice propitiatorie to remit the sinnes as well of them selues as of other both quicke and dead to whom they list to apply the same Thus vnder pretence of holynes the Papistical priests haue taken vpon them to be Christes successours and to make such an oblation and sacrifice as neuer creature made but Christ alone neither he made the same any more tymes then once and that was by his death vpon the Crosse. For as S. Paule in his Epistle to the Hebrues witnesseth Although the high priestes of the old law offered many tymes at the least euery yeare once yet Christ offered not him selfe many tymes for then he should many tymes haue dyed But now he offered him selfe but once to take away sinne by that offering of him selfe And as men must dye once so was Christ offered once to take away the sinnes of many And furthermore S. Paul sayth That the sacrifices of the old law although they were continually offered from yeare to yeare yet could they not take away sinne nor make men perfect For if they could once haue quieted mens consciēces by taking away sinne they should haue ceassed and no more haue bene offered But Christ with once offering hath made perfect for euer them that be sanctified puttyng their sinnes cleane out of Gods remembraūce And where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne And yet further he sayth concernyng the old Testament that it was disanulled and taken away bicause of the feeblenesse and vnprofitablenesse therof for it brought nothyng to perfection And the priestes of that law were many bycause they liued not long and so the priesthode went from one to an other but Christ liueth euer and hath an euerlastyng priesthode that passeth not from him to any man els Wherfore he is able perfectly to saue them that come to God by him for asmuch as he liueth euer to make intercession for vs. For it was meete for vs to haue such an high priest that is holy innocent with out spot separated from sinners and exalted vp aboue heauen who needeth not dayly to offer vp sacrifice as Aarons priestes did first for his owne sinnes and then for the people For that he did once when he offered vp him selfe Here in his Epistle to the Hebrues S. Paule hath playnly and fully described vnto vs the difference betwene the priesthode and sacrifices of the old Testament and the most high and worthy priesthode of Christ his most perfect and necessary sacrifice and the benefite that commeth to vs thereby For Christ offered not the bloud of calues sheepe and goates as the priests of the old law haue vsed to do but he offered his own bloud vpon the Crosse. And he went not into an holy place made by mans hand as Aaron did but he ascended vp into heauen where his eternall Father dwelleth and before him he maketh continuall supplication for the sinnes of the whole world presentyng his owne body which was torne for vs and his precious bloud which of his most gracious and liberall charitie he shed for vs vpon the Crosse. And that sacrifice was of such force that it was no neede to renew it euery yeare as the Byshops did of the old Testament whose sacrifices were many tymes offered and yet were of no great effect or profite bycause they were sinners them selues that offered them and offered not their owne bloud but the bloud of brute beastes but Christes sacrifice ones offered was sufficient for euermore And that all men may the better vnderstand this sacrifice of Christ which he made for the great benefite of all men it is necessary to know the distinctiō and diuersitie of sacrifices One kynde of sacrifice there is which is called a Propitiatory or mercyfull sacrifice that is to say such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods wrath and indignatiō and obteineth mercy and forgiuenes
may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar I am not so ignorant but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paule and sayd to him Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes that euer he speake vpon earth And yet we finde that Christ speaketh sayth he but in heauen and from heauen and not vpon earth For he spake to Paule from aboue saying Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me The head was in heauen and yet he sayd why doest thou persecute me bycause he persecuted his members vpon earth And if this please not Maister Smith let him blame S. Augustin and not me for I fayne not this my selfe but onely alledge S. Augustin And as the father spake from heauen whan he sayd This is my beloued sonne in whom I am pleased and also S. Stephen saw Christ sittyng in heauen at his fathers right hand euen so ment S. Augustin that S. Paule and all other that haue sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention haue sene and heard him from heauen NOw when this Papist goyng forward with his woorkes seeth his building so feeble weake that it is not able to stand he returneth to his chief foūdation the Church and Councels generall willyng all men to stay thereupon to leaue disputyng reasonyng And chiefly he shoareth vp his house with the Councell Lateranence whereat sayth he were xiij hundred Fathers xv But he telleth not that viij hundred of them were Monkes Friers and Chanons the Byshop of Romes owne deare deare-lynges chief champions called together in his name not in Christes From which broode of vypers Serpentes what thyng can be thought to come but that dyd proceede frō the spirite of their most holy father that first begat them that is to say from the spirite of Antichrist And yet I know this to bee true that Christ is present with his holy Churche whiche is his holy elected people and shall be with them to the worldes end leadyng gouernyng them with his holy spirite teachyng them all truth necessary for their saluation And when so euer any such be gathered together in his name there is he among them he shall not suffer the gates of hell to preuaile agaynst them For although he may suffer them by their owne frailenes for a tyme to erre fall and to dye yet finally neither sathan hell sinne nor eternall death shall preuaile agaynst them But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome whiche accompteth it selfe to be the holy Catholicke Churche and the Byshop therof to be most holy of all other For many yeares ago Sathan hath so preuailed agaynst that stinkyng whore of Babylon that her abhominations be knowen to the whole world the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her dronkennes and poyson haue all nations tasted AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius Almericus Carolostadius Oecolampadius Zuinglius affirmyng that the Church euer sithens Christes tymes a thousand fiue hūdreth yeares and moe hath beleued that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament and neuer taught otherwise vntill Berengarius came about a thousand yeares after Christ whom the other folowed But in my booke I haue proued by Gods word the old auncient Authors that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally but is bodily corporally ascended into heauen there shall remaine vnto the worldes end And so the true Church of Christ euer beleued from the beginnyng with out repugnaunce vntill Sathan was let louse and Antichrist came with his Papistes which fayned a new and false doctrine contrary to Gods word and the true Catholicke doctrine And this true fayth God preserueth in his holy church still and will doe vnto the worldes end maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell And almighty God from time to time hath strēgthened many holy Martirs for this fayth to suffer death by Antichrist and the great harlot Babilon who hath embrewed her handes and is made drunken with the bloud of Martyrs Whose bloud God will reuēge at length although in the meane time he suffer the patiēce and fayth of his holy Saynts to be tried ALl the rest of his Preface contayneth nothing els but the authority of the Church which Smith sayth cannot wholy erre and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same that he preferreth it aboue Gods word affirming not onely that it is the piller of truth and no lesse to bee beleued then holy scripture but also that we should not beleue holy scripture but for it So that he maketh the word of men equall or aboue the word of God And truth it is in deed that the church doth neuer wholy erre for euer in most darcknes God shineth vnto his elect and in the midst of all iniquity he gouerneth them so with his holy word and spirite that the gates of hell preuayle not agaynst them And these be knowne to him although the world many times know them not but hath them in derision and hatred as it had Christ and his Apostles Neuerthelesse at the last day they shal be knowen to all the whole world when the wicked shal wonder at their felicity and say These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked We fooles thought their liues very madnes and their end to be without honour But now loe how they be accounted among the children of God and theyr portion is among the sayntes Therfore we haue erred frō the way of truth the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vnto vs we haue wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world that no mā can discerne it but God alone who onely searcheth the hartes of all men knoweth his true children from other that be but bastardes This church is the piller of trueth because it resteth vpon Gods word which is the true and sure foundation wil not suffer it to erre fall But as for the opē knowne church the outward face therof it is not the piller of truth otherwise thē that it is as it were a register or treasory to keepe the bookes of Gods holy will testament to rest onely thereupon as S. Augustine and Tertullian meane in the place by M. Smith alleadged And as the register keepeth all mens wils and yet hath none authority to adde change or take away any thing nor yet to expound the wils further then the very words of the will extend vnto so that he hath no power ouer the will but by the will euen so hath the church no further power ouer the holy scripture which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god but onely to keepe it and to see it obserued and kept For if the Church proceede further to make any new Articles of the fayth besides the Scripture
vp in the study of Schoole Authours without regard had to the authoritie of Scriptures were coÌ„monly reiected by him so that he was greatly for that his seuere examination of the Religious sort much hated and had in great indignation and yet it came to passe in the end that diuers of them being thus compelled to study the Scriptures became afterwardes very well learned and well affected in so much that when they procéeded Doctours of Diuinitie could not ouermuch extoll and commende Maister Doct. Cranmers goodnes towardes them who had for a tyme put them backe to aspire vnto better knowledge and perfection Amongest whom Doct. Barret a white Frier who afterwardes dwelt at Norwich was after that sort handled giuyng him no lesse commeÌ„dation for his happy reiecting of him for a better amendement Thus much I repeate that our Apish and Popish sorte of ignoraunt Priestes may well vnderstand that this his exercise kynde of life and vocation was not altogether Hostelerlike I omit here how Cardinall Wolsey after the foundation of his Colledge in Oxford hearyng the fame of his learnyng vsed all meanes possible to place him in the same which he refused with great daunger of indignation conteÌ„tyng him selfe with his former Felowship in Cambridge Untill vpon occasion of the plague being in Cambridge he resorted to WalthaÌ„ Abbey and soiourned with one M. Cressey there whose wife was Doct. Cranmers niece and two of her children his pupilles in Cambridge Duryng this tyme the great and weightie cause of kyng Henry the viij his diuorce with the Lady Katherine Dowager of Spayne was in questioÌ„ Wherein two Cardinals Campeius Wolsey were appointed in Commission from the Pope to heare and determine the controuersie betwene the Kyng and the Quéene who by many dilatories dallying delaying the whole sommer vntill the moneth of August taking occasioÌ„ to finish their CoÌ„mission so moued the patience of the kyng that in all hast he remoued from London to WalthaÌ„ for a night or twaine whiles the Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke dispatched Cardinall Campeius home agayne to Rome By meanes wherof it chaunced that the kynges herbengers lodged Doct. Stephens Secretary and Doct. Foxe Almosiner who were the chief furtherers preferrers defenders of the foresayd cause in the kyngs behalfe in the house of the sayd M. Cressey where Doct. Cranmer was also resiaunt as before When Supper tyme came and all thrée Doctours mette together being of old acquaintaunce they entertayned eche other familiarly and the sayd Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe takyng occasion of their happy méetyng together began to conferre with Doct. Cranmer concernyng the kynges cause requestyng him to declare his opinion therein Whereunto Doct. Cranmer aunswered that he could say litle in the matter for that he had not studied nor looked for it Notwithstandyng he sayd to them that in his opinioÌ„ they made more adde in prosecutyng the lawes Ecclesiasticall then néeded It were better as I suppose quoth Doct. Cranmer that the question whether a man may mary his brothers wife or no were decided and discussed by the Diuines and by the authoritie of the word of God whereby the conscience of the Prince might be better satisfied and quieted then thus from yeare to yeare by frustratory delayes to prolong the tyme leauing the very truth of the matter vnbuâ—ted out by the word of God There is but one truth in it which the Scripture will soone declare make open manifest beyng by learned men well handled that may be aswell done in England in the Uniuersities here as at Rome or els where in any foreine nation the authoritie wherof will compell any Iudge soone to come to a diffinitiue sentence therfore as I take it you might this way haue made an end of this matter long sithens When Doct. Cranmer had thus ended his tale the other two wel liked of his deuise and wished that they had so procéeded afore tyme and thereupon conceiued some matter of that deuise to instruct the kyng withall who then was mynded to send to Rome agayne for a new Commission Now the next day when the kyng remoued to Grenewich like as he tooke him selfe not well handled by the Cardinals in thus differryng his cause so his mynde beyng vnquieted desirous of an end of his long tedious sute he called to him this his ij principall doers of his sayd cause namely the said Doct. Stephens and D. Foxe saying vnto theÌ„ What now my Maisters quoth the kyng shall we do in this infinite cause of mine I sée by it there must be a new CoÌ„mission procured from Rome and when we shall haue an end God knoweth and not I. When the kyng had sayd somewhat his mynde herein the Almosiner Doct. Foxe sayd vnto the kyng agayne we trust that there shal be better wayes deuised for your Maiestie then to make trauaile so farre to Rome any more in your highnes cause which by chaunce was put into our heades this other night beyng at Waltham and so discouered to the kyng their méetyng and conference with Doct. Cranmer at M. Cresseys house Wherupon Doct. Cranmer was sent for in post beyng as then remoued from Waltham towardes his frendes in Lincolne shyre and so brought to the Court to the kyng Whom the noble Prince benignely acceptyng demauÌ„ded his name and sayd vnto him Were you not at Waltham such a tyme in the company of my Secretary and my Almosiner Doct. Cranmer affirmyng the same the kyng sayd agayne had you not conference with them concernyng our matter of diuorce now in question after this sort repeatyng the maner and order therof That is right true if it please your highnes quoth Doct. Cranmer Well sayd the kyng I well perceiue that you haue the right scope of this matter You must vnderstand quoth the kyng that I haue bene long troubled in coÌ„science and now I perceiue that by this meanes I might haue bene long agoe releaued one way or other from the same if we had this way procéeded And therfore Maister Doctour I pray you and neuertheles because you are a subiect I charge and commauÌ„de you all your other busines affaires set apart to take some paynes to sée this my cause to be furthered accordyng to your deuise asmuch as it may lye in you with many other wordes in commendation of the Quéenes Maiestie Doct. Cranmer much disablyng him selfe to medle in so weightie a matter besought the kynges highnes to commit the triall and examinyng of this matter by the word of God vnto the best learned meÌ„ of both his Uniuersities Cambridge and Oxford You say well sayd the kyng and I am content there with But yet neuertheles I will haue you specially to write your mynde therein And so callyng the Earle of Wiltshyre to hym sayd I pray you my Lord let D. Cranmer haue intertaynement in your house at Durham place for a
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
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
Gospel of S. John Whereby appeareth how euidently they set forth the doctrine of the mistery of the eating of Christes flesh drinking his bloud in the sacrament which must néedes be vnderstanded of a corporal eating as Christ did after order in the institution of the sayd Sacrament according to his promise and doctrine here declared Canterbury HEre before you enter into my seconde vntrueth as you call it you finde faulte by the way that in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the Gospell of S. Iohn I begine a little to lowe But if the reader consider the matter for the which I alleadge S. Iohn he shal wel perceiue that I began at the right place where I ought to begin For I doe not bring forth S. Iohn for the matter of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament whereof is no mention made in that chapter as it would not haue serued me for that purpose no more doth it serue you althoughe ye cyted the whole Gospell But I bring saynt Iohn for the matter of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud wherin I passed ouer nothing that pertaineth to the matter but rehearse the whole fully and faithfully And because the Reader may the better vnderstand the matter and iudge between vs both I shall rehearse the wordes of my former booke which be these THe Supper of the Lord otherwise called the holy communion or sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ hath been of many men and by sundry wayes very much abused but specially within these four or fiue hundered yeares Of some it hath beene vsed as a Sacrifice propiciatory for sinne and otherwise superstitiouslye far from the intent that Christ did first ordaine the same at the beginning doing therein great wrong and iniury to his death and passion And of other some it hath been very lightly estemed or rather contemned and despiced as a thing of smal or of none effect And thus betweene both the parties hath been much variance and contention in diuers partes of Christendome Therefore to the intent that this holy Sacrament or Lords Supper may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed nor of the other party be abused to any other purpose then Christ himselfe did first appoint ordain the same and that so the contention on both parties may be quieted and ended the most sure and playn way is to cleaue vnto holye scripture Wherein whatsoeuer is found must be taken for a most sure ground and an infallible truth and whatsoeuer cannot be grounded vpon the same touching our faith is mans deuise changeable and vncertain And therfore here are set forth the very words that Christ him selfe and his Apostle S. Paule spake both of the eating and drinking of Christs body bloud also of the eating drinking of the sacramēt of the same First as concerning the eating of the body and drinkinge of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ hee speaketh him selfe in the sixte Chapiter of Saynt Iohn in this wise Verely verely I say vnto you except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you haue no life in you who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I wil rayse him vp at the last day For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drinke Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Here haue I rehearsed the wordes of Christ faithfully and fully so much as pertayneth to the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud And I haue begun neither to high nor to low but taking only so much as serued for the matter But here haue I committed a fault say you in the translation for verely meate translating very meat And this is another of the euydent and manifest vntruthes by me vttered as you esteeme it Wherein a man may see how hard it is to escape the reproches of Momus For what an horrible crime trow you is committed here to call very meat that which is verely meat As who should say that very meat is not verely meate or that which is verely meate were not very meate The olde Authors say very meate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verus cibus in a hundreth places And what skilleth it for the diuersitye of the wordes where no diuersity is in the sence And whether we say very meat or verely meate it is a figuratiue speache in this place and the sence is all one And if you will looke vpon the new testament lately set forth in Greeke by Robert Steuens you shall see that he had three Greeke copyes which in the said sixt chap. of Iohn haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that I may be bold to say that you finde faulte here where none is And here in this place you shew forth your olde condition which you vse much in this booke in following the nature of a cuttil The property of the cuttill saith Pliny is to cast out a black incke or color when soeuer she spieth her selfe in danger to be taken that the water being troubled and darckned therewith she may hide her selfe and to escape vntaken After like maner do you throughout this wholl booke for when you see no other way to flye and escape then you cast out your blacke colors maske your selfe so in cloudes and darcknes that men should not discerne where you become which is a manyfest argument of vntrue meaning for he that meaneth plainly speaketh plainly Et qui sophisticè loquitur odibilis est saith the wise man For he that speaketh obscurely and darckly it is a token that he goeth about to cast mistes before mennes eyes that they should not see rather then to open their eyes that they may cleerely see the truth And therfore to answere you plainly the fattie fleshe that was geuen in Christes last Supper was geuen also vpon the crosse and is geuen daylye in the ministration of the Sacrament But although it be one thinge yet it was diuerslye geuen For vpon the crosse Christ was carnally geuen to suffer and to dye At his last Supper he was spiritually geuen in a promise of his death and in the Sacrament he is daily geuen in remembraunce of his death And yet it is all but one Christ that was promysed to die that died in deede and whose death is remembred that is to say the very same Christ the eternall word that was made flesh And the same flesh was also geuen to be spiritually eaten and was eaten in deede before his supper yea and before his
because they be spoken by Christ hym selfe the auctor of all truth and by hys holy Apostle S. Paule as he receaued them of Christ so all doctrines contrary to the same be moste certaynly false and vntrue and of al Christen men to be eschued because they be contrary to Gods word And all doctrine concerning this matter that is more then this which is not grounded vpon Gods word is of no necessity neither ought the peoples heads to be busied or their consciences troubled with the same So that thinges spoken and done by Christ and written by the holy Euangelists and S Paule ought to suffice the fayth of Christian people as touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper and holy communion or sacrament of his body and bloud Which thing being well considered and wayed shall be a iust occasion to pacifie and agree both parties as well them that hetherto haue contemned or lightly esteemed it as also them which haue hetherto for lacke of knowledge or otherwise vngodly abused it Christ ordeyned the Sacrament to moue and stirre all men to frendshippe loue and concord and to put away all hatred variance and discord and to testifie a brotherly and vnfained loue between all them that be the members of Christ But the deuil the enemy of Christ and of all his members hath so craftely iugled herein that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy Sacrament God graunt that al contention set aside both the parties may come to this holy communiō with such a liuely faith in Christ and such an vnfained loue to all Christes members that as they carnallye eate with their mouthes this Sacramentall bread and drink the wine so spiritually they may eate and drink the very flesh and bloud of Christ which is in heauen and sitteth on the right hand of his father And that finally by his meanes they may enioy with him the glory and kingdome of heauen Amen Winchester Now let vs consider the tertes of the Euangelistes and S. Paul which be brought in by the Author as followeth When they were eating Iesus tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body And he tooke the cuppe and when he had geuen thanks he gaue it to them saying Drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes But I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruite of the vine vntill that day when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eate Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them and said Take eate this is my body And taking the cup when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruite of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingedome of God When the houre was come he sate downe and the twelue Apostles with him and he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer for I say vnto you henceforth I wil not eate of it any more vntill it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you for I say vnto you I wil not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntil the kingdome of God come And he tooke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saying This is my body whith is geuen for you this doe in remembrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he tooke the cup saying This cuppe is the new testament in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cup. That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had geuen thanks he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my body which is broaken for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the cup when supper was done saying This cup is the new testament in my bloud Doe this as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you shall eate this bread and drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherefore who soeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cup vnworthely shall be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine himselfe and so eate of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body For this cause many are weake and sicke among you and many doe sléepe After these tertes brought in the author doth in the 4. chap. begin to trauers Christes intent that he intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receaue that worthely be members of Christes body The catholick church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man hath from the beginning of these textes of scripture confessed truely Christes intent and effectuall miraculous worke to make the bread his body and the wine his bloud to be verely meate and verely drinke vsing therin his humanitie wherewith to féede vs as he vsed the same wherewith to redéeme vs and as he doth sanctifie vs by his holy spirite so to sanctifie vs by his holy diuine flesh and bloud and as life is renued in vs by the gift of Christes holy spirite so life to be increased in vs by the gift of his holy flesh So as he that beléeueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beliefe which is Baptisme receaueth really Christes spirite And likewise he that hauing Christes spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud Doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes very body and bloud And therfore Christ in the institution of this Sacrament sayd deliuering that he consecrated This is my body c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud c. And although to mannes reason it séemeth straunge that Christ standing or sitting at the table should deliuer them his body to be eaten Yet when we remember Christ to be very God we must graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in our thoughtes all imaginations how it might be and consider Christes
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
for your catholick confessiō that Christ doth in deed fede such as be regenerated in him not only by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud at his holy table this I confesse also but that he feedeth Iewes Turkes and Infidels if they receaue the sacrament or that he corporally feedeth our mouthes with his flesh and bloud this neither I confesse nor any scripture or auncyeut writer euer taught but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hartes and by fayth not with mouth and teeth except our hartes be in our mouthes and our fayth in our teeth Thus you haue labored sore in this matter and sponne a fayre threde and brought this your first booke to a goodly conclusion For you conclude your booke with blasphemous wordes agaynst both the sacrament of baptisme and the Lordes supper nigardly pinching gods giftes and diminishing hys lyberall promises made vnto vs in them For where Christ hat◠promised in both the sacramentes to be assistant with vs wholl both in body and spirite in the one to be our spirituall regeneration and apparell and in the other to be our spirituall meate and drinke you clyp hys liberall benefites in such sorte that in the one you make him to geue but onely his spirite and in the other but onely hys body And yet you call your booke an Explication and assertion of the true catholicke fayth Here you make an ende of your first booke leauing vnanswered the rest of my booke And yet forasmuch as Smith busieth him selfe in this place with the aunswere therof he may not passe vnanswered againe where the matter requireth The wordes of my booke be these But these thinges cannot manifestly appeare to the reader except the principall poyntes be first set our wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods word which be chiefly fower First the Papistes say that in the supper of the Lord after the wordes of consecration as they call it there is none other substaunce remaining but the substaunce of Christes flesh and bloud so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten nor wine to be dronken And although there be the colour of bread and wine the sauour the smell the bignesse the fashion and all other as they call them accidentes or qualities and quantitees of bread and wine yet say they there is no very bread nor wine but they be turned into the flesh bloud of Christ. And this conuersion they call transubstantiation that is to say turning of one substance into an other substance And although all the accidentes both of the bread and wine remaine still yet say they the same accidentes be in no maner of thing but hang alone in the ayre without any thing to stay them vpon For in the body and bloud of Christ say they these accidentes cannot be nor yet in the ayre for the body and bloud of Christ and the ayre be neither of that bignesse fashion smell nor colour that the bread and wine be Nor in the bread and wine say they these accidentes can not be for the substance of bread and wine as they affirm be clean gone And so there remaineth whitenes but nothing is white there remaineth colours but nothing is colored therwith there remaineth roundnes but nothing is round and there is bignes and yet nothing is bigge there is sweetenes without any sweet thing softnes without any soft thing breaking without any thing broaken diuision without any thing deuided and so other qualities and quantities without any thing to receiue them And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith But it is not the doctrine of Christ but the subtile inuention of Antichrist first decreed by Innocent the third and after more at large set forth by schoole authors whose study was euer to defend and set abroad to the world all such matters as the bishoppe of Rome had once decreed And the Deuill by his minister Antichrist had so daseled the eyes of a great multitude of christian people in these latter dayes that they sought not for their faith at the cleere light of Gods word but at the Romish Antichrist beleeuing what so euer he prescribed vnto them yea though it were against all reason al sences Gods most holy word also For els he could not haue been very Antichrist in deede except he had been so repugnant vnto Christ whose doctrine is clean contrary to this doctrin of Antichrist For Christ teacheth that we receaue very bread and wine in the most blessed Supper of the Lord as Sacraments to admonish vs that as we be fedde with bread and wine bodely so we be fedde with the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spirituallye As in our baptisme we receiue very water to signify vnto vs that as water is an elemēt to wash the body outwardly so be our soules washed by the holy ghost inwardly The second principall thinge wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods worde is this They say that the very naturall fleshe and bloud of Christ which suffred for vs vpon the crosse sitteth at the right hād of father in heauen is also really substancially corporally naturally in or vnder the accidents of the sacramental bread wine which they call the fourmes of bread and wine And yet here they vary not a litle among thē selues for some say that the very naturall body of Christ is there but not naturally nor sensibly And other say that it is there naturally and sensibly and of the same bignes and fashion that it is in heauen and as the same was borne of the blessed virgine Mary and that is there broken and torne in peces with our teeth And this appeareth partly by the schole authors partely by the confession of Berengarius which Nicholas the second constrained him to make which was this That of the Sacramentes of the Lordes table the said Berengarius should promise to hold that faith which the sayd Pope Nicholas his counsel held which was that not only the sacramēts of bread wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar broken and torne with the teeth of the faithful people But the true catholick faith grounded vpon Gods most infallible word teacheth vs that our sauiour Christ as concerning his mans nature and bodily presence is gone vp vnto heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father and there shall he tary vntill the worldes ende at what time he shall come againe to iudge both the quick and the dead as he saith him self in many Scriptures I forsake the world saith he and goe to my Father And in another place he saith You shal euer haue poore men among you but me shall not you euer haue And againe hee saith Many hereafter shall come and say looke here is Christ or looke there
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
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
in the second parte But what be you eased now by this We say as the scripture teacheth that Christ is corporally ascended in to heauen and neuerthelesse he is so in them that worthely eate the bread drinke the wine geuen and distributed at his holy Supper that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and bloud vnto eternal life But we say not as you doe cleerely without ground of Scripture that he is corporally vnder the formes of bread and wine where his presence should be without any profite or commoditie either to vs or to the bread and wine And here in this difference it seemeth that you haue either cleerely forgotten or negligently ouershotte yourselfe vttering that thing vnwares which is contrary is your wholl booke For the first parte which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramentall bread and wine is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued say you where it is true Christ to be present God and man the second part say you which is of the being of Christ in them that worthely eat and drink the bread and wine is of Christs spiritual presence Of your which words I se nothing to be gathered but that as concerning his substancial presence Christ is receaued into the Sacramental bread and wine and as for them that worthely receaue the Sacrament he is in them none otherwise then after a Spirituall presence For els why should ye say that the second parte is of Christes spirituall presence if it be as well of his corporall as of his spirituall presence Wherefore by your own words this difference should be vnderstanded of two different beings of Christ that in the Sacrament he is by his substance and in the worthy receauers spiritually and not by his substance for els the differences repugne not as you obiect against me Wherfore either you write one thing mean another or els as you write of other God so blindeth the aduersaries of the truth that in one place or other they confesse the truth vnwares Now follow my wordes in the second comparison They say that when any man eateth the bread and drinketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomacke with the bread and wine and no further But we say that Christ is in the wholl man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread drinketh the cup not in his mouth or stomack only Winchester In this comparison the Author termeth the true Catholick teaching at his pleasure to bring it in contempte Which doing in rude speach would be called otherwise then I will tearme it Truth it is as S. Augustine saith we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth and such speach other vse as a booke set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name called a Catechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ which I alleadge because it shall appeare it is a teaching set forth among vs of late as hath béene also and is by the booke of common prayer being the most true catholicke doctrine of the substance of the sacrament in that it is there so catholickly spoken of which booke this Author doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teaching doth improue it in that pointe So much is he contrary to him self in this worke and here in this place not caring what he saith reporteth such a teaching in the first parte of this difference as I haue not heard of before There wes neuer man of learning that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomack of the man that receaued and no further For that is written contra Stercoranistas is nothing to this teaching nor the speach of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholicke doctrine is that by the holy communion in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body which is a flesh geuing life And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in vs and attēpereth by heauēly nuriture our body and soule beyng partakers of his passion to be conformable to hys will and by such spirituall foode to be many more spirituall In the receauing of which foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duely communicate worke together in due order without other discussion of the mistery then God hath appointed that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to doe as God hath ordered knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer but to be most profitable vnto such as doe accustome worthely to receaue the same But to say that the church teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomacke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgement of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Now where this Author in the second parte by an aduersatiue with a But to make the comparison felleth what he and his say he telleth in effecte that which euery catholicke man must néedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christs most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthely they haue Christ dwelling in them who comforteth both body and soule which the church hath euer taught most plainly So as this comparison of difference in his two parties is made of one open vntruth and a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this Author and his which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is vsed in the matter Caunterbury IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to tearm the true catholicke faith for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papisticall faith which I haue tearmed none otherwise then I learned of their own tearming and therfore if my tearming please you not as in deede it ought to please no man yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inuentoures of that tearming and not in me that against them do vse their owne tearmes tearming the matter as they doe them selfe because they should not finde faulte with me as you doe that I tearme their teaching at my pleasure And as for receauing of the body of Christ with our mouthes truth it is that S. Augustine Ambros Chrysostome and other vse such speaches that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes see hym with our eyes feele hym with our handes breake hym teare hym with our teeth eate him and dygest him which speach I haue also vsed in my catechisme but yet these speeches must be vnderstand figuratiuely as I haue declared in my fourth booke the eyght chapiter and shall more fully declare hereafter for we doe not these thinges to
the very body of Christ but to the bread wherby hys body is represented And yet the booke of common prayer neyther vseth any such speach nor geueth any such doctrine nor I in no poynt improue that godly booke nor varye from it But yet glad I am to heare that the sayd booke lyketh you so well as noe man can mislike it that hath anye godlinesse in hym ioyned with knowledge But nowe to come to the very matter of this article it is maruell that you neuer redde that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke of that man that receaueth and no further being a lawyer and seing that it is written in the glose of the law De-consecrat dist 2. Tribus gradibus in these wordes It is certayne that assone as the formes be torne with the teeth so sone the body of Christ is gone vp into heauen And in the chapiter Non iste is an other glose to the same purpose And if you had redde Thomas de Aquino and Bonauenture great clearkes and holy Sainctes of the Popes own making and other schoole authors then should you haue knowne what the Papistee do say in this matter For some say that the body of Christ remayneth so long as the forme and fashion of bread remayneth although it be in a dog mouse or in the iakes And some say it is not in the mouse nor sakes but remayneth onely in the person that eateth it vntill it be digested in the stomacke and the fourme of bread be gone Some say it remayneth no longer then the Sacrament is in the eating and may be felt seene and tasted in the mouth And this besides Hugo sayth Pope Innocentius hym selfe who was the best learned and the chiefe doer in this matter of all the other Popes Red you neuer none of these authors and yet take vpō you the full knowledge of this matter Will you take vpon you to defend the Papistes and knowe not what they say Or do you know it and now be ashamed of it and for shame will deny it And seing that you teache that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes I pray you tell whether it go any further then the mouth or no and how farre it goeth that I may know your iudgement herein and so shall you be charged no further then with your own saying and the reader shall perceiue what excellent knowledge you haue in this matter And where you say that to teach that we receaue Christ at our mouth he goeth into our stomack and no further commeth out of the mouth of thē that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Here like vnto Caiphas you prophecy the truth vnwares For this doctrine commeth out of the mouth of none but of the Papistes which fight against the holy catholicke truth of the aūcient Fathers saying that Christ tarrieth no longer then the proper formes of bread and wine remaine which can not remain after perfect digestion in the stomacke And I say not that the Church teacheth so as you fayne me to say but that the Papistes say so Wherfore I should wish you to reporte my words as I say and not as you imagine me to say least you heare agayne as you haue heard heretofore of your wonderfull learning and practise in the Deuils Sophistrye Now as concerning the second parte of this comparison here you graūt that my saying therein is true and that euery Catholick man must needes and doth confesse the same By which your saying you must also condemne almost all the schoole authors and Lawiers that haue written of this matter with Innocent the third also as men not Catholick because they teach that Christ goeth no further nor taryeth no longer then the formes of bread and wine goe and remayn in their proper kinde And yet now your doctrine as farre as I can gather of your obscure wordes is this That Christ is receaued at the mouth with the formes of bread and wine and goeth with them into the stomack And although they goe no further in their proper kinds yet there Christ leaueth them and goeth him selfe further into euery parte of the mannes body and into his soule also which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange For I haue many times heard that a soule hath gone into a body but I neuer heard that a body went into a soule But I weene of all the Papistes you shal be alone in this matter and finde neuer a fellow to say as you doe And of these thinges which I haue here spoaken I may conclude that this comparison of difference is not made of an open vntruth and a truth disguised except you wil confesse the Papisticall doctrine to be an open vntruth Now the wordes of my third comparison be these They say that Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine We say that he is receaued in the hart and entreth in by faith Winchester Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on both sides and therfore here is by the Author in this comparison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauing of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is both with mouth and harte both in facte and faith After which sorte Saynte Peter in the laste Supper receaued Christes body where as in the same Iudas receaued it with mouth and in facte onely wherof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise Non dicuns ista nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt sicut Tetrus non iudicium sicut Indas tamē ipsa vtrique fuit vina sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi non erant vnum Which wordes be thus much to say That they say not so as was before intreated but such as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgement as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in them both bycause they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued which being receaued with the mouth only and Christ entring in mysterie onely doth not sanctifie vs but is the stone of stumbling and our iudgement and condemnation but if he be receaued with mouth and body with hart and fayth to such he bringeth lyfe and nourishment Wherfore in this comparison the author hath made no difference but with diuers tearmes the Catholicke teaching is deuided into two membres with a But fashioned neuertheles in another phrase of spéech then the church hath vsed which is so common in this Author that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte But let vs goe further Caunterbury THere is nothing in this comparyson worthy to be answered for if you can finde no difference therein yet euery indifferent Reader can For when I reporte the Papistes teaching that they
say Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine and for an aduersatiue therto I say that we which follow the Scriptures and aūcient writers say that he is receaued in the harte and entreth in by faith euery indifferent Reader vnderstandeth this aduersatiue vpon our side that we say Christ is not receaued in the mouth but in the hart specially seeing that in my fourth booke the second and third chapters I make purposely a processe therof to proue that Christ is not eaten with mouthes and teeth And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute vnto me in this comparison to make the comparison more full and plain let this be the comparison They say that Christ is receiued with the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine we say that he is not receaued with the mouth but with harte and entreth in by faith And now I trust there is no sleight in this comparison nor both the partes may not be vnderstand on both sides as you say they might before And as for S. Augustine serueth nothing for your purpose to proue that Christes body is eaten with the mouth For he speaketh not one word in the place by you alleadged neither of our mouthes nor of Christes body But it seemeth you haue so feruent desire to be doing in this matter that you be like to certain men which haue such a fond delight in shooting that so they be doyng they passe not how farre they shoote from the marke For in this place of S. Augustine against the Donatists he shooteth not at this butte whether Christes very naturall body be receaued with our mouthes but whether the Sacramentes in generall be receaued both of good and euill And there he declareth that it is all one water whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned in it All one Table of the Lord and one cup whether Peter suppe thereat or Iudas All one oyle whether Dauid or Saule were annointed therewith Wherfore he concludeth thus Memento ergo Sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum quo illa vel omnino non sint vel minus sancta sint sed ipsis malis hominibus vt haec habeant ad testimonium damnationis non ad adiutorium sanitatis Remēber therfore saith S. Augustine that the manners of euill men hinder not the Sacramentes of God that either they vtterly be not or be lesse holy but they hinder the euill men them selues so that they haue the Sacramentes to witnesse of their damnatiō not to helpe of their saluation And all the processe spoaken there by S. Augustine is spoaken chiefly of Baptisme against the Donatistes which sayd that the Baptisme was naught if either the minister or the receauer were naught Against whom S. Augustine concludeth that the Sacramentes of themselues be holy and be all one whether the minister or receauer be good or bad But this place of S. Augustine prooueth as wel your purpose that Christes body is receaued by the mouth as it prooueth that Poules steeple is higher then the crosse in Cheape For he speaketh not one worde of any of them al. And therefore in this place where you pretēd to shoote at the butte you shoote quite at rouers and cleane from the marke And yet if Iudas receaued Christ with the bread as you say and the deuil entred with the bread as S. Iohn saith then was the deuil and Christ in Iudas both at once And thē how they agreed I meruaile For S. Paul saith that Christ and Beliall cannot agree O what a wit had he neede to haue that will wittingly maintayn an open error directly against God his word and all holy auncient writers Now followeth the fourth comparison in my booke They say that Christ is really in the Sacramentall bread being reserued a wholl yeare or so long as the forme of bread remayneth But after the receauing thereof he flyeth vp say they from the Receauer vnto heauen as soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. Winchester This comparison is like the other before whereof the first parte is garnished and embossed with vntruth and the second parte is that the Church hath euer taught most truely and that all must beleeue and therefore that peece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the manner onely bring spoaken as though it differed from the continuall open teaching of the Church which is not so Wherefore in the manner of it in vtterance signifieth an vntruth which in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoubtedly Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the Sacrament so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. In this first parte there is a fault in the matter of the spéech for explication whereof I will examine it particularly This Author saith they say that Christ is really in the Sacramental bread being reserued an wholl yeare c. The Church geuing faith to Christes word when he said This is my body c. teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread vnto which wordes when doe put the word really it serueth onely to expresse that truth in open wordes which was before to be vnderstanded in sence For in Christ who was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and who did exhibite and gaue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promysed in his Sacramentes of the olde law We must vnderstand his wordes in the institution of his Sacramentes without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing of them and therefore when be ordered his most precious body and bloud to be eaten and druken of vs vnder the formes of bread and wine we professe and beléeue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the Sacrament for a celestiall foode to comforte and strengthen vs in this miserable life And for certainty of the truth of his worke therein we professe he geueth vs his body really that is to say in déed his body the thing it selfe which is the heauenly parte of the Sacrament called Eucharistia hauing the visible forme of bread and wine and contayning inuisibly the very body and bloud of our Sauyour Christ which was not wonte to be reserued otherwise but to be ready for such as in daunger of death call for it and the same so long as it may be vsed is still the same Sacrament which onely tyme altereth not Whereof Cirill wrote to this sence many hundred yeares past and Hesychius also and what ought to be done when by negligence of the mynister it were reserued ouerlong Mary where it liketh the Author of these differences to say the church teacheth Christ to flée vp from the
receauer vnto heauen so sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke this maner of speach implieth as though Christ leaft the seat of his maiestie in heauen to be present in the Sacrament which is most vntrue The Church acknowledgeth beleeueth and teacheth truly that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory frō whence he shall come to iudge the worlde and also teacheth Christs very body and bloud and Christ him selfe God and man to be present in the Sacrament not by shifting of place but by the determination of his will declared in Scriptures and beléeued of the Catholick church which articles be to reason impossible but possible to God omnipotent So as being taught of his will we should humbly submitte all our sēses and reason to the faith of his will and worke declared in his Scriptures In the beléefe of which misteries is great benefit and consolation and in the vnreuerēt search and curious discussion of thē presumptuous boldnes wicked temerity I know by faith Christ to be present but the particularity how he is present more then I am assured he is truely present and therfore in substance present I cannot tell but present he is and truely is and verely is and so in déede that is to say really is and vnfaynedly is and therfore in substance is and as we tearme it substancially is present For all these aduerbes really substancially with the rest be contayned in the one word is spoakē out of his mouth that speaketh as he meaneth truely and certainly as Christ did saying This is my body that shall be betrayed for you who then carryed him selfe in his hands after a certain manner as S. Augustine sayth which neuer man besides him could doe who in that his last Supper gaue him selfe to be eaten without consuming The wayes and meanes wherof no man can tell but humble spirites as they be taught must constātly beléeue it without thinking or talking of flying of stying of Christ again vnto heauē where Christ is in the glory of his Father continually and is neuerthelesse because he will so be present in the Sacrament wholl God and man dwelleth corporally in him that receaueth him worthely Wherfore Reader when thou shalt agayn well consider this comparison thou shalt finde true how the first parte is disguysed with vntrue report of the common teaching of the Church how so euer some glose or some priuat teacher might speak of it And the second part such as hath béen euer so taught One thing I think good to admonish the reader that what soeuer I affirme or precisely deny I meane within the compasse of my knowledge which I speak not because I am in any suspicion or doubt of that I affirme or deny but to auoyd the temerity of denying as neuer or affirming as euer which be extremityes And I mean also of publicke doctrine by consent receaued so taught and beléeued and not that ony one man might blindly write as vttering his fancy as this autor doth for his pleasure There followeth in the Author thus Caunterbury BEcause this comparison as you say is like the other therfore it is fully answered before in the other comparisons And here yet agayn it is to be noted that in all these 4. comparisons you approue and allow for truth the second parte of the comparison which we say And where you say that Christ vndoubtedly remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the sacrament so long as that man remaineth a member of Christ. How agreeth this with the common saying of all the Papistes that Christ is conteyned vnder the formes of bread and wine and remayneth there no longer then the formes of bread and wine remain Wherefore in this point all the wholl route of the Papistes will condemne for vntruth that which you so constantly affirme to be vndoubtedly true And when the Papistes teache that the body of Christ is really in the sacramēt vnder the forme of bread they speak not this geueng faith to Christ his words as you say they doe for Christ neuer spake any such words and as for this saying of Christ this is my body it is a figuratiue speach called Metonymia when one thing is called by the name of another which it signifieth and it hath no such sence as you pretend for these is a great diuersity betweene these two sayinges This is my body and the body of Christ is really in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread But the Papists haue set Christes wordes vpon the tenters and stretched them out so farre that they make his wordes to signifie as pleaseth them not as he meant And this is a marueilous doctrine of you to say that Christ was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and did exhibite and geue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promised in the Sacramentes of the olde law For he is the body of all the figures as well of the new law as of the olde and did exhibite and geue his promises in the Sacramentes of the olde law as he doth now in the Sacraments of the new law And we must vnderstand and the wordes spoaken in the institution of the Sacramentes in both the lawes Figuratiuely as concerning the Sacramentes and without figure as concerning the thinges by them promised signified and exhibited As in circumcision was geeuen the same thing to them that is geuen to vs in baptisme and the same by Manna that we haue at the Lords table Only this difference was betweene them and vs that our redemption by Christes death and passion was then onely promised and now it is perfourmed and past And as their Sacramentes were figures of his death to come so be our figures of the same now past and gon And yet it was all but one Christ to them and vs. Who gaue life comfort and strength to them by his death to come and geueth the same to vs by his death passed And he was in their Sacramentes spiritually and effectually present and for so much truely and really present that is to say in deede before he was born no lesse thē he is now in our Sacramēts present after his death and assention into heauen But as for carnall presence he was to them not yet come And to vs he is come and gone agayne vnto his Father from whom he came And as for the reseruation of the Sacrament neither Cyrill nor Hesychius speake any worde what ought to be done with the Sacrament when by negligence of the Minister it were reserued ouer long But Hesychius sheweth plainly that nothing ought to be reserued but to be burned what so euer remayned And as for the flying of Christ vp into heauen so soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or changed in the stomack I say not that the church teacheth so but that Papistes say so whith for as
the armes be there be the legges so that in euery part of the bread and wine is altogether whole head whole feet whole flesh whole bloud whole hart whole lunges whole breast whole backe and altogyther whole confused and mixt without distinction or diuersity O what a foolish and an abhominable inuention is this to make of the most pure and perfect bodye of Christ such a confuse and monstrous body And yet can the Papistes imagine nothing so foolish but all Christian people must receiue the same as an oracle of God and as a most certayne article of their fayth without whisperyng to the contrary Winchester This is a maruaylous Rhetorique and such as the author hath ouerséene himselfe in the vtterance of it and confesseth himself pretely abused to the latter end of his yeares to haue beleued that he now calleth so foolish But to the purpose In the book of common prayer now at this time set foorth in this Realme It is ordered to teach the people that in ech part of the bread consecrate brokeÌ„ is the whole body of our Sauiour Christ which is agreable to the Catholicke doctrine Upon occasion hereof it liketh this author to multiply language by enumeration of partes and because reason without fayth directeth the bodily eye to so little a visible quantity in the host this Author beareth in hand the Catholicke Church to say and teach all that fond reason deuiseth where as the Church in yâ— doctrine of this mistery denieth all that reasoÌ„ without fayth diuiseth and therefore when we acknowledge by fayth Christs body present although we say it is present truly Really Substantially yet we say our senses be not priuy to that presence â—e the maner of it but by instruction of fayth and therefore we say Christes body to be not locally present not by manner of quantity but inuisible and in no sensible manner but maruailously in a Sacrament and mistery truely and in such a spirituall maner as we can not define and determyne and yet by fayth we knowe his bodye present the partes of which be in them selfe distinct one from an other in their owne substaunce but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of our capacitie which partes we can by no demonstration place nor by imagination displace diminish alter or confound as this author for his pleasure reporteth who writeth monstrously in so high a mistery and impudently beareth in hand the Catholicke Church to teach that he listeth to beare in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of the teaching where as al true Christian men beleue symply Christes wordes and trouble not their heades with such consequences as séeme to striue with reason This is in the Author no whisperyng but playnely rayling wherein if he had remembred himselfe well he would not haue spoken of all Christian men in the receypt of that he entendeth to disproue And if he would say he spake it by an Irony or skorne yet it implyeth that all had receyued that he thus mocketh which after the sort he writeth was neuer deuised by Papist or other to be so taught otherwyse then as this Author might read it as an ydle argument to shew absurditie in reason For in Gods workes as the sacramentes hée we must think all semelynesse in déed without deformity euen as we beleue al Gods iudgements iust and true although reason conclude in them euident iniquitie Mans reason when it séemeth most gallant is full of spottes and folly Gods workes be all séemelynesse without confusion monsier or any such absurditée as this Author supposeth Although I can not in the Sacrament with the eye of my reason locally distinct Christs head from his foote his legs from his arme And where in the booke of common prayer it is truely said in ech part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christes whole body if one of curiositee would question with me and I of folly would aunswere him first where is Christes head I should say here poynting with my finger he would thinke it first a little head Then he would aske where is his foote and I should say there and poynt in the same place againe for there is none other left If he replyed that I poynted before the same for the head might not the third a catholicke man that stood by trow you wisely call vs both madde to go about to discusse that wée must grant we se not wheÌ„ by faith we know only the being preset of Christs most precious body then by blynd reason to discusse the manner of being in the situation of such partes as we do not see Now if there came among vs a fourth man as a mediatour and would do as king Alexander dyd when he could not open the knot of Gordius he did cut it with his sworde if this man should say I will reléeue this matter You beleue Christes body is preseÌ„t in déed really and substaÌ„tially Leaue out really and subtaÌ„tially and say his body is present in signification and then it may be easily conceaued by reason that Christs body being neuer so great may be as well signified by a little péece of bread as by a great péece of bread euen as a man may write a great mans name as wel in smal letters short as in great letters at length And to commend further his deuise vnto vs would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconueniences might be auoyded by it This fourth man I speak of making himselfe a mediatour but in déede vnmete therfore because he hath no participation with sayth yet if our religion and fayth were mans inuention as that of Numa Pompilius was he should not vtter this his conceit all ydelly For he speaketh of a ioly easy way without any mistery or maruaile at all But our faith is of hearing as hath bene preached continually from the beginning grounded vpon the most sure trueth of the word of God and therefore can not be attempered as man would deuise it to exclude trauayle in carnall reason For then the Sabellians were to be harkned vnto who by their heresy toke away all the hard and difficile questions in the mistery of the Trinitie The Arrians also releued much mans reason in consideration of Christs death denying him to be of the same substance with his father which â—as a pestilent heresy Now in the SacrameÌ„t to say Christs body is present onely by signification as it releueth in some mens iudgementes the absurdities in reason which ought not to be releued so it condemneth all the true publike faith testified in the Church from the beginning hetherto and sheweth the learned holy men to haue wondred in their writynges at that which hath no wonder at all to ordeyn one thing to be the signification of an other which is practised daily among men But from the beginning the mistery of the Sacrament hath béen with wonder marueyled at how
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
is not in the sacrament And forasmuch as I speake not one word of the comprehension of our senses to what purpose do you bring this in if it be not to draw vs to a new matter to auoyd that which is in controuersy You do herein as if Iames should by of Iohn a percell of land and by his atturney take state and possession therein And after Iohn should trauers the matter and say that there was neuer no state deliuered and thereupon ioyne their issue And when Iames should bryng forth his witnesses for the state and possession theÌ„ should Iohn runne to a new matter and say that Iames saw the possession deliuered what were this allegation of Iohn to the purpose of the thing that was in issue whether the possession were deliuered in deede or no Were this any other thing then to auoid the issue craftely by bringing in of a new matter And yet this shift is a common practise of you in this booke and this is another point of the deuils Sophistry wherin it is pitty that euer such a wit as you haue should be occupied Again you say that impudently I beare the Catholick church in hand to teach that I list to beare in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching wheras al true christen men beleeue simply Christs words and trouble not their heads with such consequences This is in the author no whispering but plain railing say you This is your barking eloqueÌ„ce wherewith your booke is well furnished for as dogs barke at the moone without any cause so doe you in this place For I doe no more but truely reporte what the Papistes them selues doe write and no otherwise not bearing the Catholick church in hand that it so teacheth but charging the Papistes that they so teach nor bearing the Papistes in hand what I list or what by wantoÌ„ reason may be deduced of their teaching but reporting onely what their own words and sayinges be And if they be no true christen men that trouble their heades with such matters as you affirme they be not then was Innocent the third the chiefe author of your doctrin both of transubstantiation and of the reall preseÌ„ce no true christian man as I beleeue well inough Then was your Saint Thomas no true christian man Then Gabriell Duns Durand and the great rablement of the schoole authors which taught your doctrin of traÌ„substantiation and of the reall presence were not true christen men And in few words to comprehend the whol then were almost none that taught that doctrine true christen men but your selfe alone For almost all with one consent doe teach that wholl Christ is really in euery part of the host But your termes here of rayling mocking and scorning I would haue taken patiently at your hand if your tongue and pen had not ouershot theÌ„ selues in braging so far that the truth by you should be defaced But now I shal be so bold as to send those termes thether from whence they came And for the matter it selfe I am ready to ioyn an issue with you notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words But in Gods workes say you as the Sacramentes be we must think all seemelines in deede without deformity But what seemelines is this in a mannes body that the head is where the feete be and the armes where the legges be which the Papistes doe teach and your selfe seeme to confesse when you say that the partes of Christes body be distinct in themselues one from another in their own substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places And yet you seeme again to deny the same in your wise dialogue or quadriloge betweene the curious questioner the folish ansÌ„werer your wise catholick man standing by and the mediator In which dialoge you bring in your wise catholick man to condemne of madnes all such as say that Christes head is there where his feete be and so you condemne of madnes not onely al the scholasticall doctors which say that Christ is wholl in euery part of the coÌ„secrated bread but also your own former saying where you deny the distinction of the partes of Christs body in seuerall places Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser then you all who losing this knot of Gordius saith that Christes body how big soeuer it be may be as well signified by a little peece of bread as by a greate and so as concerning the reason of a sacrameÌ„t al is one whether it be an whol bread or a peece of it as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the wholl fonte or in a parte of the water taken out therof For the respect and consideration of the Sacrament is all one in the lesse and more But this fourth man say you hath no participation with faith condemning all the true publick faith testified in the church from the beginning hetherto which hath euer with wonder marueiled at the mistery of the Sacrament which is no wonder at all if bread be but a signification of Christ his body this is a wonderfull saying of you as of one that vnderstoode nothing vtterly what a Sacrament meaneth and what is to be wondred at in the Sacrament For the wonder is not how God worketh in the outward visible Sacrament but his marueilous worke is in the worthy receauers of the Sacramentes The wonderfull worke of God is not in the water which oâ—ely washeth the body but God by his omnipotent power worketh wonderfully in the receauers thereof scouring washing and making them clean inwardly and as it were new meÌ„ and celestiall creatures This haue allâ—olde authors wondered at this wonder passeth the capacities of all mens wits how damnation is turned into saluation and of the Sonne of the deuill condemned into hell is made the Sonne of God and inheritour of heauen This wonderfull worke of God all men may maruel and wonder at but no creature is able sufficiently to comprehend it And as this is wondred at in the Sacrament of Baptisme how he that was subiect vnto death receiueth life by Christ and his holy Spirite So is this wondred at in the Sacrament of Christes holy Table how the same life is continued and endureth for euer by continuall feeding vpon Christes flesh and his bloud And these wonderfull workes of God towardes vs we be taught by Gods holy worde and his Sacramentes of breade wine and water and yet be not these woÌ„derfull workes of God in the Sacraments but in vs. And although many authors vse this manner of speech that Christ maketh bread his body and wine his bloud and wonder thereat yet those authors mean not of the bread and wine in them selues but of the bread and wine eaten and dronken of faithfull people For when Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud he wake not those words to the bread wine but to the eaters and drinkers of them saying Eat this is my body Drink this is my
who worketh vniformely and yet is not in all that receaue of like effect not of any alteration or diminution in it but for the diuersitie of him that receaueth So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholicke Church vnder the name of Papists is a very true report and for want of grace reproued by the Author as though it were no true doctrine And the second part of the comparison on the authors side contained vnder We say by them that in hypocrisy pretend to bée fruethes frendes conteineth an vntrueth to the simple reader and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader because of the word very which referred to the effect of eating the body of Christ whereby to receaue lyfe may be so spoaken that none receaue the body of Christ with the very effect of lyfe but such as eate the sacrament spiritually that is to say with true fayth worthely And yet euill men as Iudas receaue the same very body touching the truth of the presence thereof that S. Peter did For in the substāce of the Sacrament which is Gods worke is no varietie who ordeineth all as afore vniformely but in man is the varietie amongst whom he that receaueth worthely Christes body receaueth life and be that receaueth vnworthely receaueth condemnation There followeth further Caunterbury I Thanke you for this demurre for I my selfe could haue chosen no better for my purpose And I am content that the trial of the whole matter be iudged hereby as you desire You say that all that be baptised good and euill eate the body of Christ and I say only the good and not the euill Now must neyther I nor you be iudges in our own causes therefore let Christ be iudge betwene vs both whose iudgemēt it is not reason that you refuse Christ sayth Who so euer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the lyuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came down from heauen Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Now I aske you this question whether euil men shal liue for euer Whether they liue by Christ Whether they dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them If you say nay as you must needes if you will say the truth then haue I proued my negatiue wherein stood the demurre that ill men eat not Christs body nor drinke his bloud for if they did then by Christs own words they should liue for euer and dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them And what proofes will you require more vpon my part in this demurre For if Christ be with me who can be able to stand agaynst me But you alleadge for you S. Paule who speaketh for you nothing at al. For the messenger will not speake against him that sent him I know that S. Paule in the 11. to the Corinthians speaketh expressly of the vnworthy eating of the bread but in no place of the vnworthy eating of the body of Christ. And if he doe shew the place or t is the demurre passeth against you and the wholl matter tried with me by your own pact and couenant And yet for further proofe of this demure I refer me to the 1.2.3.4 and 5. chapters of my 4. booke And where you bring S. Augustine to be witnesse his witnesse in that place helpeth nothing your cause For he speaketh there generally of the vsing of the Sacramentes well or ill as the dyuersity of men be rehearsing by name the sacrament of circumcision of the paschal lamb and of baptisme Wherefore if you wil proue any real and corporall presence of Christ by that place you may aswell proue that he was corporally present iii circumcisiō in eating of the paschal lamb and in baptism as in the Lords supper And here ye vse such a subtilty to deceaue the symple reader that he hath good cause to suspect your proceedinges and to take good heed of you in all your writings who do nothing els but go about to deceaue him For you conclude the matter of the substance of the Sacrament that the reader might thinke that place to speak only of the sacrament of Christs body aud bloud and to speak of the substaunce thereof where S. Augustine neither hath that word Substaunce nor speaketh not one word specially of that sacrament but all his processe goeth chiefely of Baptisme which is alone sayth S. Augustine against the Donatists which reproued Baptisme for the vice of the minister whether the minister be good or ill and whether he minister it to good or to ill For the Sacraments is all one although the effect be diuers to good and to euill And as for them whom ye say that in hypocrisy pretend to be truthes frends all that be learned and haue any iudgemēt know that it is the Papists which no few yeres passed by hypocrisy and fained religion haue vttered and solde theyr lyes and fables in sted of Gods eternall truth and in the place of Christ haue set vp idols and Antichrist And for the conclusion of this comparison in this word Very you make such a wrangling where none occasion is geuen as neuer was had before this tyme of any learned man For who heard euer before this tyme that an adiectiue was referred to a verb and not to his proper substantiue of any man that had any learning at all And as for the matter of Iudas is answered before For he receaued not the bread that was the Lord as S. Augustine sayth but the bread of the Lord. Nor no man can receaue the body of Christ vnworthely although he may receaue vnworthely the Sacrament thereof And hitherto D. Smyth hath found no fault at all in my comparisons whereby the reader may see how nature passeth arte seing here much more captiousnesse in a subtill sophisticall wit then in hym that hath but learned the Sophisticall art Now followeth the eyght comparyson They say that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud only at that time when they receaue the Sacramēt We say that they eat drink and feed of Christ continually so long as they be members of his body Winchester What forehead I pray you is so hardened that can vtter this amōg them that know any thing of the learning of Christs Church In which it is a most common distinction that there is thrée manner of eatinges of Christes body and bloud one spirituall only which is here affirmed in the second part of We say wherin the author and his say as the church sayth Another eating is both sacramentally and spiritually which is when men worthely communicate in the supper The thyrd is sacramentally only which is by men vnworthy who eat and drink in the holy supper to their
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
sacrifice whereof Malachy spake and that Christ doth now in the celebration of this supper as he did when he gaue the same to his Apostles and that he offreth himself now as he did then and that the same offering is not now renewed agayne This is your chain of errors wherein is not one linke of pure golde but all be copper fayned and coūterfaite For neither is Christes body verely and corporally present in the celebration of his holy supper but spiritually Nor his body is not the very sacrifice but the thing wherof the sacrifice was made and the very sacrifice was the crucifying of his body and the effusion of his bloud vnto death Wherfore of his body was not made a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world at his supper but the next day after vpon the cros Therfore sayth the Prophet that we were made whole by his wounds Liuore eius sanati sumus Nor that sacrifice of Christ in the celebration of the supper is not the only sacrifice of the church but all the workes that christen people doe to the glory of God be sacrifices of the church smelling sweetly before God And they be also the pure and clean sacrifice wherof the Prophet Malachy did speake For the Prophet Malachy spake of no such sacrifices as onely priestes make but of such sacrifice as all christen people make both day and night at all times and in all places Nor Christ doth not now as he did at his last Supper which he had with his Apostles◠for then as you say he declared his will that he would dye for vs. And if he do now as he did thē thē doth he now declare that he will dye for vs againe But as for offering him self now as he did then this speech may haue a true sence being like to that which sometime was vsed at the admission of vnlearned fryers and monkes vnto their degrees in the Uniuersities where the Doctor that presented them deposed that they were meete for the sayd degrees as well in learning as in vertue And yet that depositiō in one sence was true when in deede they were meete neither in the one nor in the other So likewise in that sence Christ offereth himself now as well as he did in his supper for in deede he offered himself a sacrifice propiciatory for remission of sinne in neither of both but onely vpon the cros making there a sacrifice full and perfect for our redemption and yet by that sufficient offering made only at that time he is a daily intercessor for vs to his father for euer Finally it is not true that the offering in the celebration of the supper is not renued againe For the same offering that is made in one Supper is daily renued and made againe in euery supper and is called the daily Sacrifice of the church Thus haue I broaken your chaine and scattered your linkes which may be called the very chaine of Belzebub able to draw into hell as many as come within the compasse therof And how would you require that men should geue you credite who within so few lines knitte together so many manifest lyes It is another vntruth also which you say after that Christ declared in the Supper him self an offering and sacrifice for sinne for he declared in his Supper not that he was then a sacrifice but that a sacrifice should be made of his body which was done the next day after by the voluntary effusion of his bloud of any other sacrificing of Christ for sinne the Scripture speaketh not For although the Scripture sayeth that our Sauiour Christ is a continual intercessor for vs vnto his father yet no Scripture calleth that intercession a sacrifice for sinne but onely the effusion of his bloud which it seemeth you make him to doe still when you say that he suffereth and so by your imagination he should now still be crucified if he now suffer as you say he doth But it seemeth you passe not greatly what you say so that you may multiply many gallant wordes to the admiration of the hearers But for as much as you say that Christ offereth him selfe in the celebration of the Supper and also that the church offereth him here I would haue you declare how the Church offereth Christ and how he offereth him selfe and wherein those offeringes stand in wordes deedes or thoughtes that we may know what you meane by your daily offering of Christ. Of offering our selues vnto God in all our actes and deedes with laudes and thankes geuing the scripture maketh mention in many places But that Christ himself in the holy communion or that the priests make any other oblation then all christen people doe because these be papisticall inuentions without Scripture I require nothing but reason of you that you should so plainly set out these deuised offeringes that men might plainly vnderstand what they be and wherein they rest Now in this comparyson truth it is as you say that you haue spent many words but vtterly in vayne not to declare but to darcken the matter But if you would haue followed the plaine words of Scripture you needed not to haue taryed so long and yet should you haue made the matter more cleere a great deale Now followeth my last comparison They say that Christ is corporally in many places at one time affirming that his body is corporally and really present in as many places as there be hostes consecrated We say that as the sonne corporally is euer in heauen no where els and yet by his operation and vertue the sonne is heare in earth by whose influence and vertue all thinges in the world be corporally regenerated increased and grow to their perfect state So likewise our sauiour Christ bodely and corporally is in heauen sitting at the right hand of his Father although spiritually he hath promysed to be present with vs vpon earth vnto the worldes end And when soeuer two or three be gathered together in his name he is there in the middest among them by whose supernall grace all godly men be first by him spiritually regenerated and after increase and grow to their spirituall perfection in God spiritually by faith eating his flesh and drinking his bloud although the same corporally be in heauen farre distant from our sight Winchester The true teaching is that Christes very body is present vnder the form of bread in as many hostes as be consecrate in how many places so euer the hostes bee consecrate and is their really and substantially which wordes really and substantially be implied when we say truely present The word corporally may haue an ambiguite and doublenes in respect and relation one is to the truth of the body present and so it may be sayd Christ is corporally present in Sacrament if the word corporally be referred to the maner of the presence then we should say Christes body were present after a corporall
manner which we say not but in a spirituall maner and therefore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such maner as God onely knoweth yet dooth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence exceding our capacitie to comprehend the maner how This is the very true teaching to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament euen of the same body that suffred in playne simple euident termes and wordes such as can not by cauilation be mistaken and construed so néere as possibly mans infirmitie permitteth and suffreth Now let vs consider in what sort the author and hys company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the Sacrament who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne which sonne this author sayth is euer corporally in heauen and no where els and yet by operation and vertue is here in earth so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any language of man able to expresse God and hys mysteryes For and thinges that be sene or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible misteryes the nature wherof is that they can not throughly be expressed they were no misteries and yet it is true that of thinges visible wherein God worketh wonderfully there may be great resemblances some shadowes and as it were inductions to make a man astonied in consideration of thinges inuisible when he séeth thinges visible so wonderfully wrought and to haue so maruaylous effectes And diuers good catholicke deuoute men haue by diuers naturall things gone about to open vnto vs the mistery of the trinitie partely by the sonne as the author doth in the Sacrament partely by fyre partely by the soule of man by the Musitians science the arte the touch with the players fingers and the sound of the cord wherein wil hath all trauailed the matter yet remayneth darke ne can not be throughly set forth by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the sonne whiche sonne this author sayth is onely corporally in heauen and no where els and in the earth the operatiō and vertue of the sonne So as by this authors supposall the substance of the sonne should not be in earth but onely by operation and vertue wherein if this author erreth he doth the reader to vnderstande that if he erre in consideration of naturall thinges it is no maruayle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I will not of my selfe begin the contention with this author of the naturall worke of the Sonne I will bryng forth the saying of Martin Bucer now resident at Cambridge who vehemently and for so much truly affirmeth the trew reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament For he sayth Christ sayd not This is my spirite this is my vertue but This is my body Wherefore he sayth we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hang vpon the crosse our Lord hym selfe whiche in some parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the sonne for hys purpose to proue Christes body present really and substancially in the sacramēt where this author vseth the same similitude to proue the body of Christ really absent I will wryte in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin expounding the xrvi chapiter of Saynte Mathew and then I will put the same in english Bucers wordes bée these Vt Sol vere vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est radys tamen suis praesens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substantialiter quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini simbolis quam oculi vident habent Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res sidei non sunt igitur huc admittende cogitationes de presentatione corporis quae constar ratione huius vitae etiamnum patibilis fluxae Verbo Domini simpliciter inhaerendum est debet fides sensuum de fectui praebere supplimentum Which is thus much in English As the sonne is truely placed determinately in one place of the visible heauē and yet is truely and substantially present by meanes of hys beames els where in the world abroad So our Lord although he be comprehended in one place of the secrete and diuine heauen that is to say the glory of hys father yet neuerthelesse by hys word and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man and therfore in substance in his holy supper which presence mans mind geuing credite to his words and tokens with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see and haue the sonne presente exhibited and shewed with his corporally lyght This is a deep secrete matter and of the new testament and a matter of fayth and therfore herein thoughtes be not to be receiued of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of thys life transitorie and subiect to suffer We must simply cleaue to the word of Christ and fayth must releue the default of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his minde whereunto because the similitude of the sonne doth not aunswere in all partes he noteth wisely in th ende howe this is a matter of faith and therefore vpon the foundation of faith we must speake of it thereby to supply where our sences fayle For the presence of Christ and whole Christe God and man is true although we can not thinke of the maner how The chiefe cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shew how in hys iudgement we haue not onely in earth the operation and vertue of the sonne but also the substance of the sonne by incane of the sonne beames which be of the same substaunce with the sonne and can not be deuided in substance from it and therfore we haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sonne not onely the operation and vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sort yet the beames that touch the earth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papiste and yet for the reall and substantiall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pithely and playnly and here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the sonne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the sacrament which is one of the high misteries in our religiō And this may
also in the middest of them that know him not and thus he reasoneth If he be here among vs still how can he be gone hence as a straunger departed into another countrey wherunto he answereth that Christ is both God and man hauing in him two natures And as a man he is not with vs vnto the worldes end nor is present with all his faihtfull that be gathered together in his name But his diuine power and spirite is euer with vs. Paule saith he was absent from the Corinthes in his body when he was present with thē in his spirite So is Christ sayth he gone hence and absent in his humanitie which in his diuine nature is euery where And in this saying sayth Origen we diuide not his humanitie ` for S. Iohn writeth that no spirite that deuideth Iesus can be of God but we reserue to both his natures their own properties In these wordes Origen hath playnly declared his mynd that Christes body is not both present here with vs and also gone hence and estranged from vs. For that were to make two natures of one body and to deuide the body of Iesus forasmuch as one nature can not at one tyme be both with vs and absēt from vs. And therefore sayth Origen that the presence must be vnderstanded of his diuinitie and the absence of his humanitie And according hereunto S. Austine writeth thus in a pistle Ad dardanum Doubt not but Iesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there from whence he shall come And remember well and beleeue the profession of a christian man that he rose frō death ascended into heauen sitteth at the right hand of his father and from that place and none other shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead And he shall come as the Aungels sayd as he was seene go into heauen that is to say in the same forme and substance vnto the which he gaue immortallytie but chaunged not nature After this forme sayth he meaning his mans nature we may not thynke that he is euery wher For we must beware that we doe not so stablish his diuinity that we take away the veritie of his body These be S. Augustines playne wordes And by and by after he addeth these wordes The Lord Iesus as God is euery where and as man is in heauen And finally he concludeth this matter in these few wordes Doubt not but our Lord Iesus Christ is euery where as God and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God and he is in a certain place in heauen because of the measure of a very body And agayne S. Augustin writeth vpon the Gospel of S. Iohn Our sauiour Iesus Christ sayth S. Augustine is aboue but yet his truth is here His body wherein he arose is in one place but his truth is spred euery where And in an other place of the same booke S. Augustine expounding these wordes of Christ. You shall euer haue poore men with you but me you shall not euer haue saith that Christ spake these words of the presence of his body For saith he as concerning his diuine maiesty as concerning his prouidence as concerning his infallible and inuisible grace these words be fulfilled which he spake I am with you vnto the worldes ende But as concerning the fleshe which he tooke in his carnation as concerning that which was borne of the virgine as concerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vpon a tree and taken downe frō the crosse lapped in linnen clothes and buried and rose againe and appered after his resurrection as concerning that flesh he sayd You shall not euer haue me with you Wherefore senig that as concerning his flesh he was conuersant with his disciples forty dayes and they accompanying seeing and not following him he went vp into heauen both he is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet he is here for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his diuine Maiesty As concerning the presence of his Maiesty we haue Christ euer with vs but as concerning the presence of his flesh he said truely to his disciples ye shall not euer haue me with you For as concerning the presence of his flesh the church had Christ but a few dayes yet now it holdeth him fast by faith though it see him not with eyes All these be S. Augustines wordes Also in an other booke intitled to S. Augustine is written thus We must beleeue and confesse that the Sonne of God as concerning his diuinitie is inuisible without a body immortall and in circumscriptible but as concerning his humanitie we ought to beleeue and confesse that he is visible hath a body and it contayned in a certayn place and hath truely all the members of a man Of these wordes of S. Augustine it is most cleere that the profession of the catholick faith is that Christ as concerning his bodely substance and nature of man is in heauen and not present here with vs in earth For the nature and property of a very body is to be in one place and to occupy one place and not to be euery where or in many places at one time And though the body of Christ after his resurrectiō and ascention was made immortall yet this nature was not taken away for then as S. Augustine saith it were no very body And further S. August sheweth both the maner fourme how Christ is here present with vs in earth how he is absent saying that he is present by his diuine nature and maiesty by his prouidence by grace But by his humain nature and very body he is absent from this world and present in heauen Cyrillus likewise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn agreeth fully with S. Augustin saying Although Christ tooke away from hence the presence of his body yet in Maiestie of hys Godhead he is euer here as he promised to his disciples at his departing saying I am with you euer vnto the worldes end And in an other place of the same booke saynct Cyrill sayth thus Christian people must beleeue that although Christ be absent from vs as concerning hys body yet by his power he gouerneth vs and all thinges and is present with all them that loue hym Therfore he sayd Truely truely I say vnto you where so euer there be two or three gathered together in my name there am I in the middes of them For lyke as when he was conuersant here in earth as a man yet then he filled heauen and did not leaue the company of angelles euē so beyng now in heauen with hys flesh yet he filleth the earth and is in them that loue hym And it is to be marked that although Christ should go away onely as concerning hys flesh for he is euer present in the power of hys diuinitie yet for a little time he sayd he would be with hys disciples
reader the sayinges of these authors and see whether they say that one nature in Christ may be both in heauen and in earth both here with vs and absent from vs at one tyme and whether they resolue this matter of Christs being in heauen and in earth as Smith doth to be vnderstand of his māhoode in diuersitie of these respectes visible and inuisible And when thou hast well considered the authors sayinges then geue credite to Smith as thou shalt see cause But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hote that the Bishop of Winchester durste not once touch it and Smith as soone as he had touched it felt it so scawlding hote that he durst not abyde it but shranke away by and by for feare of burning his fingers Now here what followeth further in my booke But now seeing that it is so euident a matter both by the expresse words of Scripture and also by all the old authors of the same that our Sauiour Christ as concerning his bodely presence is ascended into heauen and is not here in earth And seeing that this hath been the true confession of the Catholicke faith euer since Christes ascention it is now to be considered what mooued the Papistes to make a new and contrary faith and what Scriptures haue they for their purpose What moued them I know not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condition of the sea of Rome which is of al other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for Scripture they alleadge none but onely one and that not truely vnderstanded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to iarre and sound contrary to all other Scriptures pertaining to the matter Christ toke bread say they blessed brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body These words they euer still repeate and beate vpon that Christ sayd this is my body And this saying they make their shooteanker to proue therby as well the reall and naturall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these words of Christ say they be most plain and most true Then for as much as he said This is my body it must needes be true that that thing which the Priest holdeth is his hands is Christs body And if it be Christes body then can it not be bread Whereof they gather by their reasoning that there is Christes body really present and noe bread Now forasmuch as all their proofe hangeth onely vpon these wordes this is my body the true sence and meaning of these wordes must be examined But say they what neede they any examination what wordes can be more plain then to say This is my body Truth it is in deed that the wordes be as plain as may be spoaken but that the sence is not so plain it is manifest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For when Christ gaue bread to his disciples and said This is my body there is no man of any discretiō that vnderstandeth the english tongue but he may well know by the order of the speache that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the old authors also do affirme although some of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the wordes seeme and purport but there must needes be some figure or mistery in this speech more then appeareth in the playne wordes For by this manner of speeche plainly vnderstand without any figure as the wordes lye can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread which all Christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherefore in these wordes must needes be sought out another sence meaning then the words of themselues do beare And although the true sense and vnderstanding of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the matter so playne that no scrouple or doubt shall remayne here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whiche processe shal be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speches And although it be manifest inough by the playn wordes of the gospel and proued before in the processe of Transubstantiation that Christ spake of bread when he sayd This is my body likewise that it was very wyne which he called his bloud yet least the Papistes should say that we sucke this out of our own fyngers the same shall be proued by testimony of the old authors to be the true and old fayth of the catholicke Church Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any auncient author to the contrary First Ireneus writing against the Valentinians in his fourth booke sayeth that Christ confessed bread which is a creature to be his body and the cuppe to be his bloud And in the same booke he writeth thus also The bread wherin the thanks be geuen is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same booke he saith that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice was his bloud And in the fift booke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his body a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plain that Christ taking very materiall bread a creature of God and of such sort as other bread is which we doe vse called that his body when he said this is my body and the wine also which doth feede and nourish vs he called his bloud Tertullian likewise in his booke written against the Iewes saith that Christ called bread his body And in his booke against Martian he oftentimes repeateth the selfe same wordes And S. Cipryan in the first booke of his epistles saith the same thing that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he called his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes and made into mine And in his second booke he saith these wordes Water is not the bloud of Christ but wine And againe in the same epistle he saith that it was wine which Christ called hys bloud and that if wine be not in the chalice then we drinke not of the fruit of the vine And in the same Epistle he saith that meale alone or water clone is not the body of Christ except they be both ioyned together to make therof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speaking of a lofe which is round in fashion and cannot see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierome wryting ad Hedibiam saith
Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall giue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely their owne bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now it shall not be much amisse to examine here the wise deuise of M. Smith what he can say to this matter that the opinion of diuers Doctours may be knowen as well of Doctour Smith as of Doctour Gardyner It is very false sayth Smith to me that you do say that as these wordes This is my body do lye there cā be gathered of them none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread For there can no such thing be gathered of those wordes but onely that Christ gaue his disciples his very body to eat into which he had turned the bread when he spake those wordes First Smith vseth here a great and manifest falsehead in reciting of my sentence leauing out those wordes which should declare the truth of my saying For I say that by this maner of speache playnly vnderstand without any figure there can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body In which my sentence he leaueth out these wordes by this maner of spech playnly vnderstand without any figure which wordes be so materiall that in them resteth the pith and triall of the whole sentence When Christ tooke the v. loaues and ij fishes and looking vp into heauen blessed them and brake them and gaue them vnto his disciples that they should distribute them vnto the people if he had then said Eate this is meate which shall satisfie your hunger by this maner of speach playnly vnderstand without any figure could any other sence haue been gathered but that the bread and fishes which he gaue them was meate And if at the same tyme he had blessed wine and commaunding them to drinke therof had sayd This is drinke which shall quench your thirst what could haue been gathered of those wordes playnly vnderstand without any figure but that he called wine drinke So lykewise when he blessed bread and wine and gaue them to his disciples saying Eate thys is my body Drinke this is my bloud what can be gathered of this maner of speach playnly vnderstād without any figure but that he called the bread his body wine his bloud For Christ spake not one word there of any changyng or turning of the substaūce of the bread no more then he did when he gaue the loaues fishes And therfore the maner of speach is all one and the changing of the substaūces can no more be proued by the phrase and fashion of speach to be in the one then in the other whatsoeuer you Papistes dreame of your owne heades without Scripture that the substaunce of the bread is turned into the substaunce of Christes body But Smith bringeth here newes vsing such strange and noueltie of speache as other Papistes vse not which he doth either of ignoraunce of his Grammar or els that he dissenteth farre from other Papistes in iudgement For he sayth that Christ had turned the bread when he spake these wordes This is my body And if Smith remember his Accidence the preterpluperfect tence signifieth the tyme that is more than perfectly past so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spake those wordes then was the turning done before and already past when he spake those wordes which the other Papistes say was done after or in the pronunciation of the wordes And therfore they vse to speake after this sort that when he had spoken the wordes the bread was turned and not that he had turned the bread when he spake the wordes An other noueltie of speach Smith vseth in the same place saying that Christ called his body bread bycause he turned bread into it it semeth and appeareth still to be it it hath the qualitie and quantitie of bread and bycause it is the foode of the soule as corporall meate is of the body These be Smithes wordes which if he vnderstād of the outward forme of bread it is a noueltie to say that it is the foode of the soule and if he meane of the very body of Christ it is a more strange noueltie to say that it hath the quantitie and qualitie of bread For there was neuer man I trow that vsed that maner of speach to say that the body of Christ hath the quātitie and qualitie of bread although the Papistes vse this spech that the body of Christ is conteined vnder the forme that is to say vnder the quātities and qualities of bread Now when Smith should come to make a direct answere vnto the authorities of the old writers which I haue brought forth to proue that Christ called bread his body when he sayd This is my body Smith answereth no more but this the Doctors which you my Lord alledge here for you proue not your purpose Forsoth a substantiall answer and well proued that the Doctours by me alledged proue not my purpose for Smith sayth so I looked here that Smith should haue brought forth a great number of authors to approue his saying and to reproue mine specially seing that I offered fayre play to him and to all the Papists ioyned with him in one trowpe For after that I had alledged for the proofe of my purpose a great many places of old authors both Greekes and Latines I prouoked the Papistes to say what they could to the contrary Let all the Papistes together sayd I shew any one authoritie for them either of Scripture or auncient Author eyther Greeke or Latin and for my part I shall giue them place And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie then is it reason that they giue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of Scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now I referre to thy iudgement indifferent reader whether I offered the Papistes reason or no and whether they ought not if they had any thing to shew to haue brought it forth here And for as much as they haue brought nothing being thus prouoked with all their counsayle whether thou oughtest not to iudge that they haue nothing in deede to shew which if they had without doubt we should haue hard of it in this place But we heare nothing at all but these their bare wordes not one of all these Doctors sayth as ye do my Lord Which I put in thy discretion indifferent Reader to vew the Doctours wordes by me alleaged and so to iudge But they say not
his owne glose to exclude the truth of the eating of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to his speach the wordes grossely and carnally which wordes in such a rude vnderstanding be termes méeter to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery Wherein I will make the issue with this author that no catholike teaching is so framed with such termes as though we should eate Christs most precious body grossely carnally ioyning those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hillary vseth it but contrariwise speaking in the Catholique teaching of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spirituall maner of presence and yet there is present by gods power the very true naturall body and bloud of Christ whole God man without leauing his place in heauen and in the holy supper men vse their mouthes and téeth following Christes commaundement in the receiuing of that holy Sacrament being in fayth sufficiently instruct that they can not ne do not teare consume or violate that most precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuing it are cause of their owne iudgement and condemnation Caunterbury EAting and drinking with the mouth being so playne a matter that yong babes learne it and know it before they cā speake yet the Cut till here with his blacke colours and darke speaches goeth about so to couer and hyde the matter that neither yong nor olde learned nor vnlearned should vnderstand what he meaneth But for all his masking who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that eating in the propper and vsuall signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth And who knoweth not also that Christ is not so eaten Who can then be ignorant that here you speake a manifest vntruth when you say that Christes body to be eaten is of it selfe a propper speach and not figuratiue Which is by and by confessed by your selfe when you say that we do not eate that heauēnly meat as we do other carnall meates which is by chawing and deuiding with the mouth and teeth And yet we receaue with the mouth that is ordeined to be receiued with the mouth that is to say the Sacramentall bread and wine esteming them neuerthelesse vnto vs when we duly receiue them according vnto Christes wordes and ordinaunce But where you say that of the substaunce of Christes body no good man iudgeth carnally ne discusseth the vnfaythful question how you charge your selfe very sore in so saying and seeme to make demonstration vpon your selfe of whom may be sayd Ex ore tuo te iudico For you both iudge carnally in affirming a carnall presence and a carnall eating and also you discusse this question how when you say that Christes body is in the sacrament really substauncially corporally carnally sensible and naturally as he was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the cros And as concerning these wordes of Christ The wordes which I doe speake be Spirite and lyfe I haue not wrested them with myne owne glose as you misreport but I haue cited for me the interpretation of the catholik doctors and holy fathers of the church as I refer to the iudgement of the reader But you teach such a carnall grosse eating and drinking of Christes flesh bloud as is more meet to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to sette forth the high mistery of Christes holy supper For you say that Christes body is present really substauncially corporally and carnally and so is eaten and that we eate Christes body as eating is taken in common speach but in common speach it is taken for chawing and gnawing as doges do paunches wherfore of your saying it followeth that we do so eate Christes body as dogges eate paunches which all christian eares abhore for to heare But why should I ioyne with you here an issue in that mater which I neuer spake For I neuer read nor hard no man that sayd sauing you alone that we do eate Christ grossely or carnally or as eating is taken in common speach without any figure but all that euer I haue hard or read say quite cleane contrary But you who affirme that we eate Christ carnally and as eating is taken in common speach which is carnally grossely to chaw with the teeth must nedes consequently graunt that we eat him grossely and carnally as dogges eate paunches And this is a strange thing to heare that where before you sayd that Christ is present but after a spirituall maner now you say that he is eaten carnally And where you say that in the holy Supper men vse their mouth and teeth truth it is that they so do but to chawe the Sacramēt not the body of Christ. And if they doo not teare that most precious body and bloud why say you then that they eate the body of Christ as eatyng is taken in cōmon speech And wherefore doth that false Papisticall fayth of Pope Nicolas which you wrongfully call Catholike teach that Christs body is torne with the teeth of the faythfull De consecr dist 2. Ego Now folowe the particular authorities which I haue alleaged for the interpretation of Christes wordes which if you had well considered you would not haue sayd as you doe that I wrasted Christes wordes with mine owne glose For I beginne with Origene saying And Origene declaring the sayd eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud not to be vnderstand as the wordes doe sound but figuratiuely writeth thus vpon these wordes of Christ Except you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Consider sayth Origen that these thinges written in Godes bookes are figures and therefore examine and vnderstand them as spirituall and not as carnall men For if you vnderstand them as carnall men they hurt you and feede you not For euen in the Gospels is there foūd letter that killeth And not onely in the old Testament but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth hym that dooth not spiritually vnderstand that which is spoken For if thou follow the letter or wordes of this that Christ sayd Except you eat my flesh and drink my bloud this letter killeth Who can more playnely expresse in any wordes that the eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud are not to be taken in common signification as the wordes pretend and sound then Origene dooth in this place Winchester Now I will touch shortly what may be sayd to the particular authorities brought in by this author Origen is noted among other writers of the church to draw the text to all egories who doth not therby meane to destroy the truth of the letter and therefore whē he speaketh of a figure sayth not there is onely a figure which exclusiue only being away as it is not found by any author Catholick taught that the spéech
of Christ of the eating of his flesh to be onely a figure this author had nothing aduanced his purpose As for spiritual vnderstanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter wher the same may stand with the rules of our faith All Christes words be life and spirit contayning in the letter many tymes that is aboue our capacity as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh to discusse the particularities of how yet we must beleue to be true that Christ sayth although we can not tell how For when we go about to discusse of Gods mistery how then we fall from fayth and waxe carnall men and would haue Gods wayes like ours Caunterbury HEre may euery man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see that you seek in this waighty matter nothing by shifts and cauillatioÌ„s For you haue nothing aunswered directly to Origen although he directly writeth agaynst your doctrine For you say that the eating of Chrstes flesh is taken in the proper signification without a fygure Origen sayth there is a figure And Origen sayth further that it is onely a figuratiue spech although not adding this word onely yet adding other words of the same effect For he sayth that we may not vnderstand the words as the letter soundeth And sayth further that if we vnderstand the words of Christ in this place as the letter soundeth the letter killeth Now who knoweth not that to say these words not as the letter soundeth and that letter killeth be as much to say as onely spiritually and only otherwise then the letter soundeth Wherfore you must spit vpon your hands aud take better hold or els you can not be able to plucke Origen so shortly from me And I maruayle that you be not ashamed thus to trifle with the auncient authors in so serious a matter and such places where the reader onely looking vpon the authors wordes may see your dealing The next is Chrysostome whom I cite thus And Saynct Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth the same saying that if any man vnderstand the words of Christ carnally he shall surely profit nothing therby For what meane these words the flesh auayleth nothing He ment not of flesh God forbid but he ment of them that fleshly and carnally vnderstood those things that Christ spake But what is carnall vnderstanding To vnderstand the words simply as they be spoken and nothing els For we ought not so to vnderstaÌ„d the things which we see but all misteries must be considered with inward eyes and that is spiritually to vnderstand them In these words S. Iohn ChrisostoÌ„ sheweth plainly that the words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud are not to be vnderstand simply as they be spoken but spiritually and figuratiuely Winchester Sainct Chrisostom declareth himself how misteries must be considered with inward eyes which is a spirituall vnderstanding wherby the truth of the mistery is not as it were by a figuratiue spech empayred but with an humility of vnderstanding in a certayn fayth of the truth maruayled at And here the author of this book vseth a sleight to ioyne figuratiuely to spiritually as though they were alwayes all one which is not so Caunterbury AS you haue handled Origen before euen so do you haÌ„dle ChrisostoÌ„ Wherfore I only refer the reader to looke vpon the words of Chrysostome recited in my book who sayth that to vnderstand the words of eating of Christes flesh symply as they be spoken is a carnall vnderstanding And then can it be no proper speech as you say it is bicause it can not be vnderstand as the wordes be spoken but must haue an other vâ—derstanding spiritually Then followeth next Sainct Augustine of whom I write thus And yet most planely of all other S. Augustine dooth declare this matter in his booke De doctrina christiana in which book he instructeth christian people how they should vnderstand those places of Scripture which seem hard and obscure Seldome sayth he is any difficulty in proper words but either the circumstance of the place or the conferring of diuers translations or els the originall toung wherin it was written will make the sence playn But in words that be altered from their proper signification there is great diligence and hede to be taken And specially we must beware that we take not litterally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely Nor contrary wise we must not take for a figure any thing that is spoken properly Therfore must be declared sayth S. Augustine the maner how to discerne a proper spech from a figuratiue Wherin sayth he must be obserned this rule that if the thing which is spoken be to the furtherance of charity then it is a proper spech and no figure So that if it be a commaundement that forbiddeth any euill or wicked act or commaundeth any good or beneficiall thing then it is no figure But if it commaund any ill or wicked thing or forbiddeth any thing that is good and beneficiall then it is a figuratiue spech Now this saying of Christ Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you seemeth to commaund an haynons and wicked thing therfore it is a figure commaunding vs to be partakers of Christes passion keeping in our mindes to our great comfort and profite that his flesh was crucified and wouÌ„ded for vs. This is briefly the sentence of S. Augustine in his booke De doctrina Christiana And the like he writeth in his book De catechisandis rudibus and in his book Contra aeduersarium legis prophet arum and in diuers other places which forte diowsnes I passe ouer For if I should reherse all the authorityes of S. Augustine and other which make mention of this matter it would weary the reader to much Wherfore to all them that by any reasonable meanes will be satisfied these things before rehearsed are sufficient to proue that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud is not to be vnderstanded simply and playnly as the words do properly signify that we do eat and drinke him with our mouthes but it is a figuratiue spech spiritually to be vnderstanded that we must deeply print and fruitfully beleue in our harts that his flesh was crucified and his bloud shed for our redemption And this our beliefe in him is to eat his flesh and drink his bloud although they be not present here with vs but be asceÌ„ded into heauen As our forefathers before Christs tyme did likewise eat his flesh and drinke his bloud which was so farre from them that he was not yet then borne Winchester Sainct Augustine according to his rules of a figuratiue and proper spéech taketh this spéech Except ye eat c. for a figuratiue spéech because it semeth to commaund in the letter carnally vnderstanded an hainous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man as mans carnal imagination conceiueth
it as appered by the Capharnaites who murmured at it And therfore because onely faythful men can by fayth vnderstand this mistery of the eatyng of Christes flesh in the Sacrament in which we eat not the carnall flesh of a common man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God mā as fayth teacheth It is in that respect well noted for a figuratiue spéech for that it hath such a sence in the letter as is hidden from the vnfaythfull So as the same letter being to faythfull men spirite and life who in humility of fayth vnderstandeth the same is to the faythfull a figure as contayning such a mistery as by the outward barke of the letter they vnderstand not vpon which consideration it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mistery of the Sacrament wherein is a worke of God ineffable such as the Ethnike eares could not abide they termed it a figure not therby to deminish the truth of the mistery as the proper and special name of a figure doth but by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecy apt only to be vnderstanded of men beleuing and therefore the sayd fathers in some part of theyr works in playn words expresse and declare the truth of the mistery the plain doctrine therof according to the Catholick fayth and in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure which consideration in S. Augustines writings may be euidently gathered for in some place no man more playnly openeth the substance of the Sacrament then he doth speaking expressely of the very body and bloud of Christ contayned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not thereby to contrary his other playne sayings and doctrine but meaning by the word figure to signify a secret déep mistery hidden from carnall vnderstanding For auoyding and expelling of which carnallity he geueth this doctrine here of this text Except ye eat c. which as I sayd before in the bare litterall sence implyeth to carnal iudgement other carnall circumstāces to attayne the same flesh to be eaten which in that carnall sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeying of Christes commaundement in the institution of his supper when he himself deliuereth his body and bloud in these misteryes biddeth Eat and drink there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth and therefore S. Augustins rule pertaineth not to Christs supper wherin when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded without carnall thought or murmuring in our sensuall deuise how it can be so And S. Augustin in the fame place speaking De communicando passionibus Christi declareth playnely he meaneth of the Sacrament Caunterbury IF thou takest not very good heed reader thou shalt not perceiue where the cuttill becometh He wrappeth himself so about in darcknesse and he commeth not neere the net by a myle for feare he should be taken But I will draw my net nearer to him that he shall not escape I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud were spoken by a figure and he would auoyd the matter by saying that those words haue a spirituall mistery in them which is most true and nothing contrary to my saying but confirmeth the same For the words of eating and drinking be figuratiue speches because they haue a secret and hid spirituall mistery in them and cannot be taken otherwise then in that spiritual mistery which is a figure And moreouer you plainly here confesse that to eat Christes flesh and to drinke his bloud be figuratiue speches But you trauesse the cause wherfore they be figuratiue speches which is not materiall in this place where my processe is onely to proue that they be figuratiue speches Aud forasmuch as you graūt here all that I take vpon me to proue which is that they be figuratiue speches what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words when we agree in the matter which is here in question And as for the cause of the figure you declare it far otherwise then S. Augustine dooth as the words of S. Augustine do playnely shew to euery indifferent reader For the cause say you is this that in the Sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a commō man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God and man and in that respect it is well noted for a figuratiue spech In which one sentence be three notable errors or vntruthes The first is that you say the letter soundeth than we eat the carnall flesh of a common man which your saying the playne words of the gospell do maniestly reproue For Christ seperating himself in that spech from all other men spake onely of himself saying My flesh is very meat and my blood is very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him The second is that you call the flesh of Christ a spirituall flesh as before you sayd that he is spiritually eaten And so by your doctrine his flesh is spirituall and is spiritually eaten and all is spirituall which hath need of a fauorable interpretation if it should be counted a sound and Catholick teaching And if all be spirituall done spiritually what meaneth it then that in other places you make so often mention that he is present and eaten carnally corporally and naturally The third is that you say the spech of Christ is noted figuratiue in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man which is vtterly vntrue For the authors note not the figuratiue spech in that respect but as christ spake of his owne flesh ioyned vnto his diuinity wherby it geueth lyfe euen so do the authors note a figuratiue spech in respect of Christes owne flesh and say therof that the letter can not be true without a figure For although Christ be both God and man yet his flesh is a very mans flesh and his bloud is truely mans blond as is the flesh bloud of his blessed mother and therfore can not be eaten and drunken properly but by a figure For he is not meat and drink of the body to be eatē corporally with mouth and teeth and to be dygested in the stomack but he is the meat of the soule to be receaued spiritually in our harts minds and to be chawed and digested by fayth And it is vntrue that you here say that the proper and speciall name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mistery For then Christ in vayne did ordayne the figures if they diminish the misteries And the Authors terme it here a figure not therby to couer the mistery but to open the mistery which was in deed in Christs words by fyguratiue speches vnderstand
And with the figuratiue spech were the Ethnik and carnall eares offended not with the mistery which they vnderstood not And not to the Ethnik and carnall but to the faythfull and spirituall eares the wordes of Christ be figuratiue and to them the truth of the figures be playnely opened and declared by the Fathers wherin the Fathers be worthy much commendation because they trauayled to open playnly vnto vs the obscure and figuratiue speches of Christ. And yet in their sayd declarations they taught vs that these words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud are not to be vnderstanded plainly as the words properly signify but by a figuratiue speech Nor S. Augustine neuer wrote in all his long works as you do that Christ is in the sacrament corporally carnally or naturally or that he is so eaten nor I dare boldly say he neuer thought it For if he had he would not haue written so playnly as he doth in the places by me alleadged that we must beware that we take not litterally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely And specially he would not haue expressed by name the wordes of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud and haue sayd that they be figuratiue speches But S. Augustine dooth not onely tell how we may not take those words but also he declareth how we ought to take and vnderstand the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud which as he sayth is this To keep in our mindes to our great comfort profite that Christ was crucified and shed his bloud for vs and so to be partakers of his passion This sayth S. Augustine is to eat his flesh and to drinke his bloud And S. Augustine sayth not as you do that Christes words be figuratiue to the vnfaythfull for they be figuratiue rather to the faythfull then to the vnfaythfull For the vnfaythfull take them for no figure or mistery at all but rather carnally as the Caparnaites did And there is in deede no mistery nor figure in eatyng with the mouth as you say Christes flesh is eaten but in eating with the soule spirite is the figure mistery For the eating and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faythful and vnfaythfull to the carnall and spirituall both vnderstand in like what is eating and drinking with the mouth And therfore in no place do the doctors declare that there is a figure or mistery in eating drinkyng of Christes body with our mouthes or that there is any truth in that mistery but they say cleane contrary that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouthes And if in any place any old author write that there is a figure or mistery in eating and drinking of Christ with our mouthes shew the place if you will haue any credite S. Augustine specially whom you do here alleadge for your purpose sayth directly agaynst you Nolite par are fauces sed cor Prepare not your mouth or iawes but your hart And in an other place he sayth Quid paras ventrem dentem Crede manducasti Why doost thou prepare thy belly and teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten But to auoyde the saying of Saynt Augustine by me alleadged you say that Saynt Augustines rule perteyneth not to Christes supper which your sayeng is so strange that you be the first that euer excluded the words of Christ from his Supper And Saynt Augustine ment as well at the supper as at all other tymes that the eating of Christes flesh is not to be vnderstanded carnally with our teeth as the letter signifieth but spiritually with our mindes as he in the same place declareth And how can it be that Saynt Augustins rule perteineth not to Christs supper when by the rule he expoundeth Christes wordes in the sixt of Ihon which you say Christ spake of his supper Dyd Christ speak of his supper and Saynt Augustines wordes expounding the same perteyn not to the supper You make Saynt Augustine an expositor lyke your selfe that commonly vse to expounde both doctours and scripturs cleane from the purpose eyther for that by lacke of exercise in the Scriptures and Doctours you vnderstand them not or els that for very frowardnes you will not vnderstand any thing that misliketh you And where you say that we must do as Christ commaunded vs without carnall thought or sensuall deuise Is not this a carnall thought and sensuall deuise which you teach that we eat Christ corporally without teeth And contrary to that which you sayd before that Christs body in the sacrament is a spirituall body and eaten onely spiritually Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually I pray you tell me Now thou seest good reader what auayle all those gloses of carnall flesh and spirituall flesh of the flesh of Christ and the flesh of a common man of a figure to the vnfaythfull and not to the faythfull that the fathers tearmed it a figure bycause els the Ethnike eares could not abyd it and because they would reuerently couer the mistery And when none of these shiftes will serue he runneth to his shotte anker that Saynt Agustins rule perteineth nothing to Christes supper Thus mayst thou se with what sinceritie he handleth the ould writers And yet he myght right well haue spared all his long talke in this matter seing that he agreeth fully with me in the state of the whole cause that to eat Christes flesh and to drincke his bloud be figuratiue speaches For he that declareth the cause why they be figuratiue speaches agreeth in the matter that they be figuratiue speaches And so haue I my full purpose in this article Now heare what foloweth in my booke The same authors dyd say also that when Christ called the bread his body and the wine his bloud it was no proper speach that he than vsed but as all Sacraments be figures of other thinges and ye haue the very names of the thinges which they do signifie so Christ instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and bloud did vse figuratiue speaches calling the bread by the name of his body and the wine he called his bloud bicause it represented his bloud Tertullian herein writing agaynst Martion sayth these words Christ did not reproue bread wherby he did represent his very body And in the same booke he sayth that Iesus taking bread and distributing it amongs his disciples made it his body saying This is my body That is to say sayth Tertullian a figure of my body And therfore sayth Tertullian That Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud bicause that in the old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and bloud Winchester Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christes very body in which place he termeth the same body speaketh catholiquely in such phrase as S. Hierom speaketh and then Tertullian sayth afterward as this author therin truely bringeth hym forth that Christ made the bread
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
represented vnto vs his testament confirmed by his bloud And if the Papistes will say as they say in deed that by this cup is neither mēt the cup nor the wine cōtayned in the cup but that thereby is mēt Christs bloud contayned in the cup yet must they nedes graunt that there is a figure For Christes bloud is not in proper speach the new testament but it is the thing that confirmed the new Testament And yet by this strange interpretation the Papistes make a very strange speach more strange then any figuratiue speach is For this they make the sentence this bloud is a new Testament in my bloud Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason that the foolishnes therof is euident to euery man Winchester As for the vse of figuratiue speaches to be accustomed in scripture is not denyed But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to Decolampadius of the sacrament geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speaches in gods ordinances and commaūdementes and otherwise For if in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinaunces and commaundementes figures may be often receiued truth shal by allegories be shortly subuerted and all our religion reduced to significations There is no speach so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speach but such as expresseth the common playne vnderstanding and then the common vse of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speach As these speaches drink vp this cup or eate this dish is in deed a figuratiue speach but by custome make so common that it is reputed the playne speach bicause if hath but one onely vnderstanding commonly receyued And when Christ sayd This cup is the new testament the proper speach therof in letter hath an absurditie in reason and fayth also But whan Christ sayd this is my body although the truth of the lytterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason yet hath it no absurditie in humilitie of fayth nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture And seing it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their proper sence there can no reasoning be made of other figuratiue speaches to make this to be their fellow and like vnto them No man denieth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper but such as be equall with playne proper speach or be expounded by other Euangelestes in playne speach Canterburie I See well you would take a dong forke to fight with rather then you would lack a weapon For how highly you haue estemed Melancthō in tymes past it is not vnknowne But whatsoeuer Melancthon sayeth or how soeuer you vnderstand Melancthon where is so conuenient a place to vse figuratiue speeches as when figures and Sacraments be instituted And S. Augustine giueth a playne rule how we may know when Gods commādemēts be giuen in figuratiue speches yet shal neither the truth be subuerted nor our religion reduced to significations And how can it be but that in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinances commaundements figures must needes be often receaued contrary to Melancthons saying if it be true that you say that there is no spech so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speech But now be all speches figuratiue when it pleaseth you What need I then to trauaile any more to proue that Christ in his supper vsed figuratiue speches seyng that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying And these wordes This is my body spoken of the bread and This is my bloud spoken of the cuppe expresse no playne comon vnderstanding wherby the common vse of these figures should be equall with plain proper speches or cause them to be taken as common proper speches for you say your felf that these speches in letter haue an absurdity in reason And as they haue absurdity in reason so haue they absurdity in fayth For neither is there any reason fayth myracle nor truth to say that materiall bread is Christes body For then it must be true that his body is material bread a conuersa ad conuertentem for of the materiall bread spake Christ those words by your confession And why haue not these words of Christ This is my body an absurdity both in fayth and reason aswell as these words This cup is the new Testament seyng that these wordes were spoken by Christ as well as the other and the credite of him is all one whatsoeuer he sayth But if you will needes vnderstand these wordes of Christ This is my body as the playn wordes signify in their proper sence as in the end you seeme to do repugning therein to your owne former saying you shall see how farre you go not onely from reason but also from the true profession of the christian fayth Christ spake of bread say you This is my body appoynting by this word this the bread whereof followeth as I sayd before If bread be his body that his body is bread And if his body be bread it is a creature without sence and reason hauing neither life nor soule which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken Heare now what followeth further in my booke Now forasmuch as it is playnly declared manifestly proued that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that these sentences be figuratiue speches and that Christ as concerning his humanity bodily presence is ascended into heauen with his whole flesh and bloud and is not here vpon earth and that the substance of bread and wine do remayne still and be receaued in the sacrament and that although they remayne yet they haue changed their names so that the bread is called Christs body and the wine his bloud and that the cause why their names be changed is this that we should list vp our harts minds frō the things which we se vnto the things which we beleue be aboue in heauē wherof the bread wine haue the names although they be not the vey same things in deed these things well considered and wayed all the authorities and arguments which the Papists fayn to serue for their purpose be clean wiped away For whether the authors which they alleadge say that we do eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud or that the bread and wine is conuerted into the substance of his flesh and bloud or that we be turned into his flesh or that in the Lordes supper we do receiue his very flesh and bloud or that in the bread and wine is receiued that which did hang vpon the crosse or that Christ hath left his flesh with vs or that Christ is in vs and we in him or that he is whole here and whole in heauen or that the same thing is in the Chalice which flowed out of his side or that the same thing is receiued with out mouth which is
beleued with our faith or that the bread and wine after the Consecration be the body and bloud of Christ or that we be nourished with the body and bloud of Christ or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here or that Christ at his last supper bare himselfe in his owne hands These and all other like sentences may be vnderstanded of Christes humanity litterally carnally as the words in cōmō spech do properly signifye for so dooth no man eat Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud nor so is not the bread and wine after the consecration his flesh and bloud nor so is not his flesh and bloud whole here in earth eatē with our mouthes nor so did not Christ take him selfe in his own hands But these and all other like sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth to be eaten and drunken of Christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euery where or els they must be vnderstanded figuratiuely or spiritually For figuratiuely he is in the bread and wine and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread wine but really carnally and corporally he is onely in heauen from whence he shall come to iudge the quick and dead This briefe aunswere will suffice for all that the papists can bryng for their purpose if it be aptly applyed And for the more euidence hereof I shall apply the same to somme such places as the Papistes think do make most for thē that by the aunswere to those places the rest may be the more easely answered vnto Winchester In the lxxiiii leaf this author goeth about to geue a generall solution to all that may be sayd of Christes beyng in earth in heauen or in the sacrament and geueth iustructions how these wordes of Christs diuine nature figuratiuely spiritually really carnally corporally may be placed and thus he sayth Christ in his diuine nature may be sayed to be in the earth figuratiuely in the sacrament spiritually in the man that receiueth but really carnally corporally only in heauen Let vs consider the placing of these termes When we say Christ is in his diuine nature euery where is he not really also euery where according to the true essēce of his godhed in deed euery where that is to say not in fantasy nor imagination but verily truely and therefore really as we beleue so in déed euery where And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace is not Christ in them really by grace but in fantasy and imagination And therfore what soeuer this author sayth the word really may not haue such restraint to be referred onely to heauen vnles the author would deny that substance of the godhead which as it comprehendeth all being incomprensible is euery where without limitation of place so as it is truely it is in déed is and therfore really is and therfore of Christ must be sayd wheresoeuer he is in his diuine nature by power or grace he is there really whether we speak of heauen or earth As for the termes carnally and corporally as this author semeth to vse them in other places of this book to expresse the maner of presence of the humaine nature in Christ I maruaile by what scripture he shall proue that Christs body is so carnally and corporally in heauen We be assured by fayth groūded vpon the scriptures of the truth of the beyng of Christs flesh and body there and the same to be a true flesh and a true body but yet in such sence as this author vseth the termes carnall and corporall against the sacrament to imply a grossenes he can not so attribute those termes to Christes body in heauen S Augustine after the grosse sense of carnally sayth Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen And Gregory Nazianzen sayth Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge so as he shal be sene yet there is in him no grossenes he sayth and referreth the maner of his being to his knowlege onely And our resurrection S. Augustine sayeth although it shall be of our true flesh yet it shall not be carnally And when this author had defamed as it were the termes carnally and corporally as tearmes of grossenes to whō he vsed alwayes to put as an aduersatiue the terme spiritually as though carnally and spiritually might not agrée in one Now for all that he would place them both in heauē where is no carnallyty but all the maner of being spirituall where is no grossenes at all the secrecie of the manner of which life is hidden from vs and such as eye hath not séen or eare heard or ascended into the hart and thought of man I know these termes carnally and corporally may haue a good vnderstanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossenes or made them aduersaries to spirituall and a man may say Christ is corporally in heauen because the truth of his body is there and carnally in heauen because his flesh is truly there but in this vnderstanding both the wordes carnally and corporally may be coupled with the word Spiritually which is agaynst this authors teaching who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christes presence in the man that receiued the sacrament worthely which spech I do not disalow but as Christ is spiritually in the man that dooth receiue the Sacrament worthely so is he in him spiritually before be receiue or els he can not receiue worthely as I haue before said And by this appeareth how this author to frame his generall solution hath vsed neither of the tearmes really carnally and corporally or spiritually in a conuenient order but hath in his distribution misused them notably For Christ in his diuine nature is really euery where and in his humaine nature is carnally and corporally as these words signify substāce of the flesh and body continually in heauen to the day of iudgement neuertheles after that signification present in the sacrament also And in those termes in that signification the fathers haue spoken of the effect of the eating of Christ in the sacrament as in the perticuler solutions to the authors here after shall appear Mary as touching the vse of the word figuratiuely to say that Christ is figuratiuely in the bread and wine is a saying which this author hath not proued at all but is a doctrine before this diuerse times reproued and now by this author in England renewed Caunterbury ALthough my chief study be to speak so playnly that all men may vnderstand euery thing what I say yet nothing is plaine to him that wil finde knots in a rish For when I say that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth and to be eaten and drunken of christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euerye where or els they must be vnderstand figuratiuely or spiritually for figuratiuely he
doubt not but the priest would haue absteined from ministration vnto more opportunitie and more accesse of Christian people as he would haue done likewise in saying of mattens and preaching Wherfore in your case I might well answer you as S. Hierom answered the argument made in the name of the heretike Iouinian which myght be brought agaynst the commendation of virginitie What if all men would liue virgines and no man marry How should then the world be mayntayned What if heauen fall sayd S. Hierom What if no man will come to the church is your argument for all that came in those dayes receaued the communion What if heauen fall say I For I haue not so euill opinion of the holy church in those dayes to think that any such thing could chaunce among them that no one would come when all ought to haue come Now when you come to your issue you make your case to straight for me to ioyne an issue with you bynding me to the bare and onely wordes of Clement and refusing vtterly his mynd But take the wordes and the mynd together and I dare aduenture an Issue to passe by any indiferent readers that I haue proued all my three notes And where you say that vpon occasion of this epistle I speake more reuerently of the sacrament then I do in other places if you were not giuen all together to calumniate and depraue my words you should perceaue in all my booke thorough euen from the beginning to the end therof a constant and perpetuall reuerence giuen vnto the sacramentes of Christ such as of dutie all Christian men ought to giue Neuerthelesse you interpret this word Wherin farre from my meaning For I meane not that Christ is spiritually eyther in the table or in the bread and wine that be sette vpon the table but I meane that he is present in the ministration and receauing of that holy supper according to his owne institution and ordinaunce Like as in baptisme Christ and the holy ghost be not in the water or fonte but be giuen in the ministration or to them thāt be duly baptised in the water And although the sacramental tokens be onely significations and figures yet doth almighty God effectually work in them that duely receaue his sacramentes those deuine and celestiall operations which he hath promised and by the sacramentes be signified For else they were vayne and vnfrutfull Sacramentes as well to the godly as to the vngodly And therfore I neuer sayd of the whole supper that it is but a significatiō or a bare memory of Christes death but I teach that it is a spirituall refreshing wherein our soules be fedde and nourished with Christes very flesh and bloud to eternall life And therfore bring you forth some place in my booke where I say that the Lordes suppper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same or else eate your wordes agayne and knowledge that you vntruly report me But heare what followeth further in my book Here I passe ouer Ignatius and Ireneus which make nothing for the papists opinions but stand in the commendation of the holy Communion and in exhortation of all men to the often and godly receauing therof And yet neither they nor no man else can extoll and commend the same sufficiently according to the dignitie therof if it be godly vsed as it ought to be Winchester This author sayth he passeth ouer Ignatius and Ireneus and why Bicause they make nothing he sayth for the Papistes purpose With the word papist the author playth at his pleasure But it shal be euident that Irene doth playnly confound this authors purpose in the deniall of the true presence of Christes very flesh in the sacramēt who although he vse not the wordes reall and substanciall yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speach of the sacrameut the vertue aud strength of those wordes And for the truth of the sacrament is Ireneus specially alleaged in so much as Melanghton when he writeth to Decolampadius that he will alleage none but such as speake playnly he alleageth Ireneus for one as apeareth by his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius And Decolampadius himselfe is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape any manner of euasion as to answer Ireneus in whome he notably stumbleth And Peter Martyr in his work graunteth Irene to be specially alledged to whome when he goeth about to answer a man may euidently see how he masketh him selfe And this author bringeth in Clementes epistle of which no great count is made although it be not contemned and passeth ouer Ireneus that speaketh euidently in the matter and was as old as Clement or not much yonger And bicause Ignatius was of that age and is alleadged by Theodorete to haue written in his epistle ad Smirnenses whereof may apeare his fayth of the mistery of the sacrament it shall serue to good purpose to write in the wordes of the same Ignatius here vpon the credite of the sayd Theodoret whome this author so much commendeth the wordes of Ignatius be these Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit Which wordes be thus much in english they do not admitte Eucharistias and oblations bycause they do not confesse Eucharistiam to be the flesh of our sauiour Iesu Christ which flesh suffered for our sinnes which flesh the father by his benignitie hath stirred vp These be Ignatius wordes which I haue not throughly englished bicause the word Eucharistia can not be well englished being a word of mistery and signifieng as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacrament heauenly and earthly visible and inuisible But in that Ignatius openeth his fayth thus he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our sauiour Christ that suffered for vs he declareth the sence of Christes wordes This is my body not to be figuratiue onely but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there giuen and therfore Ignatius sayth Eucharistia is the flesh of our sauior Christ the same that suffered and the same that rose agayne Which wordes of Ignatius so pithely open the matter as they declare therwith the fayth also of Theodoret that doth alleage him so as if the author would make so absolute a worke as to peruse all the fathers sayinges he should not thus leape ouer Ignatius nor Irene neither as I haue before declared But this is a color of rethorik called Reiection of that is hard to answer and is here a prety shift or slaight wherby thou reader mayst consider how this matter is handled Caunterbury IT shall not nede to make any further answer to you here as cōcerning Ireneus but onely to note one thing that if any place of Ireneus had serued for your purpose you would
that Christes flesh is a spirituall meat and hys bloud a spirituall drink and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud may not be vnderstand litterally but spiritually it is manifested by Origens own words in his seuenth Homily vpon the booke called Leuiticus where he sheweth that those words must be vnderstand figuratiuely and whosoeuer vnderstandeth them otherwise they be deceiued and take harme by their owne grosse vnderstanding Winchester Origens wordes be very playne and meaning also which speake of manifestation and exhibition which be two things to be verified thrée wayes in our religion that is to say in the word and regeneration and the sacramēt of bread and wine as this author termeth it which Origen sayth not so but thus the flesh of the word of God not meaning in euery of these after one sort but after the truth of the Scripture in ech of them Christ in his word is manifest and exhibited vnto vs and by fayth that is of hearyng dwelleth in vs spiritually for so we haue his spirit Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as many as be baptysed be clad in christ Now in the sacramēt of bred wine by Origens rule Christ should be manifested and exhibited vnto vs after the scriptures so as the sacrament of bread and wine should not onely signify Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him sensibly as Origens wordes be reported here to be So as Christes wordes This is my body should be wordes not of fygure or shewing but of exhibiting Christes body vnto vs and sensibly as this author alleageth him which should signifye to be receiued with our mouth as Christ commaunded when he sayd Take eat c. diuersely from the other two wayes in which by Christes spirite we be made participant of the benefite of his passion wrought in his manhode But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanity exhibit vnto vs for food and so in this mistery we receaue him man and God and in the other by meane of his godhead be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhod In this sacrament Christes manhode is represented and truly present whereunto the godhead is most certaynly vnited wherby we receaue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the general resurrection spirituall with our soule as we haue bene in baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfect And therfore this author may not compare baptisme with the sacrament throughly in which Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present although the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there but the truth of the mistery of this sacrament is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherunto eating and drinking is by Christ in his supper apropriate In which supper Christ sayd This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not This is my spirite This is my vertue Wherfore after Origenes teaching if Christ be not onely manifested but also exhibited sensibly in th◠sacrament then is he in the sacrament indede that is to say Really and then is he there substancially because the substaunce of the body is there and is there corporally also bycause the very body is there and naturally bicause the naturall body is there not vnderstanding corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly neither For then were the maner of presence within mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the catholique teaching is that the maner of Christes presence in the sacrament is spirituall and supernaturall not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall the how and maner wherof God knoweth and we assured by his word know onely the truth to be so that it is there indede and therfore really to be also receaued with our handes and mouthes and so sensibly there the body that suffered and therfore his naturall body there the body of very flesh and therfore his carnall body the body truely and therfore his corporall body there But as for the maner of presence that is onely spirituall as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this author enforceth me therunto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosely sensibly naturally applying them to the maner of presence doth maliciously and craftely cary away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these words grosely vnderstanded import astonieth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these wordes as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repeate the vnderstanding of these words oftener then elswere necessary These thinges well considered no man doth more playnly confound this author then this saying of Origene as he alleageth it whatsoeuer other sentences he would pycke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise And as I haue declared a fore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church and to esteme godes misteries most true in the substaunce of the thing so to be although the maner excedeth our capacities which is a spirituall vnderstanding of the same And here also this author putteth in for figuratiuely spiritually to deceaue the reader Caunterbury YOu obserue my wordes here concerning Origene so captiously as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayinges word by word which I did not but bicause they were very long I went about onely to rehearse the effect of his mind brefely and playnly which I haue done faythfully and truely although you captiously carpe and reprehend the same And where as craftely to alter the sayinges of Origene you goe about to put a diuersitie of the exhibition of Christ in these iii. thinges in his worde in baptisme and in his holy supper as though in his worde and in baptisme he were exhibited spiritually in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouthes this distinction you haue dreamed in your slepe or imagined of purpose For Christ after one sort is exhibited in all these iii. in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say spiritually and for so much in one sorte as before you haue confessed your selfe And Origene putteth no such diuersitie as you here imagine but declareth one maner of giuing of Christ vnto vs in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say in all these iii. secundum speciem That as vnto the Iewes Christ was geuen in figures so to vs he is geuen in specie that is to say in rei veritate in his very nature meaning nothing els but that vnto the Iewes he was promised in figures and to vs after his incarnation
more then the assertion of this Author specially when thou hast red how he hath handled Hilray Cyrill Theophilact and Damascene as I shall hereafter touch Caunterbury WHether I make an exposition of Cyprian by myne own deuise I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader And if I so doe why do not you proue the same substancially agaynst me For your own bare words without any proofe I trust the indifferent reader will not allow hauing such experience of you as he hath And if Cyprian of all other had writ most plainly agaynst me as you say without profe who thinketh that you would haue omitted here Cyprians wordes and haue fled to Melancthon and Epinus for succor And why do you alleage their authority for you which in no wise you admit when they be brought agaynst you But it semeth that you be faint harted in this mater and beginne to shrinke and like one that refuseth the combat and findeth the shift to put an other in his place euen so it semeth you would draw backe your selfe from the daunger and set me to fight with other men that in the meane tyme you might be an idle looker on And if you as graund capitayne take them but as meane souldiours to fyght in your quarell you shall haue little ayd at their hands for their writings declare opēly that they be agaynst you more then me although in this place you bring them for your part and report them to say more and otherwise then they say indeed And as for Cyprian and S. Augustine here by you alleaged they serue nothing for your purpose nor speake nothing against me by Epinus own iudgement For Epinus sayth that Eucharistia is called a sacrifice because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice which was offred vpon the cros and that in it is dispensed the very body and bloud yea the very death of Christ as he alleadgeth of S. Augustine in that place the holy sacrifice wherby he blotted out and canceled the obligation of death which was against vs nayling it vpon the crosse and in his owne person wanne the victory and tryumphed agaynst the princes powers of darknesse This passion death and victory of Christ is dispēsed and distributed in the Lords holy supper and dayly among Christs holy people And yet all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament nor the words of Cypriā ad Quirinum neither For if they did then was Christes flesh corporally present in the sacrifice of the old testament 1500. yeares before he was borne for of those sacrifices speaketh that text alleaged by Cyprian ad Quirinum whereof Epinus and you gather these wordes that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh And how so euer you wrast Melancthon or Epinus they condemne clearely your doctrine that Christes body is corporally contayned vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wine Next in my book of Hilarius But Hylarius thinke they is playnest for them in this matter whose words they translate thus If the word were made very flesh and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh in our lords meat how shal not Christ be thought to dwel naturally in vs Who beyng borne man hath taken vnto him the nature of our flesh that can not be seuered hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity vnder the sacrament of the communion of his flesh vnto vs. For so we be all one because the father is in Christ and Christ in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will deny the father to be naturally in Christ he must deny fyrst eyther himselfe to be naturally in Christ or Christ to be naturally in him For the beyng of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ haue taken verily the flesh of our body and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ and also we receaue vnder thè true mistery the flesh of his body by meanes wherof we shal be one for the father is in Christ and Christ in vs how shall that be called the vnity of will when the naturall property brought to passe by the Sacrament is the sacrament of vnity Thus doth the Papists the aduersaries of Gods word of his truth alleage the authority of Hilarius eyther peruersely and purposely as it semeth vntruely reciting hym and wrasting his words to their purpose or els not truely vnderstanding him For although he sayth that Christ is naturally in vs yet he sayth also that we be naturally in him And neuerthelesse in so saying he ment not of the natural and corporall presence of the substaunce of Christes body and of ours for as our bodyes be not after that sort within his body so is not his body after that sort within our bodies but he ment that Christ in his incarnation receyued of vs a mortal nature and vnited the same vnto his diuinity and so be we naturally in him And the sacraments of Baptisme of his holy supper if we rightly vse the same do most assuredly certify vs that we be partakers of his godly nature hauing geuen vnto vs by him immortality and life euerlasting and so is Christ naturally in vs. And so be we one with Christ and Christ with vs not onely in will and mind but also in very naturall properties And so concludeth Hylarius agaynst Arrius that Christ is one with his father not in purpose and will onely but also in very nature And as the vnion betwene Christ and vs in baptisme is spirituall and requireth no real and corporall presence so likewise our vnion with Christ in his holy supper is spirituall and therfore requireth no reall and coporall presence And therfore Hilarius speaking therof both the sacraments maketh no difference betwene our vnion with Christ in baptisme and our vnion with him in his holy supper And sayth further that as Christ is in vs so be we in him which the Papistes cannot vnderstand corporally and really except they will say that all our bodyes be corporally within Christes body Thus is Hylarius answered vnto both playnly and shortly Winchester This answere to Hylary in the lxxviii leafe requyreth a playne precise issue worthy to be tried apparant at hand The allegation of Hylary toucheth specially me who do say and mayntayne that I cited Hylary truely as the copy did serue and translate him truely in English after the same words in latin This is one issue which I qualyfy with the copy because I haue Hilary now better correct which better correctiō setteth forth more liuely the truth then the other did and therfore that I did translate was not so much to the aduantage of that I aledged Hylary for as is that in the book that I haue now better correct Hilaries words in the booke newly corrected be these Si enim verè verbum caro factum est nos
verè Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est qui naturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpserit naturam carnis suae adnaturam aeternitatis sub sacramēto nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit Itae enim omnes vnum sumus quia in Christo pater est Christus in nobis est Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit neget prius non naturaliter vel se in Christo vel Christum sibi inesse quia in Christo pater Christus in nobis vnum in ijs esse nos faciunt Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus sumpsit verè homo ille qui ex Maria natu◠fuit Christus est nosque vere sub misterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia pater in co est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfecté sacramentum si◠vnitatis My translation is this If the word was made verely flesh and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh in our Lordes meat how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in vs who being borne man hath taken vnto him the nature of our flesh that can not be seuered and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity vnder the Sacrament of the communion of his flesh vnto vs for so we be all one because the father is in Christ and Christ in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will deny the father to be naturally in Christ must denye first either himselfe to be naturally in Christ or Christ not to be naturally in him for the being of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ hath taken verely the flesh of our body and the man that was born of the virgine Mary is verely Christ and allowe verely receiue vnder a mistery the flesh of his body by meanes wherof we shal be one for the father is in Christ and Christ in vs how shall that be called the vnitye of will when the natural propriety brought to passe by the Sacrament is the Sacramēt of perfect vnity This translation differeth from myne other wherat this author findeth fault but wherin the word Vero was in the other coppy an adiectiue and I ioyned it wyth Misterio therfore sayd the true mistery which word mistery needed no such adiectiue true for euery mistery is true of it selfe But to say as Hilary truely correct sayth that we receyue vnder the mistery truely the flesh of Christes body that word truely so placed setteth forth liuely the reall presence and substantiall presence of that is receiued and repeteth agayne the same that was before sayd to the more vehemency of it So as this correction is better then my first copy and according to this correction is Hilarius alleaged by Melancthon to Decolampadius for the same purpose I alleage him An other alteration in the translation thou séest reader in the word Perfectae which in my copy was Perfecta and so was ioyned to Proprietas which now in the genetiue case ioyned to Vnitatis geueth an excellent sence to the dignity of the Sacrament how the naturall proprietie by the Sacrrament is a Sacrament of perfect vnity so as the perfect vnity of vs with Christ is to haue his flesh in vs and to haue Christ bodely and naturally dwelling in vs by his manhood as he dwelleth in vs spiritually by his Godhead and now I speak in such phrase as Hylarie and Cyrill speake and vse the words whatsoeuer thys author sayth as I will iustifye by their playne wordes And so I ioyne now with this author an Issue that I haue not peruersely vsed the allegation of Hylary but alleadged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter which Hilarie in his 8. booke de Trinitate entreateth how many diuers wayes we be one in Christ among which he accompteth fayth for one then he commeth to the vnity in Baptisme where he handleth the matter aboue some capacities and because there is but one Baptisme and all that be baptised be so regenerate in one dispensation and do the same thing and be one in one they that be one by the same thing be as he sayth in nature one From that vnity in Baptisme he commeth to declare our vnitye with Christ in flesh which he calleth the Sacrament of perfect vnity declaring how it is whē Christ who tooke truely our flesh mortal in the vyrgins womb deliuereth vs the same flesh glorified truely to be communicate with our flesh wherby as we be naturally in Christ so Christ is naturally in vs and when this is brought to passe then the vnitie betwéen Christ and vs is perfected For as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence by the diuine nature So we be naturally in Christ by our natural flesh which he toke in the virgins wombe and he naturally in vs by the same flesh in him glorified and geuen to vs and receiued of vs in the Sacrament For Hilarie sayth in playne words how Christes very flesh and Christes very bloud receyued and drunken Accepta hausta bring this to pas And it is notable how Hilarie compareth together the truely in Christes taking of our flesh in the virgins wombe with the truely of our taking of his flesh In cibo dominica in our Lordes meat by which words he expresseth the Sacrament and after reproueth those that said we were onely vnited by obedience and will of religion to Christ and by him so to the Father as though by the Sacrament of flesh and bloud no proprietie of naturall communion were geuen vnto vs whereas both by the honour geuen vnto vs we be the sonnes of God and by the sonne dwelling carnally in vs and we beyng corporally and inseparably vnite in hym the mistery of true and naturall vnity is to be preached These be Hilaries wordes for this latter part where thou hearest reader the son of God to dwell carnally in vs not after mans grosse imagination for we may not so thinke of Godly misteries but carnally is referred to the truth of Christes flesh geuen to vs in this Sacrament and so is naturally to be vnderstanded that we receaue Christes naturall flesh for the truth of it as Christ receyued our naurall flesh of the virgine although we receaue Christes flesh glorified incorruptible very spiritual and in a spiritual maner deliuered vnto vs. Here is mention made of the word corporall but I shall speake of that in the discussiō of Cyrill This Hylary was before S. Augustine and was known both of him and S. Hierome who called him Tubam latini eloquij against the Arrians Neuer man foūd fault at this notable place of Hylary Now let vs consider how
vs doth it not make Christ by communication of his flesh to dwell corporally in vs Why be the members of faythfull mennes bodyes called the members of Christ Know you not sayth S. Paule that your members be the members of Christ And shall I make the members of Christ partes of the whores body God forbid And our sauiour also sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Although in these wordes Cyrill doth say that Christ doth dwel corporally in vs when we receaue the misticall benediction yet he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally only at such tymes as we receaue the sacrament nor that he dwelleth in vs and not we in him but he sayth as well that we dwell in him as that he dwelleth in vs. Which dwelling is neyther corporall nor locall but an heauenly spirituall and supernaturall dwelling wherby so long as we dwell in him and he in vs we haue by him euerlasting life And therfore Cyril sayth in the same place that Christ is the vine and we the branches bicause that by him we haue lyfe For as the branches receaue lyfe and nourishment of the body of the vine so receaue we by him the naturall property of his body which is life and immortality and by that meanes we being his members do liue and are spiritually nourished And this ment Cirill by this word Corporally when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs. And the same ment also S. Hilarius by this worde Naturally when he sayd that Christ dwelleth naturally in vs. And as S. Paule when he sayd that in Christ dwelleth the full diuinity Corporally by this word Corporally he ment not that the diuinity is a body and so by that body dwelleth bodily in Christ. But by this word Corporally he ment that the diuinity is not in Christ accidentally lightly and slenderly but substancially and perfectly with all his might and power so that Christ was not onely a mortall man to suffer for vs but also he was immortall God able to redeeme vs. So S. Ciril when he sayd that Christ is in vs Corporally he ment that we haue him in vs not lightly and to small effect and purpose but that we haue him in vs substancially pithely and effectually in such wise that we haue by him redemption and euerlasting life And this I sucke not out of mine owne singers but haue it of Cirils owne expresse wordes where he sayth A litle benediction draweth the whole man to God and filleth him with his grace and after this manner Christ dwelleth in vs and we in Christ. But as for corporall eating and drinking with our mouthes and digesting with our bodyes Cirill neuer ment that Christ doth so dwell in vs as he playnly declareth Our sacrament sayth he doth not affirme the eating of a man drawing wickedly christen people to haue grosse imaginations and carnall fantasies of such thinges as be fine and pure and receaued onely with a sincere fayth But as two waxes that be molten and put togither they close so in one that euery part of the one is ioyned to euery part of the other euen so sayth Cirill he that receaueth the flesh and bloud of the Lord must needes be so ioyned with Christ that Christ must be in him and he in Christ. By these wordes of Cirill appeareth his mynd playnly that we may not grossely and rudely think of the eating of Christ with our mouthes but with our fayth by which eating although he be absent hence bodely and be in the eternall life and glory with his father yet we be made partakers of his nature to be immortall and haue eternall lyfe and glory with him And thus is declared the mind as well of Cirill as of Hilarius Winchester The author sayth such answer as he made to Hilary will serue for Cyrill and indeede to say truth it is made after the fame sort and hath euen such an error as the other had sauing it may be excused by ignorance For where the author trauayleth here to expound the word corporally which is a sore word in Cirill agaynst this author and therfore taketh labour to temper it with the word Corporaliter in S. Paule applied to the dwelling of the diuinity in Christ and yet not content therwith maketh further search and would gladly haue somewhat to confirme his phansy out of Cirill him selfe and seeketh in Cirill where it is not to be found and seeketh not where it is to be found For Cirill telleth him selfe playnly what he meaneth by the word corporally which place and this author had found be might haue spared a great many of wordes vttered by diuination but then the truth of that place hindreth and quayleth in manner all the booke I will at my perill bring forth Cirils owne wordes truely vpon the seuententh chapiter of S. Iohn Corporaliter filius per benedictionem misticam nobis vt homo vnitur spiritualiter autem vt deus Which be in English thus much to say The sonne is vnite as man corporally to vs by the misticall benediction spiritually as god These be Cirils wordes who nameth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the misticall benediction land sheweth in this sentence how him selfe vnderstandeth the wordes corporally and spiritually That is to say when Christ vniteth him selfe to vs as man which he doth geuing his body in this Sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it then he dwelleth in them corporally which Christ was before in them spiritualy or els they could not worthely receaue him to the effect of the vnity corporal corporal dwelling by which word corporal is vnderstanded no grossenes at all which the nature of a mistery excludeth and yet kepeth truth still being the vnderstanding onely attayned by fayth But where the author of the booke alleadgeth Cirill in wordes to deny the eating of a man and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion that Cirill sayth not so and the translations of Cirill into Latine after the print of Basill in a booke called Antidotum and of whole Cirils workes printed at Colen haue not in that place such sentence So as following the testimony of those bookes set forth by publique fayth in two sundry places I should call the allegation of Cirill made by this author in this poynt vntrne as it is indeede in the matter vntrue And yet bicause the originall errour proceedeth from Decolampadius it shall serue to good purpose to direct the originall fault to him as he well deserueth to be as he is noted gilty of it whose reputation deceaued many in the matter of the sacrament and being well noted how the same Decolampadius corrupteth Cirill it may percase somewhat worke with this author to consider how he hath in this place bene
any reall and corporall conuersion of bread and wine vnto Christs body and bloud nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same but he speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wine and of a spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptisme as the same Eusebius playnly there declareth as he is in the Lordes table Which is not carnally and corporally but by fayth and spiritually But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstatiation Winchester This author sayth that Emissen is shortly aunswered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he sayth as Hylary was aunswered and Cyrill But els there can no short or long aunswere confound the true playne testimony of Emissen for the common true faith of the church in the Sacrament Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saying thus This is my bodye And aâ—ayne repeating the same sanctificatioÌ„ This is my bloud Wherfore as at the beck of him commauÌ„ding the heightes of heauens the depenes of the floudes and largenes of landes were founded of nothing by like power in spirituall Sacraments where vertue commaundeth the effect of the trueth serueth These bee Emissenes wordes declaring his fayth playnely of the Sacrament in such termes as can not be wrested or writhed who speaketh of a turning conuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body bloud he sayth not into the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud whereby he should meane a only sacramental conuersion as this author would haue it but he sayth into the substance of Christs body bloud to be in the sacrameÌ„t For the words substance and truth be of one strength shew a difference froÌ„ a figure wherein the truth is not in dede preseÌ„t but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle this Emissen represseth mans carnall reason and socoureth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of this world which were brought forth out of tyme by Emissene if Christes bodye were not in substaunce present as Emissenes wordes bee but in figure onely as this author teacheth And where this authour coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in eyther he putteth himselfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these misteries be both great and mans regeneration in baptisme is also a mistery and the secret worke of God and hath a great meruayle in that effect yet it differeth from the mistery of the sacrament touching the maner of Christes presence and the working of the effect also For in baptisme our vnion with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole Trinitie there working as author in whose name the sacrament is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body indede but in hope onely that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in baptisme bene buried with christ so we be assured to be partakers of his resurection And so in this sacrament we be vnite to Christes manhod by this deuinite But in the sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie which mistical vnion representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorification wherin body and soule shall in the generall resurection by a maruailous regeneration of the body be made both spirituall the speciall pledge wherof we receaue in this sacrament and therfore it is the sacrament as Hilary sayth of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious then the body and the nature of the godhead in Christ more excellent then the nature of man in him glorified and in baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passion and bloud Christes godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respectes the excelency of baptisme is great yet bicause the mistery of the sacrameÌ„t of the alter where Christ is present both man and God in the effectuall vnitie that is wrought betwene our bodies our soules and Christes in the vse of this sacrament signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurection which shall be the end and consumatioÌ„ of all our felicitie This sacrament of perfect vnitie is the mistery of our perfect estate when body and soule shal be all spirituall and hath so a degre of excelencie for the dignitie that is estemed in euery end and perfection wherfore the word spirituall is a necessary word in this sacrament to call it a spirituall foode as it is indede for it is to worke in our bodyes a spirituall effect not onely in our soules and Christes body and flesh is a spirituall body and flesh and yet a true body and very flesh And it is present in this sacrament after a spirituall maner graunted and taught of all true teachers which we should receaue also spiritually which is by hauing Christ before spiritually in vs to receaue it so worthely Wherfore like as in the inuisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnall but all spirituall taking the word carnall as it signifieth grossely in mans carnall iudgement So where the receiuers of that foode bring carnall lustes or desires carnall fansies or imaginations with them they receaue the same preciens foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condemnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christian fayth of the very presence of Christes body And this sufficeth to wipe out that this Author hath spoken of Emissen agaynst the truth Caunterbury I Haue so playnly aunswered vnto Emissene in my former booke partly in this place and partely in the second parte of my booke that he that readeth ouer those two places shall see most clearly that you haue speÌ„t a greate many of wordes here in vayne and nede no further answer at all And I had then such a care what I sayd that I sayd nothing but according to Emissenus owne mind and which I proued by his owne wordes But if you finde but one word that in speach soundeth to your purpose you sticke to that word tooth and nayle caring nothing what the authors meaning is And here is one great token of sleight and vntruth to be noted in you that you write diligently euery word so long as they seme to make with you And when you come to the very place
where Emissene declareth the meaning of his wordes there you leaue all the rest out of your booke which can not be without a great vntruth and fraud to deceaue the simple reader For when you haue recited these wordes of Emissene that the inuisible priest by the secret power with his word tourneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud and so further as serueth to your affection when you come euen to the very place where Emissen declareth these words there you leaue and cut of your writing But because the reader may know what you haue cut of and thereby know Emissens meaning I shall here rehearse Emisenes words which you haue left out If thou wilt know sayth Emissene how it ought not to seeme to thee a thing new and impossible that earthly and incorruptible things be tourned into the substance of Christ looke vpō thy self which art made new in baptisme When thou wast far from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast dead yet sodenly thou beganst an other new life in Christ and wast made new by holesome misteries and wast tourned into the bodye of the church not by seing but by beleuing of the child of damnatiō by a secret purenes thou wast made the sonne of God Thou visibly didst remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any encrease of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was mā made the sonne of Christ and Christ formed in the mind of man Therefore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receiue a new dignity not feling any chaunge in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not seene with thine eyes but beleued in thy minde so likewise when thou doost goe vp to the reuerend aulter to feed vpon the spirituall meat in thy fayth looke vpon the body and blud of him that is thy God honour hym touch him with thy minde take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man These be Emissens own wordes Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleadged For where you bring in these wordes that Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud straightwaies in these wordes by me now rehearsed he sheweth what maner of turning that is after what maner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ euē so saith he as it is in baptisme wherin is no Transubstantiation So that I gather his meaning of his own playne words and you gather his meaning of your own imagination deuisyng such phantasticall things as neither Emissen sayth nor yet be catholike And this word truth you haue put vnto the wordes of Emissen of your own head which is no true dealing For so you may proue what you lift if you may adde to the authors what words you please And yet if Emissē had vsed both the wordes substaunce and trueth what should that helpe you For Christ is in substaunce and truth present in baptisme aswell as he is in the Lords supper and yet is he not there carnally corporally and naturally I will passe ouer here to aggrauate that matter how vntruely you adde to my wordes this word onely in an hundred places where I say not so what true and sinsere dealing this is let all men iudge Now as concerning my coupling togither of the ii sacraments of baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ Emissene himself coupleth thē both together in this place sayth that the one is like the other without putting any difference euen as I truely recited him So that there appereth neither malice nor ignorāce in me but in you adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not to deceaue the simple reader and adding such your own inuentions as be neither true nor catholick appereth much shift and craft ioyned with vntruth and infidelity For what christian man would say as you do that Christ is not inded which you call really in baptisme Or that we be not regenerated both body and soule as well in baptisme as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ Or that in baptisme we be not vnited to Christes diuinity by his manhood Or that baptisme represēteth not to vs the high state of our glorification and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurrection In which thinges you make difference betweene baptisme and the sacrament as you call it of the aultare Or what man that were learned in gods word would affirme that in the general resurrection our bodies and soules shal be all spirituall I know that S. Paule sayth that in the resurrection our bodies shal be spirituall meaning in the respect of such vilenes filthines sinne and corruption as we be subiect vnto in this miserable world Yet he sayth not that our bodies shal be all spirituall For not withstanding such spiritualnes as S. Paule speaketh of we shall haue all such substantiall partes and members as pertaine to a very naturall mans body So that in this part our bodyes shall be carnall corporall reall and naturall bodies lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect mens bodies And in the respect is the body of Christ also carnall and not spirituall And yet we bring none other carnall imaginations of Christes body nor meane none other but that Christes body is carnall in this respect that it hath the same flesh and naturall substaunce which was borne of the virgine Mary and wherin he suffered and rose agayne and now sitteth at the right hand of his father in glory and that the same his naturall body now glorified hath all the naturall partes of a mans body in order proportion place distinct as our bodies shal be in these respects carnall after our resurrection Which maner of carnalnes and diuersitie of partes and members if you take away now from Christ in heauen from vs after our resurrectiō you make Christ now to haue no true mās body but a phantasticall body as Martion Ualentine did as concerning our bodies you run into the error of Origen which phansied imagined that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual that women should be turned into men and bodies into soules And yet it is to be noted by the way that in your aunswere here to Emissene you make spiriturally and a spirituall manner all one Now followeth myne aunswere to S. Ambrose in this wise And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose which is alwayes in their mouthes Before the consecration sayth he as
let vs consider what speches of S. Ambrose this author bringeth forth wherewith to alter the truth of the very playne proper speech of S. Ambrose saying It is bread before the consecration after it is Christes body S. Ambrose as this author saith in an other place sayth thus Before the Benediction of the heauenly words it is called an other kind of thing but after the consecration is signifyed the body and bloud of Christ. And an other speach thus Before the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ and yet a third speech where the word call is vsed before and after both as thou reader maist sée in this authors booke in the 83. leafe Now good reader was there euer man so ouersene as this author is who seeth not S. Ambrose in these thre latter speaches to speake as playnely as in the first For in the last speach S Ambrose saith it is called bread before the consecration and called the body of Christ after the consecration And I would demaund of this author doth not this word call signify the truth that is bread in deed before the coÌ„secration which if it be so why shal not the same word cal signify also the very truth added to the wordes of the body of Christ after the consecration And likewise when he sayth speaking of the body of Christ the word signified or named which is as much as call The body of Christ is signifyed there for Christ sayd this is my body c. vsyng the outward signes of the visible creatures to signify the body bloud present not absent Was not Christ the true sonne of God because the angell said he shal be called the sonne of God But in these places of S. Ambrose to expresse plainely what he ment by calling he putteth that word call to the bread before the consecratioÌ„ aswell as to the body of Christ after the consecration thereby to declare how in his vnderstanding the word call signifieth as much truth in the thing where unto it is added after consecration as before and therfore as it is by S. Ambrose called bread before consecration signifâ—ing it was so indéed so it is called signifyed or named which thrée thus placed be all one in effect the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in deed agreable to the playne spech of S. Ambrose where he sayth It is bread before consecration and it is the body of Christ after consecration As touching the spirituality of the meat of Christes body I haue spoken before but where this author addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beyng oppressed with slepe of ignorance and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by the authority of Cyril Now let vs see what this author sayth to Chrysostome Caunterbury IT is not I that wrastle with S. Ambrose but you who take great payne to wrast his wordes cleane contrary to his intent and meaning But where you aske this question What can be more playne then these wordes of S. Ambrose It is bread before consecration and after it is Christes body These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so playne as you pretend but cleane contrary For what can be spokeÌ„ eyther more vnplayn or vntrue then to say of bread after consecration that it is the bodye of Christ vnles the same be vnderstand in a figuratiue spech For although Christes bodye as you say be there after consecration yet the bread is not his body nor his body is not made of itby your confession And therfore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christes body can not be true in playne spech And therfore S. Ambrose in the same place where he calleth it the body and bloud of Christ he sayth it is a figure of his body and bloud For these be his words Quod ex figura corporis sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christs And as for the word consecration I haue declared the signification therof according to the mind of the old authors as I will iustify And for the writing of Melancthon to Decolampadius you remayne still in your old error taking Myconius for Decolampadius And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament which Melancthon speaketh of is a sacramental change as the nature of a sacrameÌ„t requireth signifying how wonderfully almighty God by his omnipoteÌ„cy worketh in vs his liuely members and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine And the chaunge is in the vse and not in the elements kept and reserued wherein is not the perfection of a sacrament Therefore as water in the fonte or vessell hath not the reason and nature of a sacrament but when it is put to the vse of christening and then it is changed into the proper nature and kinde of a sacrament to signifye the wonderfull chaunge which almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be baptised therewith such is the chaunge of the breade and wine in the Lordes supper And therefore the bread is called Christes bodye after consecration as S. Ambrose sayth and yet it is not so really but sacramentally For it is neither Christes misticall body for that is the congregation of the faythfull dispersed abroad in the world nor hys naturall bodye for that is in heauen but it is the sacrament both of his true naturall body and also of his misticall body and for that consideration hath the name of his body as a sacrament or signe may beare the name of the very thing that is signified and represented therby And as for the foresayd books intituled to S. Ambrose if I ioyned Ambrose with Clement should say that the sayd bookes intiuled in the name of S. Ambrose de sacramentis de misterijs iniciandis were none of his I should say but as I thinke and as they do thinke that be men of most excellent learning and iudgement as I declared in my second book which speaketh of transubstantiation And so dooth iudge not onely Erasmus but also Melancthon whom you alleadge for authority when he maketh for your purpose suspecteth the same And yet I playnly denye not these bookes to be his for your pleasure to geue you asmuch aduauntage as you can aske and yet it auaileth you nothing at all But here I cannot passeouer that you be offended because I say that bread wine be called holy when they be put to an holy vse not that they haue any holines in them or be partakers of any holinesse or godlines I would fayne learn of Smith and you when the bread and wine be holy For before they be holowed or consecrated they be not holy by your teaching but be common bakers bread and wine of the tauerne And after the consecration there is neyther bread nor wine as you teach at what tyme then should the bread and wine be holy But the
creatures of bread and wine be much bound vnto you and can no lesse do then take you for their sauior For if you can make them holy and godly then shall you glorifie them and so bryng them to eternall blisse And then may you aswell saue the true laboring bullocks and innocēt shepe and lambes and so vnderstand the prophet Homines iumenta saluabis domine But to admonish the reader say you how the bread and wine haue no holynes this fortune of spech not vnderstand of the people engendreth some scruple that nedeth not By which your saying I cannot tel what the people may vnderstand but that you haue a great scruple that you haue lost your holy bread And yet S. Paule speaketh not of your holy bread as you imagine being vtterly ignoraunt as appeareth in the scripture but he speaketh generally of all manner of meates which christian people receaue with thankes giuing vnto God whether it be bread wine or water fish flesh white meat herbes or what manner of meat and drinck so euer it be And the sanctified bread which S. Augustine writeth to be geuen to them that be catechised was not holy in it selfe but was called holy for the vse and signification And I expresse S. Cyprians minde truely and not a whit discrepant from my doctrine here when I say that the diuinitye may be sayd to bee powred or put sacramentally into the bread as the spirite of God is sayd to be in the water of baptisme when it is truely ministred or in his word when it is syncerely preached with the holy spirite working mightely in the hartes of the hearers And yet the water in it selfe is but a visible element nor the preachers word of it self is but a sound in the ayre which as soone as it is hard vanisheth away and hath in it selfe no holines at all although for the vse ministery therof it may be called holy And so likewise may be sayd of the sacramentes which as S. Augustine sayth be as it were Gods visible word And whereas you reherse out of my wordes in an other place that as hoat and burning yron is yron still yet hath the force of fyre so the bread and wine be tourned into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud you neyther report my words truly nor vnderstād thē truely For I declare in my booke vertue to be in them that godly receaue bread and wine and not in the bread and wine And I take vertue there to signifie might and strength or force as I name it which in the greeke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which sence we say that there is vertue in herbs in words and in stones and not to signify vertue in holynes which in greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wher of a person is called vertuous whose fayth and conuersation is godly But you sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word vertue to an other significatiō then I mēt to approue by my words your own vayne error that bread should be vertuous holy making in your argument a fallax or craft called equiuocation For where my meaning is that the death of Christ and the effusion of his bloud haue effect and strength in them that truely receaue the sacrament of his flesh and bloud you turne the matter quite as though I should say that the bread were godly and vertuous which is very frantick and vngodly opiniō and nothing pertaining to mine application of the similitude of yron But this is the mother of many errors both in interpretation of scriptures and also in vnderstandyng of old auncient writers when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered But the similitude is applied vnto other matters then the meaning was Which fault may be iustly noted in you here when you reason by the similitude of hoat burning yron that bread may conceiue such vertue as it may be called vertuous and holy For my onely purpose was by that similitude to teach that yron remayning in his proper nature substance by conceauing of fire may work an other thing thē is the nature of yrō And so likewise bread remaynyng in is proper nature and substaunce in the ministration of the sacrament hath an other vse then to feed the body For it is a memoriall of Christes death that by exercise of our fayth our soules may receaue the more heauenly food But this is a strange maner of spech which neither scripture nor approued author euer vsed before you to cal the sacrametal bread vertuous as you doe But into such absurdities men do cōmonly fall when they will of purpose impugne the euident truth But was there euer any man so ouersene say you as this author is Who seeth not S. Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first Was there euer any man so destitute of reason say I but that he vnderstandeth this that when bread is balled bread it is called by the proper name as it is in deed and when bread is called the body of Christ it taketh the name of a thing which it is not in deed but is so called by a figuratiue spech And calling say you in the words of Christ signifieth making which if it signifieth when bread is called bread then were calling of bread a making of bread And thus is aunswered your demaund why this word call in the one signifieth the trueth and in the other not because that the one is a playne speche and the other a figuratiue For els by our reasoning out of reason when the cup which Christ vsed in his last supper was called a cup and when it was called Christes bloud all was one calling and was of like trueth without figure so that the cup was Christes bloud in deed And likewise the stone that flowed out water was called a stone and when it was called Christ the arke also when it was called the arke when it was called god all these must be one spech and of like trueth if it be true which you here say But as the arke was an arke the stone a stone bread very bread and the cup a cup playnely without figuratiue spech so whē they be called God Christ the body and bloud of Christ this can not be alike calling but must needes be vnderstād by a figuratiue spech For as Christ in the scripture is called a lambe for his innocency meeknes a Lyon for his might and power a doore and way wherby we enter into his fathers house wheat corne for the property of dying before they ryse vp bring increase so is he called bread and bread is called his body wine his bloud for the propertie of feedyng nourishing So that these al like speches where as one substaūce is called by the name of an other substaunce diuers and distinct in
writer among the Grekes hath more playnly spokeÌ„ for you then Theophilacte hath and yet when that shal be well examined it is nothing at all as I haue playnly declared shewing your vntruth aswell in allegation of the authors wordes as in falsefying his name And as for the Catechisme of Germany by me translated into English to this I haue aunswered before and truth it is that eyther you vnderstand not the phrase of the old authors of the church or els of purpose you will not vnderstand me But hereunto you shall haue a more full aunswer when I come to the proper place therof in the iiij part of my booke And as coÌ„cerning the wordes of Theophilact vpon the gospel of Iohn he speaketh to one effect and vseth much like termes vpon the gospels of Mathew Marke and Iohn wherunto I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And because the aunswer may be the more present I shall rehearse some of my wordes here agayne Although sayd I Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ and the drinking of his very bloud and not onely of the figures of them and of the conuersion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet he meaneth not of a grosse carnall corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud for so not onely our stomackes would yerne our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh and to drink his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite and auayle vs but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread calling the bread not onely a figure but also the body of Christ geuing vs by those wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eate corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drincke his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable This I wrot in my former booke which is sufficient to aunswer vnto all that you haue here spoken And as concerning the bread that Christ did eate and feede vpon it was naturally eaten as other men eate naturally changed and caused a naturall nourishment and yet the very matter of the bread remayned although in an other forme but in them that duely receaue and â—at the Lordes holy supper all is spirituall aswell the eating as the change and nourishment which is none impediment to the nature of bread but that it may still remayne And where you come to the translation of this word species to signifie apparence this is a wonderfull kinde of translation to translat specie in apparence because apparet is truly translated appeareth with like reason aurum myght be translated meate because edâ—re signifieth to eate And your other translation is no lesse wonderfull where you turne the vertue of Christes body into the veritie And yet to cloke your folly therin and to cast a mist before the readers eyes that he should not see your vntruth therin you say that by vertue in that place must be vuderstanded verite First what soeuer be vnderstande by the worde vertue your fayth in translation is broken For the sense being ambiguous yoâ— ought in translation to haue kept the word as it is leauing the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader and not by altering the word to make such a sense as please you which is so foule a fault in a translatour that if Decolampadius had so done he should haue ben called a man faulty and gilthy a corruptour a deceauour an abuser of other men a peruerter a deprauer and a man without fayth As he might be called that would translate Verbum caro factum est The second person became man Which although it be true in meaning yet it is not true in translation nor declareth the fayth of the translatour But now as your translation is vntrue so is the meaning also vntrue and vnexcusable For what man is so far destitute of all his senses that he knoweth not a difference betwene the veritie of Christes body and the vertue therof Who can pretend ignoraunce in so manifest a thing Doth not all men know that of euery thing the vertue is one and the substance an other Except in God onely who is of that simplicitie without multiplication of any thing in him or diuersitie that his vertue his power his wisdome his iustice and all that is sayd to be in him be neyther qualites nor accidentes but all one thinge with his verie substauÌ„ce And neyther the right hand of God nor the vertue of God which you bring for an example and serueth to no purpose but to blind the ignorauÌ„t reader be any thing els but the very substaunce of God although indiuersitie of respectes and considerations they haue diuersitie of names except you will deuide the most single substaunce of God into corporall partes and members following the errour of the Aâ—cropomorphites But the like is not in the body of Christ which hath distinctioÌ„ of integrall partes and the vertue also and qualities distinct from the substance And yet if the example were like he should be an euill translator or rather a corrupter that for a dextris virtutis Dei would traÌ„slate a dextris Dei or coÌ„trary wise And therfore all traÌ„slators in those places folow the wordes as they be be not so arrogaÌ„t to alter one title in theÌ„ therby to make theÌ„ one in wordes although the thing in substaunce be one For wordes had not theyr signification of the substances or of thinges onely but of the qualities maners respectes and considerations And so may one word signifie diuers thinges one thing be signified by diuers wordes And therfore he that should for on word take an other because they be both referred to one substaunce as you haue done in this place should make a goodly yere of worke of it not much vnlike to him that should burne his house and say he made it because the making burning was both in one matter and substaunce It is much pitie that you haue not bestowed your tyme in translation of good authors that can skill so well of translation to make specieÌ„ to signifie apparence and that take vertue sometyme for veritie and somtime for nothing a dextris virtutis Dei to signifie no more but a dextris Dei and virtutem carnis to signifie no more but carnem and virtutem sanguinis sanguinem And why not seing that such wordes signifie ad placitum that is to say as please you to translate them And it seameth to be a strange thing that you haue so quicke an eye to espye other mens faultes and cannot see in Theophilact his playne aunswer but to take vpon you to teach him to aunswer For when he asketh the question why doth
not the flesh appeare He should haue aunswered say you that the flesh is not there in deed but the vertue of the flesh I pray you doth not he aunswer playnly the same effect Is not his aunswer to that question this as you confesse your selfe that the fourmes of bread and wine be chaunged into the vertue of the body of Christ And what would you require more Is not this as much to say as the vertue of the flesh is there but not the substaunce corporally and carnally And yet another third errour is committed in the same sentence because one sentence should not be without three errours at the least in your translation For wheras Theophilact hath but one accusatiue case your put therto other two mo of your owne heade And as you once taught Barnes so now you would make Theophilact your scholer to say what you would haue him But that the truth may appeare what Theophilact sayd I shall reherse his owne wordes in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes translated into latine be these Condescendens nobis benignus Deus speciem quidem panis et vini seruat in potestatem autemcarnis et sanguinis transelementat And in English they be thus much to say The mercifull God condesending to our infermitie conserueth still the kind of bread and wine but turneth them into the vertue of his flesh and bloūd To this sentence you do adde of yonr owne authoritie these wordes the bread wine which wordes Theophilact hath not which is an vntrue parte of him that pretendeth to be a true interpretour And by adding those wordes you alter clearly the authors meaning For wheare the authors meaning was that we should abhore to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud in theyr propre forme and kind yet almighty God hath ordeyned that in his holy supper we should receaue the fourmes and kindes of bread and wine and that those kindes should be tourned vnto them that worthely receaue the same into the vertue and effecte of Christes very flesh and bloud although they remayne still in the same kynd and fourme of bread and wine And so by him the nature and kinde of bread and wine remayne And yet the same be tourned into the vertue of flesh and bloud So that the word fourmes is the accusatiue case aswell to the verbe tourneth as to the verbe conserueth but you to make Theophilact serue your purpose adde of your own head two other accusatiue cases that is to say bread and wine besides Theophilactes words wherin all men may consider how little you regarde the truth that to mayntayne your vntrue doctrine once deuised by your selues care not what vntruth you vse besides to corrupt all doctours making so many faultes in translation of one sentence And if the wordes alleaged vpon marke were not Theophilactes wordes but the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus as you say at the least Theophilact must borow them of Theophilus bycause the wordes be all one xvi lynes together sauing this word Ueritie which Theophilact tourneth into vertue And then it is to be thought that he would not alter that word wherin all the contention standeth without some consideration And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the veritie of Christes body as you say if Theophilact had thought the body had bene there would he haue refused the word and changed veritie into vertue bringing his owne fayth into suspition and geuing occasion of errour vnto other And where to excuse your errour in translation you say that the wordes by you alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophilactes wordes and I deny that they be Theophilus wordes so then be they no bodies wordes which is no detriment to my cause at all bycause I tooke him for none of my witnes but it is in a maner a clere ouerthrow of your cause which take him for your cheif principall witnesse saying that no catholike writer among the Grekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then Theophilactus hath and here vpon you make your issue And yet haue I a good cause to call thē Theophilactes wordes for as much as I finde them in his workes printed abrode sauing one word which you haue vntruly corrupted bycause that worde pleaseth you not And yet am I not bound to admit that your witnesse is named Theophilus except you haue better proofes therof then this that one sayth he hath him in a corner and so alleadgeth him It is your parte to proue your owne witnes and not my parte that stand herein only at defence And yet to euery indiferent man I haue shewed sufficient matter to reiect him Heare now my answer to S. Hierom. Besydes this our aduersaries do alleadge S. Hierom vpō the epistle Ad titū that there is as great difference betwene the Loues called Panis propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene a shadow of a body and the body it self and as there is betwene an image and the thing itselfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them These wordes of S. Hierom truly vnderstand serue nothing for the intent of the Papists For he ment that the Shew bread of the law was but a darke shadow of Christ to come but the sacrament of Christes body is a cleare testimony that Christ is already come and that he hath performed that which was promised and doth presently comfort and feede vs spiritually with his precious body and bloud notwithstanding that corporally he is assended into heauen Winchester This Author trauayleth to aunswer S. Hierom and to make him the easier for him to deale with he cutteth of that followeth in the same S. Hierom which should make the matter open and manifest how effectually S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud There is sayth S. Hierome as greate difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thing it selfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalitie should be chiefly in a Bishop and among all layemen an excellency in them so there should be in him a speciall chastitie and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he should not onely absteyne from vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde free from errour of thought that should make the body of Christ. These be S. Hieroms wordes in this place By the latter parte whreof appeareth playnly how S. Hierome meaneth of Christes body in the Sacrament of which the loaues that were Panes propositionis were a shadow as S. Hierome sayth that bread being the image and this the truth that the
following of the diuersitie of them that eate and not of that is eaten which is alway one According hereunto S. Augustine agaynst the donatists geueth for a rule the sacramentes to be one in all although they be not one that receaue vse them And therfore to knitte vp this matter for the purpose I intend and write it for we must consider the substance of the visible sacrament of Christes body and bloud to be alwayes as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce in the vnderstanding wherof this author maketh variaunce and would haue it by Christes ordinaunce but a figure which he hath not proued but and he had proued it then is it in substaunce but a figure and but a figure to good men For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad and so neyther to good nor bad this sacrament is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preaching Wherefore if it be more then a figure as it is in deed and if by Christes ordinance it hath present vnder the forme of those visible signes of bread and wine the very body and bloud of Christ as both bene truly taught hitherto then is the substance of the Sacrament one alwayes as the oyntment was whether doues eate of it or beteles And this Issue I ioyne with this author that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diuersitie in the substance of this sacrament what soeuer diuersite follow in the effect For the diuersitie of the effect is occasioned in them that receaue as before is proued And then to answere this author I say that onely good men eate and drinck the body and bloud of Christ spiritually as I haue declared but all good and euill receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce God hath ordeyned it which in it hath no variance but is all one to good and euill Caunterbury IN this booke because you agre with me almost in the whole I shall not need much to trauaile in the aunswer but leauing all your prety taūtes agaynst me and glorious bosting of your selfe which neyther beseemeth our persones nor hindreth the truth nor furthereth your part but by pompouse wordes to winne a vayne glory and fame of them that be vnlearned and haue more regarde to words then iudgement of the matter I shall onely touch here and there such thinges as we vary in or that be necessary for the defence of the truth First after the sūme of my fourth booke collected as pleaseth you at the first dash you beginne with an vntrue report ioyned to a subtell deceyte or falax saying that my chief purpose is to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament And hereupon you conclude that my fourth booke is superfluouse But of a false antecedent all that be learned do know that nothing can be rightly concluded Now mine intent and purpose in my fourth boooke is not to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the sacrament although that be true but my chief purpose is to proue that euell men eate not Christes flesh nor drincke not his bloud neither in the sacrament nor out of the sacrament as on the other side good men eat and drincke them both in the sacrament and out of the Sacrament And in the word Sacrament which is of your addition is a subtill falax called double vnderstanding For when the Sacrament is called onely a figure as you reherse wherin the body and bloud of Christ be onely figuratiuely there the word Sacrament is taken for the outwarde signes of bread and wine And after when you reherse that the Sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine in beleuing and remembring Christes benefites there the word Sacrament is taken for the whole ceremony and ministration of the Sacrament And so when you goe about by equiuocation of the word to deceaue other men you fall into your owne snare and be deceaued your selfe in that you think you conuey the matter so craftely that no man can espy you But to vtter the matter playnly without fallax or cauilation I teach that no man can eat Christes flesh and drincke his bloud but spiritually which forasmuch as euill men do not although they eat the sacramentall bread vntill theyr bellyes be full and drincke the wine vntill they be dronken yet eat they neither Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament because they cannot be eaten and dronken but by spirite and fayth wherof vngodly men be destitute being nothing but world and flesh This therfore is the summe of my teaching in this fourth booke that in the true ministration of the Sacrament Christ is present spiritually and so spiritually eaten of them that be godly and spirituall And as for the vngodly and carnall they may eate the bread and drincke the wine but with Christ him selfe they haue no communion or company and therfore they neyther eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which who soeuer eateth hath as Christ sayth him selfe life by him as Christ hath life by his father And to eate Christes body or drincke his bloud sayth S. Augustine is to haue life For whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally as you say or spiritually in them that rightly beleue in him and duely receaue the Sacrament as I say yet certayne it is that there he is not eaten corporally but spiritually For corporal eating with the mouth is to chaw teare in peces with the teeth after which maner Christes body is of no man eaten although Nicholas the second made such an article of the fayth and compelled Berengatius so to professe And therfore although Christ were corporally in the Sacrament yet seeing that he cannot be corporally eaten this booke commeth in good place and is very necessary to know that Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually by beleuing and remembring Christes benefites and reuoluing them in our mynd beleeuing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bodyes so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our soules And ought this to come out of a christian mannes mouth That these be good wordes but such as the wordes of christes supper do not learne vs Do not the wordes of Christes supper learne vs to eate the breade and drinke the wine in the remembraunce of his death Is not the breakyng and eating of the bread after such sort as Christ ordayned a communication of Christes body vnto vs Is not the cuppe likewise a communication of his bloud vnto vs Should not then christian people according hereunto in fayth feed vpon Christ spiritually beleuing that as the bread wine feed and nourish theyr bodyes so both Christ their soules with his owne flesh and bloud And shall any Christian man now say that these be good wordes but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not
yet for the tyme of the receauing it hath the licour in it And how can Christ departe from an vnpenitent sinner as you say he doeth if he haue him not at all And because of myne ignoraunce I would fayne leran of you that take vpon you to be a man of knowledge how an euill man receauing Christes very body and whole Christ God and man as you say an euell man doth and Christes body being such as it cannot be deuided from his spirite as you say also how this euell man receauing Christes spirite should be an euell man for the tyme that he hath Christes spirit within him Or how can he receaue Christes body and spirite according to your saying and haue them not in him for the tyme he receaueth them Or how can Christ enter into an euell man as you confesse and be not in him into whome he entreth at that present tyme These be matters of your knowledge as you pretend which if you can teach me I must confesse myne ignoraunce And if you cannot for so much as you haue spoken them you must confesse the ignoraunce to be vpon your owne part And S. Paule sayth not as you vntruely recite him that in him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation but that he eateth and drincketh condemnation And where you say that S. Paules wordes playnly import that those did eate the very body of Christ which did eate vnworthely euer still you take for a supposition the thing which you should proue For S. Paule speaketh playnly of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup and not one word of eating of the body and drincking of the bloud of Christ. And let any indifferent reader looke vpon my questions and he shall see that there is not one word answered here directly vnto them except mocking and scorning be taken for aunswere And where you deny that of your doctrine it should follow that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell you can not deny but that your owne teaching is that Christ entreth into euell men when they receaue the sacrament And if they be his temple into whome he entreth then must euell men be his temple for the tyme they receaue the sacrament although he tary not long with them And for the same tyme they be euell men as you say and so must nedes be the temple of the deuell And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching that at one tyme a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the deuell And in your figure of Christ vpon earth although he taryed not long with euery man that receaued him yet for a tyme he taried with them And the word of God tarieth for the tyme with many which after forget it and kepe it not And then so must it be by these examples in euell men receauing the sacrament that for a tyme Christ must tary in them although that tyme be very short And yet for that tyme by your doctrine those euell men must be both the temples of God and of Beliall And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authoritie of S. Paule it is no small contumely and iniury to S. Paule to asscribe your fayned and vntrue glose vnto him that taught nothing but the truth as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mentiō of the eating and drincking of the bread and cuppe but not one word of the eating and drincking of Christes body and bloud Now followeth in my booke my answer to the Papistes in this wise But least they should seme to haue nothing to say for them selues they alleadge S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth where he sayth He that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh and bloud as it is manifest to euery man that will reade the text For these be the wordes of S. Paule Let a man examin him selfe and so eat of the bread and drincke of the cup for he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely eateth and drincketh his owne damnation not discerning the Lordes body In these wordes S. Paules mynd is that for asmuch as the bread and wine in the Lordes supper do represent vnto vs the very body and bloud of our sauiour Christ by his owne institution and ordinance therfore although he sit in heauen at his fathers right hand yet should we come to this misticall bread and wine with fayth reuerence purite and feare as we would do if we should come to see and receaue Christ him selfe sensibly present For vnto the faythfull Christ is at his own holy table presēt with his mighty spirite grace and is of them more fruitfully receaued then if corporally they should receaue him bodely present and therfore they that shall worthely com to this Gods boord must after due triall of them selues consider first who ordeined this table also what meat and drincke they shall haue that come therto and how they ought to behaue them selues therat He that prepared the table is Christ him selfe The meat and drincke wherwith he fedeth them that come therto as they ought to do is his own body flesh and bloud They that com therto must occupy theyr myndes in considering how his body was broken for them and his bloud shed for theyr redemption and so ought they to approch to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart and godlynes of mynd as to the table wherin Christ hym selfe is giuen And they that come otherwise to this holy table they come vnworthely and do not eat drincke Christes flesh and bloud but eat and drincke theyr own damnation bicause they do not duely consider Christes very flesh and bloud which be offred there spiritually to be eaten and drinken but dispising Christes most holy supper do come therto as it were to other common meates drinckes without regarde of the Lordes body which is the spirituall meat of that table Winchester In the .97 leafe and the second columne the Author beginneth to trauerse the wordes of S. Paule to the Corinthians and would distinct vnworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament receyued which can not be For our vnworthines can not alter the substance of Gods sacrament that is euermore all one howsoeuer we swarue from worthynes to vnworthynes And this I would aske of this Author why should it be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body when he is taught yf this authors doctrine be true that it is not there at all If the bread after this authors teaching be but a figure of Christes body it is then but as Manna was the eating wherof vnworthily and vnfaythfully was no gift of Christes body Erasmus noteth these wordes of S. Paule to be gylty of
at the last S. Augustine sheweth the same to be true in the Sacramētes both of Baptisme and the Lordes body which he sayth do profite onely them that receaue the same worthely And the wordes of S. Paule which S. Augustine citeth do speake of the Sacramentall bread and cup and not of the body and bloud And yet S. Augustine called the bread and the cup the flesh and bloud not that they be so in deed but that they signifie as he sayth in an other place cōtra Maximinum In Sacramentes sayth he is to be considered not what they be but what they shew For they be signes of other thinges being one thing and signifiing another Therfore as in baptisme those that come faynedly and those that come vnfaynedly both be washed with the sacramētal water but both be not washed with the holy ghost and clothed with Christ so in the Lordes supper both eate and drincke the sacramentall bread and wine but both eate not Christ him selfe and be fed with his flesh and bloud but those onely which worthely receaue the Sacrament And this aunswere wil serue to another place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes where he sayth that Iudas receyued the body and bloud of the Lord. For as S. Augustine in that place speaketh of the Sacrament of Baptisme so doth he speake of the Sacramēt of the body and bloud which neuerthelesse he calleth the body and bloud bycause they signifie and represent vnto vs the very body flesh and bloud Winchester And yet he goeth about bycause he will make all thing clere to answer such authors as the papistes he sayth bring for theyr purpose And first he beginneth with S. Augustine who writeth as playnly agaynst this authors mynd as I would haue deuised it If I had no conscience of truth more then I see some haue and myght with a secret wish haue altered S. Augustine as I had lift And therfore here I make a playne Issue with this author that in the searching of S. Augustine he hath trusted his man or his frende ouer negligently in so great a matter or he hath willingly gone about to deceaue the reader For in the place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes alleadged here by this author which he would with the rest assoyle S. Augustine hath these format wordes in Latin Corpus dominum sanguis domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus Qui manducat indigne indicium sibi manducat bibit Which wordes be thusmuch in English It was neuerthelesse the body of our Lord and the bloud of our Lord also vnto them to whome the Apostles sayd He that eateth vnworthely eateth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe These be S. Augustines wordes who writeth notably and euidently that is was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receaued vnworthely declaring that theyr vnworthines doth not alter the substance of that sacrament and doth vs to vnderstand therwith the substaunce of the Sacrament to be the body and bloud of Christ and neuerthelesse so though the receauers be vnworthy wherin this author is so ouerseene as I thinke there was neuer learned man before the durst in a commōwealth where learned men be publish such an vntruth as this is to be answered in a tongue that all men knew Yet Peter Martyr wrot in Latin and reioyseth not I think to haue his lyes in English I will bring in here an other place of S. Augustin to this purpose Illud etiam quod ait Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo quo modo intellecturisumus Nunquid etiamillos sic poterimus accipere de quibus dixit Apostolus quod indicium sibi manducent bibant quum ipsant carnem manducent ipsum sanguinem bibant Nūquid Iudas Magistri venditor traditor impius quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis sanguinis eius cum ceteres discipulis sicut apertius Lucas Euangelista declarat manducaret biberat mansit in Christo aut Christus in eo Multi denique qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant sanguinem bibunt vel quum manducauerint biberint apostate fiunt nunquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eis Sed profecto est quidem modus manducandi illam carnem bibendi illum sanguinem quomodo qui manducauerit biberit in Christo manet Christus in eo Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguinem Christi manet in Christo in illo Christus sed certo quodam modo quem modum vtique ipse videbat quando ista dicebat The English of these wordes is this That same that he also sayth Who eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him how shall we vnderstand it May we vnderstand also them of whom the Apostle speake that they did eat to themselues and drincke iudgement when they did eate the same flesh and drincke the same bloud the flesh it selfe the bloud it selfe Dyd not Iudas the wicked seller and betrayer of his master when he dyd eate and drincke as Lucas the Euangilest declareth the firste Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes dwell in Christ and Christ in him Fynally many that with a fayned hart eate that flesh and drincke the bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken become aposratates do not they dwell in Christ or Christ in them But vndoubtedly there is a certayne manner of eating that flesh drincking that bloud after which manner whosoeuer eateth and drincketh dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him Therfore not in whatsoeuer maner any man eateth the flesh of Christ and drincketh the bloud of Christ he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him but after a certayn maner which maner he saw when he sayd these wordes This is the sense of S. Augustines saying in Latine wherby appeareth the fayth of S. Augustin to be in the sacrament to be eaten and drōken the very body and bloud of Christ which for the substaunce of the sacrament euill men receaue as good men do that is to say as S. Augustine doth poynt it out by his wordes the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ with such an expression of speach as he would exclude all difference that deuise of figure might imagine and therfore sayth Ipsam carnem ipsum sanguinem which signifie the selfe same in dede not by name onely as the author of the booke would haue S. Augustine vnderstanded and when that appeareth as it is most manifest that Iudas receaued the same being wicked that good men do how the same is before the recept by godes omnipotencie present in the visible sacrament and so not receaued by the onely instrument of fayth which in euill men is not liuely but by the instrument of the mouth
wherin it entreth with the visible element and yet as S. Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth bycause the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receaueth by such a maner of eating as wicked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effect to ensue of the diuersitie of the eating and not of any diuersitie of that which is eaten whether the good man or euill man receaue the sacrament If I would here encombre the reader I could bring forth many mo places of S. Augustine to the confusion and reprofe of this Authors purpose and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me that I way not S. Augustine I thinke good to alleadge and bring forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touching S. Augustine who vnderstandeth S. Augustine clere contrary to this author as may playnly appeare by that the sayd Bucer writeth in few wordes in his epistle dedicatory of the great worke he sent abroad of his enarrarations of the gospelles where his iudgement of S. Augustine in this poynt he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem domini sumsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse The sense in English is this How often writeth he speaking of S. Augustine Iudas also to haue receaued the selfe body and bloud of our Lord No man thefore by the authoritie of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue before alleadged him and gathereth therof a conclusion that no man can by the fathers sayinges proue Christ to be absent in the holy supper And therfore by Bucers iudgement the doctrine of this Author can be in no wise catholique as dissenting from that hath ben before taught and beleued whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world and by me here alleadged I cannot tell and whether he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hath taught in his latter iudgement with a great protestation that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth wherin because he semed to dissent from his frendes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes haue an imitation of an elder saying and be thus much to say Socrates is my frend truth is my best beloued and the church most regarded And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament after he knew al that Zuinglius Decolampadius could say in the matter And here I will leaue to speake of Bucer and bring forth Theodoretus a man most extolled by this author who sayth playnly in his commentaries vpon S. Paule how Christ deliuered to Iudas his precious body and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrament to be the truth So as this author can haue no foundatiō vpon eyther to maintayne his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke which his wordes playnly impugn S. Hierom in his commentaries vpon the prophet Malachie hath first this sentence Polluimus panem id est corpus Christi quando indigne accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we com vnworthy to the aulter and being filthy drincke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth men filthy drincke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same S. Hierom sayth Polluit Christi misteria indigne accipiens Corpus eius sanguinem He that vnworthely receaueth the body and bloud of Christ defileth the misteries Can any wordes be more manifest and euident to declare S. Hieroms mind how in the visible sacrament men receaue vnworthely which be euell men the body and bloud of Christ Caunterbury IN this poynt I will ioyne a playne issue with you that I neyther willingly goe about to deceaue the reader in the serching of S. Augustine as you vse to do in euery place nor I haue not trusted my man or frende herein as it semeth you haue done ouermuch but I haue diligently expended and wayed the matter my selfe For although in such waightie matters of scripture and aunciēt authors you must nedes trust your men without whom I know you can doe very litle being brought vp from your tender age in other kindes of study yet I hauing exercised my selfe in the study of scripture and diuinitye from my youth wherof I geue most harty laudes and thankes to God haue learned now to goe alone and do examine iudge and write all such waighty matters my selfe although I thanke God I am neyther so arrogant nor so wilfull that I will refuse the good aduise counsailie and admonition of any man be he man or master frende or foe But as concerning the place alleadged by you out of S. Augustine let the reader diligently expend myne whole aunswer to S. Augustine and he shall I trust be fully satisfied For S. Augustine in his booke De baptismo contra Donatistas as I haue declared in my booke speaketh of the morsell of bread and sacrament which Iudas also dyd eate as S. Augustine sayth And in this speach he considered as he writeth Contra Maximinū not what it is but what it signifieth and therfore he expresseth the matter by Iudas more playnly in an other place saying that he did eate the bread of the Lord not the bread being the Lord as the other Apostles dyd signifying therby that the euell eate the bread but not the Lord himselfe As S. Paule sayth that they eate and drincke Panem calicem Domini the bread and the cup of the Lord and not that they eate the Lord himselfe And S. Augustine sayth not as you faine of him that the substaunce of this sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ but the substaunce of this sacrament is bread and wine as water is in the sacramēt of Baptisme and the same be all one not altered by the vnworthines of the receauors And although S. Augustine in the wordes by you recited call the sacrament of Christes body and bloud his body and bloud yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament therof and yet is it called the body and bloud of Christ as sacraments haue the names of the thinges wherof they be sacraments as the same S. Augustine teacheth most playnly ad Bonifacium And I haue not so far ouershot my selfe or bene ouersene that I would haue atempted to publish this matter if I had not before hand excussed the whole truth therin from the botome But bicause I my selfe am certayne of the truth which hath bene hid these many yeares and persecuted by the Papistes with fyer and fagot and should be so yet still if you might haue your owne will and bicause also I am desirous that all my contrey men of England vnto whome I haue no smale cure and charge to
present vnder the kindes of bread and wine which as before is expressed and proued is vtterly nothing And so they geue vnto the ignorant occasion to worship bread and wine and they them selues worship nothing there at all Winchester As touching the adoration of Christes flesh in the sacrament which adoration is a true confession of the whole man soule and body if there be oportunity of the truth of God in his worke is in my iudgement well set forth in the booke of Common prayer where the priest is ordered to knele and make a prayer in his owne and the name of all that shall communicate confessing therin that is prepared there at which tyme neuerthelesse that is not adored that the bodely eye séeth but that which fayth knoweth to be there inuisibly present which and there be nothing as this author now teacheth it were not well I will not aunswere this authors eloquence but his matter where it might hurt Caunterbury WHere as I haue shewed what idolatry was cōmitted by meanes of the Papisticall doctrine concerning adoration of the sacrament bicause that answere to my reasons you can not and confesse the truth you will not therfore you runne to your vsuall shift passing it ouer with a toy and scoffe saying that you will not answere myne eloquence but the matter and yet indede you answere neither of both but vnder pretence of myne eloquēce you shift of the matter also And yet other eloquence I vsed not but the accustomed speach of the homely people as such a matter requireth And where you say that it were not well to worship Christ in the Sacrament if nothing be there as you say I teach if you meane that Christ can not be worshipped but where he is corporally present as you must nedes meane if your reason should be to purpose then it followeth of your saying that we may not worship Christ in Baptisme in the fieldes in priuate houses nor in no place els where Christ is not corporally and naturally present But the true teaching of the holy catholike churche is that although Christ as concerning his corporall presence be continually resident in heauen yet he is to be worshiped not onely there but here in earth also of all faythfull people at all tymes in all places and in all theyr workes Heare now what followeth further in my Booke But the Papistes for theyr owne commodity to keepe the people still in idolatry do often alleadge a certayne place of S. Augustine vpon the Psalmes where he sayth that no man doth eate the flesh of Christ except he first worship it and that we do not offend in worshipping therof but we should offend if we should not worship it That is true which S. Augustine sayth in this place For who is he that professeth Christ and spiritually fedde and nourished with his flesh and bloud but he will honor and worship him sitting at the right hand of his father and render vnto him from the botome of his hart all laud prayse and thankes for his mercifull redemption And as this is most true which S. Augustine sayth so is that most false which the Papistes would perswade vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacramentall bread and wine or any visible thing is to be worshipped in the Sacrament For S. Augustines mynd was so farre from any such thought that he forbiddeth vtterly to worship Christes owne flesh and bloud alone but in consideration and as they be annexed and ioyned to his diuinity How much lesse then could he thinke or allow that we should worship the Sacramentall bread and wine or any outward or visible Sacrament which be shadowes figures and representations of Christes flesh and bloud And S. Augustine was afrayd least in worshiping Christes very body we should offend therfore he biddeth vs when we worship Christ that we should not tarry and fixe our myndes vpon his flesh which of it self auayleth nothing but that we should lift vp our myndes from the flesh to the spirite which geueth lyfe and yet the Papistes be not afrayd by crafty meanes to induce vs to worship those thinges which be signes and sacraments of Christes body But what will not the shamelesse Papistes alleadge for theyr purpose when they be not ashamed to mayntayne the adoration of the Sacrament by these wordes of S. Augustine Wherin he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament but onely of Christ him selfe And although he say that Christ gaue his flesh to be eaten of vs yet he ment not that his flesh is here corporally present and corporally eaten but onely spiritually As his word declare playnly which follow in the same place where S. Augustine as it were in the person of Christ speaketh these wordes It is the spirite that giueth lyfe but the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken vnto you be spirite and life That which I haue spoken vnderstand you spiritually You shall not eate this body which you see and drincke that bloud which they shall shed that shall crucify me I haue commended vnto you a sacramēt vnderstand it spiritually and it shall geue you lyfe And although it must be visibly ministred yet it must be inuisibly vnderstand These wordes of S. Augustine with the other before recited do expresse his mynd playnly that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten than spiritually which spirituall eating requireth no corporal presence and that he entended not to teach here any adoration eyther of the visible sacramentes or of any thing that is corporally in them For in dede there is nothing really and corporally in the bread to be worshipped although the Papistes say that Christ is in euery consecrated bread Winchester As in the wrong report of S Augustine who speaking of the adoration of Christes flesh geuen to be eaten doth so fashion his speach as it can not with any violence be drawen to such an vnderstanding as though S. Augustine should meane of the adoring of Christes flesh in heauen as this author would haue it S. Augustine speaketh of the giuing of Christes flesh to vs to eate and declareth after that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament which must be inuisibly vnderstanded spiritually not as the Capernaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cut in peces and therfore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christes body after the manner he walked here nor drincke his bloud as it was shedde vpon the Crosse but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of godes worke supernaturall aboue mans vnderstanding and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall geue life which life carnall vnderstanding must nedes exclude And by these my wordes I thincke I declare truely S. Augustines meaning of the truth of this sacrament wherin Christ giueth truly his flesh to be eaten the flesh he spake of before taken of the virgine For the spirituall vnderstanding that S. Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truth of
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
such perplexity as alteration hath engendred and so do as good seruice in the truth as was ment therby to hinder and empayre it And this shall suffice for an answere to this fourth booke Caunterbury HEre apeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter For you leaue out those wordes of S. Ambrose which maketh his meaning playne that the prophet spake of the mistery of Christes incarnation Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda misteria sunt c. If they deny sayth he that the misteries of the incarnatiō in Christ be to be honored c. And a little after Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominicae sacramentum spectare videatur quod ait Propheta Adorate scabellum pedum eius consideremus Let vs consider by what meanes this saying of the prophet worship his foote stoole may be seene to pertayne to the sacrament of Christes incarnation And after the wordes by you rehearsed foloweth by and by Cum igitur incarnationis adorandum sit Sacramentum c. Seing then that the Sacrament of the incarnation is to be honored In these wordes sheweth S. Ambrose playnly that the worshipping of Christes flesh is vnderstand of the mistery of his incarnation So that S. Ambrose ment not onely that men should worship Christ when they receaue the Sacrament but that all creatures at all tymes should worship him And therfore he expresseth there by name how the Angels did worship him and also Mary Magdalene and the Apostles after his resurrection when they receaued not the Sacrament And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him yet being in his infancy and the prophet after the mynd of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose commaunded to honor him before his incarnation we likewise honor him sitting now in heauen after his ascentiō For so farre is fayth able to reach without eyther tentering or stretching Thus haue I aunswered to all that you haue brought agaynst my fourth booke not obscurely as you like a cuttell haue done hiding your selfe in your darke colours but playnly to the capacity of all men asmuch as I can And this haue I done with some payne of writing but little or no study for the matter being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answere by gods word and auncient authors to an ignorant lawyer being well exercised in neyther of both but making such diuinity a she can dreame in his sleape or deuise of his owne brayne or hath sucked out of the Papistical lawes and decrees and for lacke of arguments furnishing vp his booke with prety toyes with glorious bosting and scornfull taunting And with picking out of my booke such sentences as he perswadeth him selfe that he can make some colour of apparaunt answere to deceaue the reader And such places as he seeth his rhetorike will not serue he passeth them away slightly bicause he is afrayd to file his hands therwith Wherfore I may now right well and iustly conclude here myne answere to his confutation with the wordes of my fourth booke which be these But our sauiour Christ himselfe hath geuen vs warning before hand that such false Christians and false teachers should come and hath bydde vs to beware of them saying If any man tell you that Christ is here or Christ is there beleue him not For there shall rise false Christes and false prophets and shall shew many signes and wonders so that if it were possible the very elect should be brought into erroure Take heede I haue told you before hand Thus our Sauiour Christ like a most louing pastor and sauiour of our soules hath giuen vs warning before hand of the perilles and dangers that were to come and to be wise and ware that we should not geue credite vnto such teachers as would perswade vs to worship a peece of bread to kneele to it to knocke to it to creepe to it to follow it in procession to lift vp our hādes to it to offer to it to light candels to it to shut it vp in a chest or boxe to do all other honor vnto it more then we do vnto God hauing alway this pretence or scuse for our idolatry Behold here is Christ. But our Sauiour Christ calleth them false Prophets and sayth Take heed I tell you before Beleue them not If they say to you behold Christ is a broad or in the wildernes goe not out And if they say that he is kept in close places beleue them not And if you will aske me the question who be these false prophets and seducers of the people the aunswere is soone made The Romish Antichristes and their adherents the authors of all erroure ignorance blindnes superstition hipocrisie and idolatry For Innocentius the thyrd one of the most wicked men that euer was in the sea of Rome dyd ordayne and decree that the host should be diligently kept vnder locke and key And Honorius the third not onely confirmed the same but commaunded also that the priestes would diligently teach the people from tyme to tyme that when they lifted vp the bread called the host the people should then reuerently bowe downe and that likewise they should do when the priest carieth the host vnto sicke folkes These be the statutes and ordinaunces of Rome vnder pretence of holines to leade the people vnto all errour and idolatry not bringing them by bread vnto Christ but from Christ vnto bread But all that loue and beleue Christ himselfe let them not thinke that Christ is corporally in the bread but let them lift vp theyr hartes vnto heauen and worshipping him sitting there at the right hand of his father Let them worship him in them selues whose temples they be in whome he dwelleth and liueth spiritually but in no wise let them worship him as being corporally in the bread For he is not in it neither spiritually as he is in man nor corporally as he is in heauen but onely Sacramentally as a thing may be sayd to be in the figure wherby it is signified Thus is sufficiently reproued the third principall errour of the Papistes concerning the Lordes supper which is That wicked members of the deuil doe eate Christes very body and drincke his bloud ¶ Thus endeth the fourth booke ¶ The Confutation of the second booke HAuing declared how much agaynst all truth this author would beare in hand that the reall presence the corporall presence and substanciall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the sacrament is not the true catholique doctrine but a deuise of the Papistes which is a terme wherwith this author both vncharitably charge the kinges true subiectes among whome he knoweth a great many to be of that fayth he calleth now Papish But setting wordes a part and to come to the matter as I haue shewed this author to erre partly by wilfulnes partly by ignorance in the vnderstanding of the olde authors concerning the true reall
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
vnderstanding of Christes wordes somewhat to alter the same least we might stand stiffely in the letters and sillables and erre in mistaking the sense and meaning For where as our Sauiour Christ brake the bread and sayd This is my body S. Paule sayth that the bread which we breake is the communion of Christes body Christ sayd His body and S. Paule sayd the communion of his body meaning neuerthelesse both one thing that they which eate the bread worthely do eate spiritually Christes very body And so Christ calleth the bread his body as the old authors report bycause it representeth his body and signifieth vnto them which eat that bread according to Christes ordinance that they do spiritually eate his body and be spiritually fed and nourished by him and yet the bread remayneth still there as a Sacrament to signifie the same But of these wordes of Consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large Therfore to returne to the purpose that the bread remayneth and is eaten in this Sacrament appeareth by the wordes of Christ which he spake before the consecration For that Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate All this was done and spoken before the wordes of Consecration Wherfore they must nedes be vnderstood of the very bread that Christ tooke bread brake bread gaue bread to his disciples commaunding them to take bread aud eate bread But the same is more playne and euident of the wine that it remayneth and is drunken at the Lordes supper as well by the wordes that goe before as by the wordes that follow after the consecration For before the wordes of consecration Christ tooke the cup of wyne and gaue it vnto his disciples and sayd Drincke ye all of this And after the wordes of consecration followeth They dranke all of it Now I aske all the Papistes what thing it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to drincke when he sayd Drincke ye all of this The bloud of Christ was not yet there by theyr owne confession for these wordes were spoken before the consecration Therfore it could be nothing els but wine that he commaunded them to drincke Then aske the Papistes once agayne whether the disciples dranke wine or not If they say yea then let them recant theyr errour that there was no wine remayning after the consecration If they say nay then they condemne the Apostles of disobedience to Christes commaundement which dranke not wine as he commaunded them Or rather they reproue Christ as a Iuggler which commaūded his Apostles to drincke wine and when they came to the drincking therof he himselfe had conuayed it away Moreouer before Christ deliuered the cup of wine to his disciples he sayd vnto them Deuide this among you Here I would aske the Papistes an other question what thing it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to deuide among them I am sure they will not say it was the Cup except they be disposed to make men laugh at them Nor I thinke they will not say it was the bloud of Christ as well because the wordes were spoken before the consecration as bicause the bloud of Christ is not deuided but spiritually giuen whole in the sacrament Then could it be vnderstand of nothing els but of wine which they should deuide among them and drincke all togither Also when the Communion was ended Christ sayd vnto his Apostles Verily I say vnto you that I will drincke no more henceforth of this frute of the vine vntill that day that I shall drincke it new with you in my fathers kingdome By these wordes it is cleare that it was very wine that the Apostles dranke at that godly supper For the bloud of Christ is not the frute of the vine nor the accidents of wine nor none other thing is the frute of the vine but the very wine onely How could Christ haue expressed more playnly that bread and wine remayne then by taking the bread in his handes and breaking it him selfe and geuing it vnto his disciples commaunding them to eate it And by taking the cup of wine in his handes and deliuering it vnto them commaunding them to deuide it among them and to drincke it and calling it the frute of the vine These wordes of Christ be so playne that if an angell of heauen would tell vs the contrary he ought not to be beleued And then much lesse may we beleue the subtill lying Papistes If Christ would haue had vs to beleue as a necessary article of our fayth that there remayneth neyther bread nor wine would he haue spoken after this sort vsing all such termes and circumstaūces as should make vs beleue that styll there remayneth bread and wine What maner of teacher make they of Christ that say he ment one thing when his wordes be cleane contrary What christen hart can paciently suffer this contumely of Christ But what crafty teachers be these Papistes who deuise phantasies of theyr owne heades directly contrary to Christes teaching and then set the same abroad to christen people to be most assuredly beleued as Gods owne most holy word S. Paule did not so but followed herein the manner of Christes speaking in calling of bread bread and wine wine and neuer altering Christes wordes herin The bread which we breake sayth he is it not the Communion of Christes body Now I aske agayne of the Papistes whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated They can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated for that is not the communion of Christes body by their owne doctrine And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated then they must nedes confesse that after consecration such bread remayneth as is broken bread which can be none other then very true materiall bread And strayght wayes after S. Paule sayth in the same place that we be partakers of one bread and one cup. And in the next chapiter speaking more fully of the same matter foure tymes he nameth the bread and the cup neuer making mention of any Transubstantiation or remayning of accidentes without any substance which thinges he would haue made some mention of if it had bene a necessary article of our fayth to beleue that there remayneth no bread nor wine Thus it is euident and playne by the wordes of scripture that after consecration remayneth bread and wine and that the Papisticall doctrine of Transubstantiation is directly contrary to gods word Winchester But to the purpose the simplicity of fayth in a christen mans brest doth not so precisely marke and stay at the sillables of Christes wordes as this author pretendeth and knowing by fayth the truth of Christes wordes that as he sayd he wrought doth not measure gods secret working after the prolation of our sillables whose worke is in one instant how so euer speach in vs require a successiue vtterance and the manner of handling this author vseth to bring the misticall wordes in
contempt were meeter in an Ethnikes mouth to iest out all then to passe the lippes of such an author to play with the sillables after this sort For although he may read in some blind glose that in the instant of the last sillable gods worke is to be accompted wrought being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttered not to put the vertue in the last sillable nor to scorne the catholique fayth after which manner taking example of this author if an Ethnicke should iest of Fiat Lux at fi was nothing and then at at was yet nothing at lu was nothing but a litle little pearing put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then the light What christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entry of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this author noteth with an exclamation Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread Here I would question with this author whether Christ sayd so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall bread Christ sayd This is my body Ergo he sayd this is no bread And the first part of this reason this author affirmeth in the 59. leafe And the second part is Christes wordes and therfore to auoyd this conclusion the onely way is to say that Christes speach was but a figure which the catholique doctrine sayth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christ saying this is my body sayth in effect this is no bread wherat this author sayth They would bragge if Christ had sayd so In speach is to be considered that euery yea containeth a nay in it naturally so as who so euer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine Who soeuer sayth this is wine sayth it is no beere If a Lapidary sayth This is a Diamōd he sayth it is no glas he sayth it is no christall he sayth it is no white Saphir So Christ saying this is my body sayth it is no bread Which plainesse of speach caused Zuinglius to say playnly if there be presēt the substaūce of the body of Christ there is trāsubstātiatiō that is to say not the substaūce of bread therfore who wil playnly deny transubstantion must deny the true presence of the substaunce of Christes body as this author doth wherein I haue first conuinced him and therfore vse that victory for his ouerthrow in transubstantiation I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body and yet I will touch here such testimonie as this author bringeth out of one Hylary for the purpose of trāsubstātiation in the xxv leafe of this booke in these wordes There is a figure sayth Hylary for bread and wine be outwardly sene and there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued These be Hylaries words as this author alledgeth them who was he sayth within 350. yeares of Christ. Now I call to thy iudgement good reader could any man deuise more pithy wordes for the proofe of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud and the condemnation of this author that would haue an onely figure Here in Hilarius wordes is a figure compared to truth and sight outwardly to beleue inwardly Now our belief is grounded vpon gods word which is this This is my body in which wordes Hylary testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a truth and the figure is in that is sene outwardly I take Hylary here as this author alledgeth him whereby I aske the Reader is not this author ouerthrowē that Christs speach is not figuratiue but true and proper beyng inwardly true that we beleue Ye will say vnto me What is this to transubstantiation to the reprofe wherof it was brought in bicause he sayth bread and wine is seene First I say that it ouerthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christes body and euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this author in Transubstantiation not by authority of the church of Rome but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius sayth who shall serue me to auoyd papistry If one aske me what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seene I say they be in déede séene for they appeare so and therfore be called so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voyce and yet by his sence of féelyng denyed him Esau which was not Esau but was Iacob as the voyce frō within did declare him If ye will aske me how can there accordyng to Hylaries wordes be in the outward visible creatures any figure vnlesse the same be in déede as they appeare bread and wine I will aunswere Euen as well as this outward obiect of the sensible hearynes of Iacob resemblyng Esau was a figure of Christes humanitie and of the very humanitie in déede Thus may Hylary be aunswered to auoyde his authoritie from contrarying transubstantiation But this author shall neuer auoyde that him selfe hath brought out of Hylary which ouerthroweth him in his figuratiue speach consequently in his deniall of transubstantiation also as shall appeare in the further handlyng of this matter Where this author in the 18. leaf compareth these S. Paules wordes The bread that we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ to the expoundyng of Christes wordes This is my body I deny that for Christes wordes declared the substaunce of the Sacrament when he sayd This is my body and S. Paul declareth the worthy vse of it accordyng to Christes institution and by the wordes The bread that we breake doth signifie the whole vse of the Supper wherein is breakyng blessing thankesgeuyng dispensing receiuyng and eatyng So as onely breakyng is not the communion and yet by that part in a figure of speach S. Paul meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the Scripture a terme in speach to goe breake bread although it be not alwayes so taken whereby to signifie to go celebrate our Lordes Supper and therfore bread in that place may signifie the commō bread as it is adhibite to be consecrat which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ and so distributed and receaued is the communiō of the body of Christ as the cup is likewise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction which benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for callyng of Christes bread his body is to make it his body who as S. Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so maketh it to be The argumentes this author vseth in the 19. and 20. leafe of the order of Christes speaches as the Euangelistes rehearse them be captious deuises of this author in case he knoweth what S. Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hath not read S. Augustine De
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
Emperours very men although they be euer called by the names of there royall and imperiall dignites Or are they therfore gods bicause the Prophet calleth them so And who euer called you a man sithens you were a bishop and yet that dignity tooke not from you the nature of a man And the Pope is a man although he be called Iulius or Pater sanctissimus or Hipocrita impiissimus So is bread still bread although it represent the body of Christ and be called in that respect as a figure the very body of Christ. And where you say that the naming of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other must be understood before the sanctification and not after Saynt Paules owne wordes reproue this your saying most manifestly For he calleth it bread when it is the communion of Christes body and when it is eaten saying The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christes body And as often as you eate this bread drincke this cup and who soeuer eateth the bread and drincketh the cup of the lord vnworthely and let a man try himselfe and so eate of that bread and drincke of the cup and he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely c. Now these sayinges cannot be vnderstanded before the sanctificatiō except you will graunt that the bread was Christes body and that it was eaten before it was sanctified Wherfore let euery reader that knoweth any thing iudge whether you seeke any truth in this matter or whether you study to serch out vayne cauilations and yet the same being cleane contrary to the manifest wordes of holy scripture and to all approued writers Wherfore gentle reader way S. Paules wordes whether he call it bread after the sanctification or onely before and as thou findest Saynt Paule make with this mans saying that trifeleth away the truth so thou mayst beleeue him in all other thinges Hitherto is discussed how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is agaynst gods word now followeth in my booke how the same is agaynst nature Wherof I write thus Let vs now consider also how the same is agaynst naturall reason and natural operation which although they preuayle not agaynst Gods word yet when they be ioyned with Gods word they be of great moment to confirme any truth Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum that is to say that there should be any empty place wherin no substance should be But if there remayne no bread nor wine the place where they were before and where their accidents be is filled with no substance but remayneth vacuum cleane contrary to the order of nature We see also that the wine though it be consecrated yet will it tourne to vineger and the bread will mowle which then be nothing els but sower wine and mowled bread which could not wax sower nor mowly if there were no bread nor wine there at all And if the sacramentes were now brent as in the olde church they burned all that remayned vneaten let the Papistes tell what is brent They must nedes say that it is eyther bread or the body of Christ. But bread say they is none there then must they nedes burne the body of Christ and be called Christ burners as heretofore they haue burned many of his members except they will say that accidents burne alone without any substaunce contrary to all the course of nature The sacramentall bread and wine also will nourish which nourishment naturally cometh to the substaunce of the meates and drinkes and not of the accidentes The wine also will poyson as diuers bishops of Rome haue had experiences both in poysoning of other and being poysoned them selues which poysoning they can not ascribe to the most holsome bloud of our Sauiour Christ but onely to the poysoned wine And most of all it is agaynst the nature of accidents to be in nothing For that definition of accidents is to be in some substance so that if they be they must nedes be in some thing And if they be in nothing than they be not And a thousād thinges moe of like foolishnes do the Papistes affirme by their transubstantiation contrary to all nature and reason As that two bodies be in one place and one body in many places at one tyme and that substances be gendred of accidents onely and accidents conuerted into substances and a body to be in a place and occupy no roume and generation to be without corruption and corruption without generation and that substances be made of nothing and turned into nothing with many such like thinges agaynst all order and principles of nature and reason Winchester In the third chapiter written in the xxi leafe it troubleth this author that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is in his iudgement agaynst naturall reason and naturall operation in the entry of which matter he graunteth wisely that they should not preuayle agaynst gods worde and yet he sayth when they be ioyned with gods word they be of great moment to confirme any truth wherin if he meaneth to confirme Gods worde by reason or gods misteries by naturall operation myne vnderstanding cannot reach that doctrine and is more strange to me then this author maketh Transubstantiation to be to him As for the reason of vacuum declareth a vacuum that nature abhorreth not And if we speake after the rules of nature quantity filleth the place rather than substaunce And shortly to answere this Author it is not sayd in the doctrine of Transubstantiation that there remayneth nothing for in the visible forme of bread remayneth the proper obiect of euery sence truely that is seene with the bodely eye is truely seene that is felt is truely felt that is sauored is truely sauored and those thinges corrupt putrifie norish and consume after the truth of the former nature God so ordering it that creat all vsing singularly that creature of bread not to vnite it vnto him as he did mans nature to be in bread impanate breaded as he was in flesh incarnate And as for reason in place of seruice as being inferiour to sayth will agree with the fayth of Transubstantiation well inough For if our fayth of the true presence of Christes very body be true as it is most true grounded vpon these wordes of Christ This is my body then reason yelding to that truth will not striue with Transubstantiation but playnly affirme that by his iudgement if it be the body of Christ it is not bread For in the rule of common reason the graunt of one substance is the deniall of an other and therfore reason hath these conclusions throughly whatsoeuer is bread is no wine whatsoeuer is wine is no milke and so forth And therfore being once beleued this to be the body of Christ reason sayth by and by it is not bread by the rule aforesayd wherby appeareth how reason doth not striue with Transubstantiation being once conquered with sayth of the true presence of Christes body which is most euident and
no whit darkened by any thing this Author hath brought As for naturall operation is not in all mens iudgements as this Author taketh it who semeth to repute it for an inconuenience to say that the accidents of wine do sower and ware viniger But vlpian a man of notable learning is not afrayd to write in the law In venditionibus de contrahenda emptione in the Pandeas that of wine and viniger there is prope eadem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in manner one substance wherin he sheweth him selfe farre agaynst this Authors skill which I put for an example to shew that naturall operations haue had in naturall mens iudgements diuers considerations one sometime repugnant to an other and yet the Authors of both opinions called Philosophers all Among which some thought for example they spake wisely that estemed all thing to alter as swiftly as the water runneth in the streme and thought therfore no man could vtter a word being the same man in the end of the word that he was when he began to speake and vsed a similitude Like as a man standing in one place can not touch the same one water twise in a running streame no more can a man be touched the same man twise but he altereth as swiftely as both the streame These were laughed to skorne yet they thought themselues wise in naturall speculation Aristotle that is much estemed and worthely fansied a first matter in all thinges to be one in which consideration he semeth to be as extreame in a stay as the other fond Philosophers were in mouing By which two extremeties I condemne not naturall speculation wherwith I thinke God pleased for man to meruayle in contemplation of his inferiour workes and to tame his rash wit in the inexplicable variety of it but to vse it so as to make it an open aduersary to religion it is me semeth without all purpose The doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly thing to remayne in the Sacrament but contrarywise that the visible forme of bread and wine is there as the visible figure of the Sacrament and to be the same in greatnes in thicknes in wayght in sauor in tast in propriety also to corrupt putrifie and nourish as it did before and yet the substance of those visible creatures to be conuerted into the substance as Emissene sayth of the body of Christ. And here will reason do seruice is sayth to say if there be a conuersion in deede as fayth teacheth and none of the accidents be conuerted then the substance is conuerted for in euery thing all is substance and accidents but the accidents be not chaunged and yet a change there is it must nedes be then that substance is changed Which deduction reason will make and so agree with Transubstantiatiō in conuenient due seruice And thus I haue gotten reasons good will whatsoeuer this author sayth and from the ground of fayth haue by reason deduced such a conclusion to proue transubstantiation as vnles he destroy the true fayth of the presence of Christes very body which he can not must nedes be allowed And as for naturall operation of putrifying engendring wormes burning and such experiences which being the substance of bread absent this Author thincketh can not be so when he hath thought throughly he can of his thought conclude it onely to be a meruayle and it be so as agaynst the common rules of philosophy wherin as me semeth it were a nearer way as we be admonished to leaue searching of how of the worke of God in the mistery of Christes presence being that the celestiall parte of the sacrament so not to search how in the experience of the operation of nature of the visible earthly part of the Sacrament When God sent Manna in desert the people saw many meruayles in it besides the common operation of nature and yet they neuer troubled them selues with howe 's And as one very well writeth it is consonant that as there is a great miracle in the worke of God to make there present the substance of the body of Christ to likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread and both the heauenly and earthly part of the sacramēt to be miraculous and so many miracles to be ioyned together in one agreeth with the excelency of the Sacrament As for the obiections this Author maketh in this matter be such as he findeth in those scholasticall writers that discusse as they may or labour thereaboute wherwith to satisfie idle imaginations and to make learned men prompt and ready to say sumwhat to these trifles whose arguments this author taketh for his principall foundation For playne resolution and auoyding wherof if I would now for my parte bring forth their solutions and answers there were a part of schole Theologie so brought into English to no great prayse of eyther of out learninges but our vayne labour to set abrode other mens trauayles to trouble rude wittes with matter not necessary and by such vnreuerent disputing and alteration to hinder the truth Finally all that this Author reherseth of absurdity repugneth in his estimation onely is the conclusion of philosophie which should nothing moue the humble simplicite of sayth in a christen man who meruayleth at Gods workes and reputeth them true although he can not comprehend the wayes and meanes of them Caunterbury HEre in the beginning of this chapiter it is a strange thing to me that you should thinke strangenes in my saying that naturall reason and operation ioyned to Gods word should be of great moment to confirme any truth not that they adde any authority to Gods word but that they helpe our infirmity as the sacraments do to Gods promises which promises in themselues be most certayne and true For did not the eating and drincking of Christ his laboring and sweating his agony and pangs of death confirme the true fayth of his incarnation And did not his eating with the Apostles confirme and stablish their fayth of his resurrection Dyd not the sight of Christ and feeling of his woundes induce Thomas to beleue that Christ was risen When neyther the report of the deuout woman nor yet of the Apostles which did see him could cause him to beleue Christes resurrection And when they tooke our Sauiour Christ for a spirite did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh and bones to beleue that he was very man and no spirite as they phantasied Which sensible profes were so farre from derogation of fayth that they were a sure establishment therof Wherfore if your vnderstanding can not reach this doctrine it is indede very slender in godly thynges And as for my reason of vacuum you haue not yet answered thereto for nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance which by meanes of his quantity filleth the place And quantity without substance to fill any place is so fare from the rulers of nature that by order of
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
say the change in mans soule by Baptisme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in deede or els graunt the true catholique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures into the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise not in figure and signification but truly really and indeede And for the thing changed as the soule of man mans inward nature is chaunged so the inward nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken away which this author vseth in an other place of Sacramentall change which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth the age of Emissene and I note with all how playnly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teaching who indeede bicause of his auncient and playne writing for declaration of the matter in forme of teaching without contention is one whose authority the church hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in the truth of the presence of Christes very body or Transubstantiation for the speaking of the inward change doth poynt as it were the change of the substance of bread with resembling therunto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one author not being of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in the allegation after this manner corrupt might suffice for to conclude all brabling agaynst the Sacrament Caunterbury WHere I haue corrupted Emissene let the reader be iudge But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration change and turning of a man from the congregation of the wicked vnto the congregation of Christ which he calleth the body of the church and from the childe of death vnto the child of God this must be made a matter of scoffing to turne light fellowes out of the chancell into the body of the church Such trifling now a dayes becometh gayly well godly Bishoppes what if in the steede of turning I had sayd skipt ouer as the word transilisti signifieth which although peraduenture the bookes be false and should be transisti I haue translated turning should I haue so escaped a mocke trow you You would then haue sayd he that so doth goeth not out at the chancell dore into the body of the church but skippeth ouer the stalles But that Emissene ment of turning is cleare aswell by the wordes that go before as those which go after which I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader But forasmuch as you would perswade men that this author maketh so much for your purpose I shall set forth his minde playnly that it may appeare how much you be deceaued Emissenes mynd is this that although our sauiour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodely sight Yet we see him by fayth and by grace he is here present with vs so that by him we be made new creatures regenerated by him and fedde and nourished by him which generation and nutrition in vs is spirituall without any mutation appearing outwardly but wrought within vs inuisibly by the omnipotent power of God And this alteration in vs is so wonderfull that we be made new creatures in Christ grafted into his body and of the same receaue our nourishment and encreasing And yet visibly with our bodely eyes we see not these thinges but they be manifest vnto our fayth by gods worde and sacraments And Emissene declareth none other reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and bloud then in the Sacrament of baptisme but spiritually by fayth to be present in both And where Emissene speaketh of the conuersion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ he speaketh that aswell of baptisme as of the lordes supper as his owne wordes playnly declare If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vppon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme And yet he ment not that the water of baptisme in it selfe is really turned into the substance of Christ nor likewise bread and wine in the Lordes supper but that in the action water wine and bread as sacraments be sacramentally conuerted vnto him that duely receaueth them into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramentall conuersion is in the Sacraments and the reall conuertion is in him that receaueth the sacraments which reall conuertion is inward inuisible and spirituall For the outward corporall substances aswell of the name as of the water remayne the same that they were before And therfore sayth Emissene Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly In these wordes hath Emissene playnly declared that the conuersion in the sacraments wherof he spake when he sayd that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ is to be vnderstand in the receauours by their fayth and that in the sayd conuersion the outward substance remayneth the selfe same that was before And that Emissene ment this as well in the sacrament of the lordes supper as in the sacrament of baptisme his own wordes playnly declare So that the substance of Christ as well in baptisme as the Lordes supper is seene not with our eyes but with our fayth and touched not with our bodies but with our mindes and receaued not with our hands but with our hartes eaten and drunken not with our outward mouthes but with our inward man And where Emissene sayth that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heauen and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through fayth he doth vs to vnderstand that he is not present in the formes of bread and wine out of the ministration except you will say that fayth and grace be in the bread when it is kept and hanged vp but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christes institution then to them that so eate and drincke the bread and wine is the body and bloud of Christ according to Christes wordes Edite hoc est corpus meum Bibite hic est calix senguinis mei And therfore in the booke of the holy communion we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and bloud of Christ but that they may be to vs the body and bloud of Christ that is to say that we may so eate them and drincke them that we may be partakers of his body crucified and of his bloud shed for our redemption Thus haue I declared the truth of Emissenes mynd which is agreable to Gods word and the olde
is called the passion the death the crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mistery so is the Sacramēt of fayth which is Baptisme fayth These wordes be so playne and manifest that the expositour being a very Papist yet could not auoyd the matter but wrote thus vpon the sayd wordes Immolatio quae fit a praesbitero improprie appellatur Christi passio velmors vel crucifixio non quod sit illa sed quia illam significat And after he sayth Coeleste Sacramētū quod vere repraesētat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significanti misterio vt sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus id est significat The offering which the priest maketh is called improperly the passion death or crucifying of Christ not that it is that but that it signifieth it And the heauenly Sacrament which truly represēteth Christes flesh is called Christes body but improperly And therfore is sayd after a manner but not in the truth of the thing but in the signifying mistery So that the sence is this it is called the body of Christ that is to say signifieth Now the wordes of S. Augustine being so playne that none can be more and following the other wordes within tenne lines so that you can alleadge no ignorance but you must needes see them it can be none other but a wilfull blindnes that you will not see and also a wilfull concealing and hiding of the truth from other men that they should not see neyther And this one place is sufficient at full to answere what so euer you can bring of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of bread and wine For after consecration the body bloud of Christ be in them but as in figures although in the godly receauors he is really present by his omnipotent power which is as great a miracle in our dayly nurrishing as is wrought before in our regeneration And therfore is Christ no lesse to be honored of them that feede of him in his holy supper then of them that be grafted in him by regeneration And where as I sayd vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures in that place I collected more of S. Augustines wordes in your fauour then indeed S. Augustine sayth bicause you should not say that I nipt him For S. Augustine sayth not that the sacrament consisteth of two natures and therfore both these natures must needes remayne in the Sacrament but he sayth that the Sacrifice consisteth of two thinges which he calleth also natures and therof it followeth that those two thinges must be in the sacrifice which is to be vnderstande in the ministration not in the bread and wine reserued And very true it is as S Augustine sayth that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two thinges of the Sacrament and of the thing therby signified which is Christes body as the person of Christ consisteth of god and man But yet this resemblance is not altogither like as you say truely for so much for the person of Christ consisteth so of his godhead and manhod that they be both in him in reall presence and vnity of person But in the sacrifice it is otherwise where neither is any such vnion betwene the sacrament and the truth of the Sacrament nor any such presence of the body of Christ. For in the bread and wine Christ is but figuratiuely as I sayd before and in the godly receauours spiritually in whome also he tarieth remayneth so long as they remayne the mēbers of his body But if Christes similitudes should be so narrowly pressed as you presse here the similitude of the two natures of Christ in the sacrament collecting that bicause the body and bloud of Christ be truely present in the due administration of the Sacrament therfore they must be there naturally present as the two natures of the humanity and diuinity be in Christ many wicked errours should be established by them As if the similitude of the wicked steward were strayned as you strayne and force this similitude men might gather that it is lawfull for Christen men to begile theire lordes and masters whiles they be in office to helpe them selues when they be out of office bicause the Lord praysed the wicked steward Yet you know the similitude was not taught of our Sauiour Christ for that purpose for God is no fauourer of falsehod and vntruth So you do wrong both to the holy Doctoures and to me to gather of oure similitude any other doctrine than we meane by the sayd similitude Nor any reasonable man can say that I am forced by confessing two natures in Christes person really naturally and substantially to confesse also the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament except he could proue that the holy Doctoures and I following their doctrine do teach and affirme that the natures of bread and wine are ioyned in the Sacrament with the naturall body and bloud of Christ in vnity of person as the natures of God and man be ioyned in our Sauiour Christ which we do not teach bicause we finde no such doctrine taught by Christ by his Apostles nor Euangilistes Therfore take your owne collection to your selfe and make your selfe aunswere to such absurdities and inconuenience as you do inferre by abusing and forcing of the Doctours similitude to an other ende than they did vse it And it is not necessary for our eternall saluation nor yet profitable for our comfort in this life to beleeue that the naturall body and bloud of Christ is really substancially and naturally present in the Sacrament For if it were necessary or comfortable for vs it is without doubt that our sauiour Christ his Apostles and Euangelistes would not haue omitted to teach this doctrine distinctly and playnly Yea our Sauiour would not haue sayd Spiritus est qui viuificat caro non prodest quitquam The spirite giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing But this doctrine which the holy doctors do teach is agreable to holy scripture necessary for all christen persons to beleue for their euerlasting saluation and profitable for their spirituall comfort in this present life that is to say that the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud in the natures and substances of bread and wine is distributed vnto all men both good and euill which receaue it and yet that onely faythfull persons do receaue spiritually by fayth the very body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. So that Christes naturall body is not in the Sacrament really substancially and corporally but onely by representation and signification and in his liuely members by spirituall and effectuall operation But it appeareth that you be foule deceaued in iudgement of the doctrine set out in my booke And if you were not eyther vtterly ignorant in holy scriptures and doctors or not
what is this to make foundation of an argument vpon a secret copy of an epistle vttered at one tyme in diuers senses I shall touch one speciall poynt Peter Martyr sayth in Latin whome the translator in English therin followeth that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body This author Englishing the same place termeth it exalted to the name of the Lordes body which wordes of exalting come nearer to the purpose of this author to haue the bread but a figure and therwith neuer the holier of it selfe But a figure can neuer be accompted worthy the name of our Lordes body the very thing of the Sacrament onles there were the thing in deede as there is by conuersion as the church truely teacheth Is not heare reader a meruaylous diuersity in report and the same so set forth as thou that canst but reade English mayst euidently see it God ordring it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appeare where the truth is impugned Agayne this author maketh Chrisostome to speake strangely in the end of this authority that the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ as though the nature of man were the stay to the diuine nature where as in that vnion the rest is an ineffable mistery the two natures in Christ to haue one substance called and termed an hipostasie and therfore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus The diuine constitution the nature of the body adioyned these two both togither make one sonne and one person Thou reader mayst compare the bookes that be abroad of Peter Martyr in Latine of Peter Martyr in English and this authors booke with that I write and so deeme whither I say true or no. But to the purpose of S. Chrisostomes wordes if they be his wordes he directeth his argument to shew by the mistery of the Sacrament that as in it there is no confusion of natures but each remayneth in his property so likewise in Christ the nature of his godhead doth not confound the nature of his manhode If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christes body there truely present inuisible also as that body is impalpable also as that body is incorruptible also as that is then were the visible nature altred and as it were confounded which Chrisostome sayth is not so for the nature of the bread remayneth by which word of nature is conueniently signified the property of nature For proofe wherof to shew remayning of the property without alteration Chrisostome maketh onely the resemblance and before I haue shewed how nature signifieth the propriety of nature and may signifie the outward part of nature that is to say the accidents being substance in his proper signification the inward nature of the thyng of the conuersion wherof is specially vnderstand transubstantiation Caunterbury WHere you like not my translatiō of Chrisostomes wordes I trow you would haue me to learne of you to trāslate you vse such sincerity and playnnes in your translation Let the learned reader be iudge I did translate the wordes my selfe out of the copye of Florence more truely than it seemeth you would haue done But whan you see the wordes of Chrisostome so manifest and cleare agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation for he sayth that the nature of bread remayneth still you craftely for a shift fall to the carping of the translation bicause you cannot answere to the matter And yet the wordes of Chrisostome cyted by master Peter Martyr in latine out of Florence copy and my translation and the translation of master Peters booke in English do agree fully here in sense although the wordes be not all one which neyther is required nor lightly found in any two translators so that all your wrangling in the diuersity of the translations is but a fleight and common practise of you whan you cannot answer the matter to seeke faultes in the translation where none is And for the speciall poynt wherin you do note a meruaylous diuersity in report and would gather therof no truth to be where such diuersity is let the reader be iudge what a wonderfull diuersity it is The Latine is this Panis dignus habitus est dominici corporis appellatione The translator of M. Peter Martyrs booke sayth The bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body My translation hath The bread is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord. When a man is made a Lord or Knight if one say of him that he is reputed worthy the name of a Lord or Knight and an other say that he is exalted to the name of a Lord or Knight what difference is betwene these two sayinges Is not this a wonderfull diuersity I pray thee iudge indifferently good reader But say you a figure can neuer be counted worthy the name of the thing onles the thing were there in deede Wrangle then with S. Ihon Chrisostome himselfe and not with me who sayth that the bread is exalted to the name of the Lords body or is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body after the sanctificatiō and yet the nature of the bread remayneth still which can not be as you say if the body of Christ were there present And who heard euer such a doctrine as you here make that the thing must be really and corporally present where the figure is For so must euery man be corporally buried in deede when he is Baptised which is a figure of our buriall And when we receaue the Sacrament of Christes body then is accomplished the resurrectiō of our bodies for that Sacrament you affirme to be the figure therof But your doctrine herein is cleane contrary to the iudgement of Lactantius and other olde writers who teach that figures be in vayne and serue to no purpose when the thinges by them signified be present And where you thinke it strange to say that the diuine nature is or resteth in the body of Christ it is nothing els but to declare your ignorance in Gods word and auncient authors in reading of whome forasmuch as you haue not bene much exercised it is no meruayle though their speach seeme strange vnto you The greeke word of Chrisostome is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I pray you english and then we shall see what a strange speach you will make Did you neuer heare tell at the least that the word was incarnated or Verbum caro factum est And what signifieth this word Incarnate but God to be made man and his diuine nature to be in flesh Doth not S. Iohn bid vs beware that we beleue not euery spirite for there be many false prophets and euery spirite sayth he that confesseth not Iesus Christ to haue come in flesh is not of God but is the spirite of Antichrist Is this then a strange speach to you that the diuine nature resteth in the flesh that is to say in the body of Christ which
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
tell an vntruth But to say my mynde frankely what I thinke of your declaration of these two heresies I thinke a great part thereof you dreamed in your sleape or imagined being in some traunce or rapt with some Sophisticall vision and part of your dreame agreeth neither with approued Authours and histories nor with it selfe For first as touchyng the Eutichians where you say that Gelasius directeth his Argumētes of the two natures in man of the two natures in the Sacramēt chiefly agaynst the Eutichians to proue the nature of man to remaine in Christ after the adunation whosoeuer readeth Gelasius shall finde otherwise that he directed his Arguments indifferently as well agaynst Nestorius as agaynst Eutiches and no more agaynst the one then agaynst the other Nor no more did the Eutichians abhorre alius and alius although some gathered so of their wordes then did the Nestorians which wordes signifie diuersitie of person as aliud and aliud signifie diuersitie of nature So as the body soule in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diuersitie of natures yet be they not alius and alius bycause that both together make but one person By meanes of which difference betwene alius and alius we say Alius pater alius filius alius spiritus sanctus and not Aliud pater aliud filius aliud spiritus sanctus for asmuch as they be three in persons and but one in nature and substaunce And bycause Christ is two in nature that is to say of his deitie and humanitie and but one in person therefore we say Aliud aliud est diuinitas humanitas but not Alius sed vnus est Christus And although Nestorius graunted two natures in Christ yet not as you say frō his natiuitie nor by adunation but by cohabitation or inhabitatiō so that he made but one Christ although some otherwise take him and not alium alium after which sorte the Godhead is also in other godly men whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly nature although by their naturall generatiō they be but mē without the diuine nature vnited in person but after obteined by adoption grace As by your example a man is made Bishop which by naturall generation is borne but a man And that this was Nestorius opinion that Christ from his Natiuitie was but mā onely had his godhead after by adoptiō or accession is euident of your own wordes when you say that the Nestoriās denied Christ cōceiued God or borne God that the Godhead was an accessiō to Christ afterward by merite and that he was cōceiued but onely man although shortly after you go from the same saying that both the Godhead manhode were alwayes in Christ such cōstācie is in your dreamed phātasies And where you haue written thus much as you say because it should appeare that Gelasius by his Argumentes of the Sacrament and of the two natures of man went abont to proue that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation you might haue bestowed your tyme better than to haue lost somuch labour to impugne the truth For although neither Nestorius nor Eutiches denyed the Godhead of Christ to remaine yet Gelasius went not about onely to confute thē but also to set out playnly the true catholicke faith that Christ being incarnated was perfect God and perfect man and how that might be both the sayd natures and substaunces remainyng with all their naturall proprieties and conditions without transubstantiation abolition or confusion of any of the two natures And this he declareth aswell by the example of the Sacrament as of the body and soule of man Wherfore as true as it is that the body and soule of man and Godhead and manhode of Christ remaine in their proper substaunces natures and properties without transubstantiation or perishyng of any of them so must it be in the Sacrament And in the sayd heresies as you say was some appearāce of the truth euery one hauyng Scripture which in sounde of wordes seemed to approue their errours whereby they deceiued many But as for your fayned doctrine of Transubstātiation it hath no pretēce nor appearance of truth by Gods word for you haue not one Scripture that maketh mētion therof where as I hane many playne manifest Scriptures that speaketh in playne termes that bread is eaten and wine is dronken And this Author Gelasius with diuers other learned men aswel Greekes as Latins of the old Catholicke Churche affirme in no doubtfull wordes that the bread and wine be not gone but remaine still From which Scriptures and Doctours who soeuer dissenteth declareth him selfe at the least to be ignoraūt wherby yet he may excuse him selfe of a greater blot infamy And this matter being so cleare neither your fine disguising nor your painted colours nor your gay Rhetorike nor witty inuentions can so hyde and couer the truth that it shal not appeare but the more you labour to striue agaynst the streame the more faynt shall you waxe and at lēgth the truth hath such a violence that you shall be borne cleane down with the streame therof In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyrill togethers alludyng as it seemeth to this contention betwene you and me which comparison if it be throughly considered hath no small resemblance although there be no litle diuersitie also Nestorius say you was a great archebishop and so say I was Ciril also Nestorius say you as apeareth had much learnyng but cloked his heresie craftily But the Histories of his tyme who should know him best describe him in this sorte that he was a man of no great learnyng but of an excellent naturall witte and eloquence and full of craft and subtiltie by meanes wherof he was so proude and glorious that he contemned all men in respect of him selfe and disdained the old writers thinkyng him selfe more wise then they all Now let the indifferent Reader Iudge whom he thinketh in this your illusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius And all this that you haue brought in here of these two heresies although it be to no purpose in the principall matter yet it serueth me to this purpose that men may cōiecture whose nature and witte is most like vnto the description of Nestorius also how loth you be to come to the matter to make a direct aunswere to Gelasius wordes who sayth in playne termes that substaūce or nature of bread wine remaineth Euē as glad you be to come to this as a Beare is to come to the stake seeking to runne out at this corner or that corner if it were possible But all will not helpe for you be so fast tyed in chaynes that will you nill you at length you must come to the stake although you be neuer so loth And Gelasius byteth so sore hath catched so hard hold of you that you cā neuer escape although you attempt all
the same as Gelasius sayth he be but sacramentally figuratiuely and significatiuely what perill is it to vs And what auayleth it vs his being in the sacrament and not in vs. And the two natures in the Sacrament which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ be bread and wine which as they remayne and that truely in their natures and substances so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine Sacraments of the terrestriall nature of Christ that is to say of his body and bloud but not of his celestiall and diuine nature as you imagine And they be called Sacraments bicause they be figures which if they were no figures they were no Sacraments But it is not required that the thing represented by the figure should be really and corporally present in the figure when the figures ordeyned to represent a thing corporally absēt the figure were in vayne as Lactansius sayth if the thing were present And at the least wise in this place Gelasius vseth the natures and substances of bread and wine which be Sacraments of Christes flesh and bloud to be images and similitudes in this poynt not of his flesh and bloud but of his diuine and humayne nature that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament remayne still in theire proper kindes without violation adnihilation confusion commixtion or Transubstantiation so is it in the two natures of Christes manhode and his godhead So that Gelasius vseth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ not for the consecration of the sacrament as you would peruert his meaning And bicause you would haue all your thinges strange as it were one that had come out of a strange cuntry where he had learned a strange fashion of speach neuer heard of before or rather deuised it himselfe you call the colours of bread and wine the matter of bread and wine bicause colours onely be visible after your teaching And then must the naturall property of colours be to signify our feeding spirituall by the body and bloud of Christ that as they feede vs spiritually so do the colours corporally And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis ad oppositum antecedentis as colours feede not our bodyes so Christ feedeth not our soules This is the conclusion of your goodly new deuised diuinity And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence bicause you were loth to commit but one horrible errour in one sentence that Gelasius calleth Christes body and bloud his diuine substance This is a goodly hearing for the Eutichians who say that in Christ is no moe natures but his diuine substance which by your interpretation must be true For if his godhead be a diuine substance and his body and bloud also a diuine substance why should Eutiches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than diuine substaunce And so shall we bring to passe that either Christ hath but one substaūce or two diuine substaunces although not of like sorte and so not one humaine substaunce And is it like that Gelasius who so long contēded agaynst Eutiches for two distinct substaūces in Christ humaine and diuine would in the conclusion of his disputation so much yeld vnto the hereticke to graunt that Christes humaine substaunce should be a diuine substaunce And it is worthy to be noted and double noted how you wrāgle with the wordes of Gelasius wrast them cleane out of tune For where Gelasius sayth that there remaineth the substaunce or nature of bread and wyne to declare thereby the remainyng of two natures in Christ you say that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last and not in the first that is to say that the nature of bread and wine remaineth And nature say you is there taken for the proprieties which you call accidentes And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher that should so ambiguously speake of two thyngs when he meaneth but of one For when he sayth that the substaunce or nature remayneth you say he meaneth that onely the nature remaineth And were this tollerable in a learned man when he meaneth the nature to remaine not the substaunce to expresse it by these termes The substaunce or nature remaineth And if Gelasius meane that the substaunce of bread and wine remaineth not but the natures and then if by nature he vnderstode the accidentes as you vntruely surmise of him and make them the Image and similitude to proue Christes two natures thē they proue no more but that the accidentes of Christes natures remayne and not the substaunce whiche saying whether it be a fauouryng of the Eutichians Nestorians Ualentiniās Martionistes Apolinaristes and other of that sort let the learned be iudge And although it be not necessary the exāples to be in all partes equall as you alledge of Rusticus Diaconus yet they must needes be like in that point wherfore they were takē to be examples for els they were none examples And therefore seyng that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought for examples of Christes two natures for this intēt to proue that the two natures of Christ remaine in their substaunce it must needes be so in the bread and wine or els they serued nothyng to that purpose And the transition that Gelasius ment of is in the persons that receaue the Sacramentes whiche be transformed into the diuine nature as Gelasius sayth by efficacie vertue represented by the Sacraments but the transition is not in the bread and wyne as you and your Thomas imagine of transition whiche remaine in the Sacrament without substāciall mutatiō conuersiō transitiō transelementatiō or trāsubstantiatiō For if in the mystery of the Sacrament were transition mutation conuersion and transelementation of the substaunce of bread and wine how could that mystery be an example of the principall mystery of Christes incarnation to proue thereby that there is no transition mutation conuersion or transelementation of the two substaunces of Christ in his incarnation Doth not the remainyng of substaunce in the Sacrament proue the remainyng of substaunce in the Incarnation For how can the not remainyng of substaunce be an example image and similitude to proue the remainyng of the substaunce But here appeareth what it is to wrastle agaynst the truth to defend an euell cause what absurdities wit eloquence be driuen vnto when they striue agaynst God and his word And where you think your selfe ouer sore pressed with this argument and similitude of bread and wine to the two natures in Christ I must needes presse the argument and wordes so farre as pertayneth to the remayning of the natures and substance for to that end was the image and similitude brought in by Gelasius And then by argument from the cause wherfore the resemblance was made if the substance and nature of the bread and wine remayne not in the Sacrament it followeth that the two natures and substance of
that the two natures in Christ his diuinity and his humanity be not confounded And for ignorance of confusion you confounde all togither Gelasius and Theodorete proue that the two natures in Christ be not confounded bicause they remayne both in their owne substances and properties so that the remayning declareth no confusion which should be confounded if they remayned not If a droppe of milke be put into a pot of wine by and by it looseth the first nature and substance and is confounded with the nature and substance of wine And if wine and milke be put togither in equale quantity then both be confounded bicause neyther remayneth neyther perfect wine with his substāce natural proprieties nor perfect milke with the substance proprieties of milke but a cōfusion an humble iomble or hotch potch a posset or sillabub is made of thē both togither like as in mans body the foure elemēts be cōfoūded to the cōstitutiō of the same not one of the elemēts remayning in his proper substāce forme pure naturall qualities So that if one nature remayne not the same is confounded And if there be more natures that lose their substance they be all confounded except there be an vtter consumption or adnihilation of the thing that looseth his substance and therfore the argument which all the old ecclesiasticall authors vse to saue the confusion of the two natures in Christ is to proue that they both remayne And if we may learne that by the similitude of the sacrament as Gelasius and Theodoret teach and you here confesse the same then must needes the substance of bread and wine remayne or els is there none example nor similitude of the remayning of two natures in Christ but of their confusion as by youre fayned doctrine the substance of bread is confounded with the body of Christ neyther being adnihilate nor remayning but transubstantiated confounded and conuerted into the substance of Christes body And thus with your well vnderstanding of the matter you confound all togither where as I with my ignorance not blaspheming that holy vnion and mistery of Christes incarnation doe saue all the natures whole without mixtion confusion or Transubstantiation either of the diuine humayne nature in Christ or of the soule and body in man or of the bread wine in the Sacramēt but all the substāce natures be saued remayne cleerly with their natural properties conditions that the proportiō in that poynt may be like and one to be the true Image and similitude of the other But surely more grosse ignoraunce or wilfull impiety then you haue shewed in this matter hath not lightly bene seene or red of And where you say that I by ouersight or the Printer by negligence haue left out a not if I should haue put in that not of myne owne head contrarye to the originall in Greeke and to all the translatours in Latine and the translation of Master Peter Martyr also I should haue bene as farre ouerseene as you bee whiche as it seemeth of purpose confound and corrupt you care not whether any Authors wordes or their meanyng And as for my forked dilemma you shall neuer be able to aunswer ther to but the more you trauayle therein the more you shall entangle your selfe For eyther you must graunt as vnwilling as you be that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne after the consecration or els that the nature and substance of Christes humanity and diuinitie remayne not after his incarnation wherein erred not onely Eutiches whome you say I should haue put for Nestorius but also Martion Ebion Ualentinus Nestorius and other as in my booke I haue declared And one thing is principally to be noted in your answere to Theodoret how you can sophisticate and falsefy all mens sayinges be they neuer so playne For where betweene me and the Papistes the matter here in contention is this Whether the bread and wine remayne in their proper nature and substauce or no. I saying that they remayne and the Papistes saying that they remayne not the Issue being in this poynt whether they remayne or remayne not I bring for me Chrisostome who sayth the nature of bread remayneth I bring Gelasius who sayth that there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine I bring this Theodoret whose wordes be these The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substances forme and figure Now how can any man deuise to speake the truth in more playne wordes than these be For they say the very same wordes that I say And yet bicause the truth is not liked here must be deuised a crafty Lawyers glose of them that neuer sought other but to calumniate the truth and must be sayd agaynst all learning reason and speach that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents well yet then you confesse that those olde auncient Authors agree with me in wordes and say as I do that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated but remayne in their former substance And then the issue playnly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses vntill such tyme as you can proue that these authors spake one thing and ment an other and that qualities and accidents be substances And if you vnderstoode whereunto the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth you would not say that they spake agaynst the Eutiches any more then they do agaynst the Nestorians For if the bread and wine remayne not as you say but be swallowed vp of the body and bloud of Christ then likewise in the principall mistery eyther the deity must be swallowed vp of the humanity or the humanity of the deity The contrary wherof is not onely agaynst the Eutichians but also agaynst the Nestorians Martionistes and all other that denied any of his two natures to remayne perfectly in Christ. And where as you with all the route of the Papistes both priuately and openly report me to be vnlearned and ignorant bycause you would therby impayre my credite in this weighty matter of our fayth my knowledge is not any whit the lesse bicause the Papistes say it is nothing nor yours any deale the more bicause the Papistes do say that you onely be learned whome for any thing that euer I could perceaue in you I haue found more full of wordes and talke then of learning And yet the note of ignorance I nothing passe of if therby the truth and Gods glory should not be hindered Now after the reproofe of your doctrine of Transubstantiation by all the old writers of Christes church I write in my booke after this māner Now forasmuch as it is proued sufficiently as well by the holy Scripture as by naturall operation by naturall reason by all our sences and by the most olde and best learned authors and holy martirs of Christes church that the substance of bread and wine do remayne and be receaued of
wheras gods worke is in an instant and for that respect neuer shedding But this author had a fansie to vse the sound of the word powring to serue in freede of an argumēt to improue Transubstantiation meaning the hearer or reader in the conceauing of the sence of Ciprian thus termed should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament to be like a soppe wherupon liquor were powred which is a kind of deprauation as thou reader by consideration of Ciprians wordes and meaning mayst perceaue which Ciprian hauing shewed how the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of gods word and made by change Then bicause this mistery of the Sacrament in consideration of the two natures celestiall and earthly resembleth the principall mistery of Christes person S. Ciprian sayth in sence that as in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden so likewise in this Sacrament visible is also the diuine nature hidden This is the sence where for declaration of the worke of God presenting his diuine nature there is vsed the verbe Infundit in Latine by which word the motion of the diuine nature is spoken of in scriptures not bicause it is a liquidde substance to bee poured as the author of this booke englisheth it signifying a successiue operation but rather as a word if we should scan it as this author would signifying the continuance of the terme from whence to the terme wherunto without leauing the one by motion to the other for there is in the godly nature no locall motion and therfore we say Christ not leauing his father descended from heauen and being in earth was also in heauen which infution in some parte resembleth but mans wordes can not expresse Gods diuine operations To the purpose the first wordes of Ciprian shew the maner of the constitution of this Sacrament to be by mutation of the earthly creatures into the body and bloud of Christ. And than by the wordes following sheweth the truth of the substance of the Sacrament to the intent we might vse our repayre to it and frame our deuotion according to the dignitie of it esteeming as S. Paule sayth our Lordes body For the more euident declaration wherof S. Ciprian by example of the mistery in Christes person sheweth Christes humanity and diuinity present in the visible Sacrament of which diuinity there is speciall mention agaynst such which fansied the flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten as diuided from the diuine nature which was the heresy of the Nestorians and such other denying therby the persite vnity of the two natures in Christ which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially condemne as other fathers in their writings old specially preuēt with distinct writing agaynst that errour And therfore S. Ciprian not content to shew the presence of Christes flesh by mutation of the bread doth after make speciall mention of Christes diuinity not concerning that he had sayd before but further opening it And so vtterly condemneth the teaching of the author of this booke touching the presence of Christ to be onely figuratiuely Ciprian sayth that in the Sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true flesh of Christ and the Godhead truely which deuotion should knowledge And as for Transubstantiation according to the first wordes of S. Ciprian the bread is changed not in forme but in nature which is not in the properties of nature nor in the operation of nature neither in quantity or quality of nature and therfore in the inward nature which is properly substance This is the playne direct vnderstanding not by way of addition as this author of his imagination deuiseth who vseth the word Spirituall as a stop and opposition to the catholique teaching which is not so and clearly without learning compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptisme of which we reade not written that it is changed as we reade of the bread and therfore the resemblance of water in Baptisme is vsed onely to blynde the rude reader and serueth for a shift of talke to winde out of that matter that can not be answered and as euill debters shake of their creditours with a bye communication so this author conueyeth himselfe away at a backe dore by water not doing first as he promised to answer so as he would auoyd Ciprian directly by land Caunterbury WHere in my former booke I found a fault in the allegation of Ciprian it was in deede no little fault to alleadge those wordes that speake of the change of bread and to leaue out the example most necessary to be rehersed which should declare how it was changed which change is not by Transubstantiation as the example sheweth but as it is in the person of Christ whose humanity was not transubstantiate although it was inseparabely annexed vnto the deity And the wordes following do not once touch the reall and corporall presence of Christes flesh in the bread so farre it is from the ouerthrowing of the true catholike fayth by me taught But Ciprian in that place quite and cleane ouerthroweth as well your reall presence as your imagined transubstantiation as hereafter by Gods grace shall be declared But first it semeth to me a strange thing that such a learned man as you take your selfe to be in the tongues can not English this verbe Infundo where as euery Gramarian can tell the signification of Fundo Effundo and Infundo But it semeth you haue so deinty a stomacke that you can brooke no meat but of your owne dressing though it be neuer so well dressed of other yea you had rather eate it rawe then to take it of an other mans dressing And so much misliketh you all thinges that other men doe that you be ready to vomite at it No English can please you to this word Infundo but Latine English as you call it and that is such English as no English man can vnderstand nor Latine man neither but onely in that sense that I haue englished it And I pray thee gentill reader consider the great weighty cause why no English can please in this place and thou shalt finde it nothing els but ignorance eyther of the speach or of God Powring sayth he maketh a successiue working So doth infusion say I and therfore in that respect as vnfitte a terme as Powring But Gods worke sayth he is in an instant So is his powring say I and all that he doth euen aswell as his infusion All mans workes be done in succession of tyme for a carpenter can not build a house in a day but God in one moment could make both heauen and earth So that God worketh without delay of tyme such thinges as in vs require leasure and tyme. And yet God hath tempered his speach so to vs in holy scripture that he speaketh of himselfe in such wordes as be vsuall to vs or els could we speake here and learne nothing of God And therfore whether we say infusion or pouring
all is one thing and one reason For in vs they be done by little and little but God worketh the same sodenly in one moment And yet if you had well considered the matter you should not haue found the sacraments of God likesoppes wherin licour is poured but you should haue found pouring an apt word to expresse the abundance of gods working by his grace in the ministration of his holy sacraments For when there cometh a small rayne then we say it droppeth or there is a few droppes but when there cometh a great multitude of rayne togither for the great abundance of it we vse in common speach to say it poureth downe So that this word pouring is a very apt word to expresse the multitude of Gods mercies and the plentifulnes of his grace poured into them whome he loued declared and exhibited by his wordes and sacraments And howsoeuer you be disposed by iesting and scoffing to mocke out all thinges as your disposition hath bene euer giuen to reprehend thinges that were well yet the indifferent reader may iudge by this one place among many other that you seeke rather an occasion to brable without cause and with idle wordes to draw your booke out at length then to seeke or teach any truth And if I should play and scoffe in such a matter as you doe I might dally with the word of Infusion as you do with the word powring For as you reiect my word of powring bicause some fond reader might fantasy that bread in the sacrament to be like a soppe wherin licour were powred by like reason may I reiect your English Latin of infuding bicause such a reader might fantasy therby the bread to be like water wherin the diuinity is stieped or infuded As infused rubarbe is called when it is stieped certayne houres in stilled water or wine without seething and so be roses and violets likewise infused when they be stieped in warme water to make inlep therof But as poticaries phisitions surgions and Alcumists vse wordes of Greeke Arabike and other strange langwages purposely therby to hide their sciences from the knowledge of others so farre as they can so do you in many partes of your booke deuise many strange termes and strange phrases of speach to obscure and darken therby the matter of the sacrament and to make the same meete for the capacities of very few which Christ ordayned to be vnderstanded and exercised of all men At the last as you say you come to your purpose not to open the truth but to hide it as much as you may and to gather of Ciprians wordes your owne faining and not his meaning who ment nothing lesse then eyther of any Transubstantiation or of the corporall presence of Christ in the bread and wine And to set out Ciprians mynde in few wordes he speaketh of the eating and not of the keeping of the bread which when it is vsed in the Lordes holy supper it is not onely a corporall meate to norish the body but an heauenly meate to nourish the soules of the worthy receauors the diuine maiesty inuisibly being present and by a spirituall transition and change vniting vs vnto Christ feeding vs spiritually with his flesh and bloud vnto eternall life as the bread being conuerted into the nature of our bodies fedeth the same in this mortall life And that this is the mynd of S. Ciprian is euident aswell by the wordes that go before as by the wordes following the sentence by you alleadged For a little before Ciprian writeth thus There is geuen to vs the foode of immortall life differing from common meates which reteineth the forme of corporall substance and yet proueth Gods power to be present by inuisible effect And agayne after he sayth This common bread after it is changed into flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodyes And therfore the weakenes of our fayth being holped by the customable effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the invisible sacraments is the effect of euerlasting life and that we be made one by a Transition or change not so much corporall as spirituall For he is made both bread flesh and bloud meate substance and life to his church which he calleth his body making it to be partaker of him Note well these wordes good reader and thou shalt well perceaue that Ciprian speaketh not of the bread kept and reserued but as it is a spirituall nourishment receaued in the Lordes supper and as it is frutefully broken and eaten in the remembrance of Christes death and to them that so eate it Ciprian calleth it the foode of immortall life And therfore when he sayth that in the inuisible sacrament is the effect of euerlasting life he vnderstandeth of them that worthely receaue the sacrament for to the bread and wine pertayneth not eternall life Neuertheles the visible sacrament teacheth vs that by a spirituall change we be vnited to Christes flesh and bloud who is the meate and sustenance of his church and that we be made partakers of the life euerlasting by the power of God who by his effectuall working is present with vs and worketh with his Sacraments And here is agayn to be noted that Ciprian in this place speaketh of no reall presence of Christes humanitie but of an effectuall presence of his diuine maiestie and yet the breade sayth he is a foode and nourishment of the body And thus Ciprian proueth nothing agaynst my sayinges neither of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud nor of Transubstantiation of bread and wine And where you be offended with this word spirituall it is not my deuise but vsed of S. Ciprian him selfe not past .vi. or vii lines before the wordes by you cited where he declareth the spirituall mutation or transition in the Sacraments And of the change in the sacrament of baptisme as well as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ speaketh not onely this author but also Nazianzen Emissene Chrisostome Ambrose with all the famous auncient ecclesiasticall authors And this water doth well to delay your hotte wine wherof you haue drunken so much out of the cuppe of the great whore of Babilon that the true wine representing to vs our whole redemption by the true bloud of Christ you haue clearly transubstantiate and taken away Now followeth my answere vnto Chrisostome An other authority they haue of S. Ihon Chrisostome which they boast also to be inuincible Chrisostome say they writeth thus in a certayne homily De Eucharistia Doest thou see bread Doest thou see wine Do they auoyde beneth as other meates do God forbid thinke not so For as waxe if it be put into the fire it is made like the fire no substāce remayneth nothing is lefte here so also thinke thou that the misteries be consumed by the substance of the body At these wordes of Chrisostome the Papists do triumph as though they had won the field Loe
ghostly enemies the subtill and puisant wicked spirites and diuels The same manner of speach vsed also S. Peter in his first epistle saying That the apparaile of women should not be outwardly with brayded here and setting on of gold nor in putting on of gorgious apparayle but that the inward man of the hart should be without corruption In which manner of speach he intended not vtterly to forbid all broyding of here all gold and costly apparell to all women for euery one must be apparayled according to their condition state and degree but he ment hereby clerely to condemne all pride and excesse in apparayle and to moue all women that they should study to decke their soules inwardly with all vertues and not to be curious outwardly to decke and adourne their bodyes with sumptuous apparayle And our sauiour Christ himselfe was full of such maner of speaches Gather not vnto you sayth he treasure vpon earth willing therby rather to set our mindes vppon heauenly treasure which euer indureth than vppon earthly treasure which by many sundry occasions perisheth and is taken away from vs. And yet worldly treasure must needes be had and possessed of some men as the person tyme and occasion doth serue Likewise he sayd When you be brought before kinges and princes thinke not what and how you shall answer Not willing vs by this negatiue that we should negligently and vnaduisedly answere we care not what but that we should depend of our heuenly father trusting that by his holy spirite he will sufficiently instruct vs of answer rather then to trust of any answer to be deuised by our owne witte and study And in the same maner he spake when he sayd It is not you that speake but it is the spirite of God that speaketh within you For the spirite of God is he that principally putteth godly wordes into our mouthes and yet neuerthelesse we do speake according to his mouing And to be short in all these sentences following that is to say Call no man your father vpon earth Let no man call you lord or master Feare not them that kill the body I came not to send peace vpon earth It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand You shall not worship the father neyther in this mountnor in Ierusalem I take no witnes at no man My doctrine is not mine I seeke not my glory In all these negatiues our sauiour Christ spake not precisely and vtterly to deny all the foresayd thinges but in comparison of them to prefer other thinges as to prefer our father and Lord in heauen aboue any worldly father lord or master in earth and his feare aboue the feare of any creature and his word and gospell aboue all worldly peace Also to prefer spirituall and inward honoring of God in pure hart and mynd aboue locall corporall and outward honour and that Christ preferred his fathers glory aboue his owne Now for as much as I haue declared at length the nature and kind of these negatiue speaches which be no pure negatiues but by comparison it is easye hereby to make answer to S. Iohn Chrisostom who vsed this phrase of speach most of any author For his meaning in his foresayd Homily was not that in the celebration of the Lordes supper is neyther bread nor wine neither priest nor the body of Christ which the Papistes themselues must needes confesse but his intent was to draw our mindes vpward to heauen that we should not consider so much the bread wine and priest as we should consider his diuinity and holy spirite giuen vnto vs to our eternall saluation And therfore in the same place he vseth so many tymes these wordes Thinke and thinke not willing vs by these wordes that we should not fixe our thoughts and myndes vpon the bread wine priest nor Christes body but to lift vp our hartes higher vnto his spirite and diuinity without the which his body auayleth nothing as he sayth himselfe It is the spirite that giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing And as the same Chrisostome in many places moueth vs not to consider the water in baptisme but rather to haue respect to the holy ghost receaued in baptisme and represented by the water euen so doth he in this homily of the holy communion moue vs to lift vp our myndes from all visible and corporall things to thinges inuisible and spirituall In so much that although Christ was but once crucified yet would Chrisost haue vs to thincke that we see him dayly whipped and scourged before our eyes and his body hanging vpon the Crosse and the speare thrust into his side and the most holy bloud to flow out of his side into our mouthes After which manner S. Paule wrote to the Galathians that Christ was paynted and crucified before their eyes Therfore fayth Chrisostome in the same homily a litle before the place rehersed What doest thou O man diddest not thou promise to the prist which sayd Lift vp your myndes and hartes and thou diddest answere We lift them vp vnto the Lord Art not thou ashamed and afrayd being at that same houre found a liar A wonderfull thing The table is set forth furnished with Gods misteries the Lambe of God is offered for thee the priest is carefull for thee spirituall fier cometh out of that heauenly table the angels Seraphin be there present couering their faces with vi winges All the angelicall power with the priest be meanes aud intercestors for thee a spirituall fyer cometh downe from heauen bloud in the cup is druncke out of the most pure side vnto thy purification And art not thou ashamed afrayd and abashed not endeuoring thy selfe to purchase Gods mercy O man doth not thyne owne conscience condemne thee There be in the weeke 168. houres and God asketh but one of them to be giuen wholy vnto him and thou consumest that in worldly busines in trifling and talking with what boldnes then shalt thou come to these holy misteries O corrupt conscience Hitherto I haue rehersed S. Iohn Chrisostomes wordes which do shew how our myndes should be occupyed at this holy table of our Lord that is to say withdrawen from the consideration of sensible thinges vnto the contemplation of most heauenly and godly thinges And thus is answered this place of Chrisostom which the Papists tooke for an insoluble and a place that no man was able to answere But for further declaration of Chrisostoms mynd in this matter read the place of him before rehersed fol. 327. and 343 Winchester Answering to Chrisostome this author complayneth as he did in Ciprian of malicious leauing out of that which when it is brought in doth nothing empayre that went before Chrisostome would we should consider the secret truth of this mistery where Christ is the inuisible Priest and ministreth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest wherof
and principally in the persons and in the sacramentall signes it is none otherwise but sacramentally and in significatiō And whether this be matter of trueth or a thing deuised onely for a shift let the reader iudge And where you say in your further aunswere here to S. Ambrose that the visible matter of the bread outwardly remayneth it seemeth you haue not well marked the wordes of S. Ambrose who sayth that the words of Christ chaungeth species elementorum And then if species as you haue sayd before in many places signify the visible matter then the visible matter remayneth not as you say but is changed as S. Ambrose sayth And so S. Ambrose wordes that species elementorum mutantur be cleane contrary to your wordes that the visible matter remayneth I will passe ouer here how you call accidents of bread the matter of bread agaynst all order of speach bicause I haue touched that matter sufficiently before And yet this is not to be passed ouer but to be noted by the way how playnly S. Ambrose speaketh agaynst the Papistes which say that the body and bloud of Christ remayne sub speciebus panis vini vnder the formes of bread and wine And S. Ambrose sayth that species elementorum mut antur the formes of bread and wine be changed Aud where you say that in the examples of mutation brought in by S. Ambrose although the substance remayne still the same yet that skilleth not your answer here seemeth very strange to say that that thing skilleth not which skilleth all togither and maketh the whole matter For if in the examples the substances remayne notwithstanding the mutation of the natures by benediction then do not these examples proue that the substance of bread and wine remayne not And if this were singuler from the examples as you say it is then were not the other examples of this For if the substances remayne in them how can they be brought for examples to proue that the substances of bread and wine remayne not when they be brought for examples and thinges that be like and not that the one should be singular and vnlike from the other And where you alleadge this place of S. Ambrose for you nothing can be spoken more directly agaynst you For the natures sayth S. Ambrose of bread and wine be changed And the nature say you is the outward visible formes and that that is changed remayneth not say you also and so followeth then that the substances of bread and wine remayne and not the outward visible formes which is directly agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation and agaynst all that you sayd hitherto cōcerning that matter And wher a sacramentall mutatiō is to you a new tearme it declareth nothing els but your ignorance in the matter And although you seeme to be ignorant in other authors yet if you had expended diligently but one chapter of S. Ambrose you should haue found three examples of this sacramentall mutation wherin the substances remayne entier and whole one is in the sacrament of Christes incarnation an other is in a person that is baptised and the third in the water of baptisme which three examples I alleadged in my booke but you thought it better slightly to passe them ouer then to trouble your brayne with answering to them And where you say that calling bread the body of Christ is making it in deed the body of Christ as Christ was called Iesus bicause he is the sauiour of all men in deed here it appeareth that you consider not the nature of a sacrament For when sacraments be named or called by the names of the thinges which they signifie yet they be not the same thinges indeed but be so called as S. Augustine sayth bicause they haue some similitude or likenes to the thinges which they be called But Christ was called Iesus our Sauiour as the very true Sauiour in deed not as a sacrament or figure of saluation as the bread is the sacrament of Christes flesh and wine the sacrament of his bloud by which names they be called and yet be not the very thinges in deed Thus haue I answered to the chiefe authors which you alleadge for Transubstantiation making your owne authors not onely to ouerthrow your building but to digge vp your foundation cleane from the botome and nothing is left yon but arrogancy of mynd and bosting of words as men say that you still phansye with your selfe and bragge that you be bishop of Winchester euen as a captayne that glorieth in his folly when he hath lost his castle with ordinaunce and all that he had And at length you be driuen to your church which you call the consent of christendome vniuersall when it is no more but the Papisticall church that defendeth your transubstantiation Now declareth my booke the absurdities that follow the errour of Transubstantiation And now I will reherse diuers difficulties absurdities and inconueniences which must needes follow vpon this errour of Transubstantiation wherof not one doth follow of the true right fayth which is according to Gods word First if the Papists be demaunded what thing it is that is broken what is eaten what is dronken and what is chawed with the teeth lippes and mouth in this sacrament they haue nothing to answere but the accidentes For as they say bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament but onely their accidents And so they be forced to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawen and swallowed without any substance at all which is not onely agaynst all reason but also agaynst the doctrine of all auncient authors Winchester In the second volume of the 43. leafe the author goeth about to note 6. absurdities in the doctrine of Transubstantiation which I entend also to peruse The first is this First if the Papistes be demaunded c. This is accompted by this author the first absurditie and inconuenience which is by him rhetorically set forth with lippes and mouth and chawing not substanciall termes to the matter but accidentall For opening of which matter I will repeate some part agayne of that I haue written before when I made the scholler answer the rude man in declaration of substance which is that albeit that sensible thing which in speach vttered after the capacity of common vnderstanding is called substance be comprehended of our sences yet the inward nature of euery thing which is in learning properly called substance is not so distinctly knowen of vs as we be able to shew it to the sences or by wordes of difference to distinct in diuers kindes of thinges one substance from an other And herin as Basill sayth if we should goe about by separation of all the accidents to discerne the substance by it selfe alone we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothing indeede There is a naturall consideration of the abstract that can not be practised in experience And to me if it were
asked of commen bread when we breake it whether we breake the substance or onely the accidents First I must learnedly say If the substance be broken it is by meane of the accident in quantitie and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophye as this author doth in diuinity agaynst the catholique fayth to say in diuision we breake not the substance of bread at all the heresie in philosophy were not of such absurditye as this author mayntayneth in diuinity For I haue some probable matter to say for me where as he hath none For my strange answer I would say that albeit a naturall thing as bread consisting of matter and essenciall forme with quantity and therby other accidents cleauing and annexed may be well sayd to be in the whole broken as we see by experience it is Yet speaking of the substance of it alone if one should aske whether that be broken and it should be answered yea then should the substance appeare broken and whole all at one tyme seeing in euery broken peece of bread is a whole substance of bread and where the pâ—ece of bread broken is so little a crumme as can no more in deed be deuided we say neuertheles the same to be in substance very bread and for want of conuenient quantity bread indiuisible and thus I write to shew that such an aunswere to say the accidents be broken hath no such clere absurdity as this author would haue it séeme But leauing of the matter of Philosophy to the scholes I will graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges and therefore therein is a speciall miracle of God But when the accidentes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible part of the sacrament then the same accidents to be broken eaten and drunken with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh them is no miracle or maruaile and as for absurdity no point at all for by quantitye which remayneth is all diuision we ought to confes and good christen men do profes the mistery of the sacrament to be supernaturall and aboue the order of nature and therefore it is a trauaile in vayne to frame the consideration of it to agrée with the termes of philosophy But where this author sayth that nothing can be aunswered to be broken but the accidents yes verely for in time of contention as this is to him that would aske what is broken I would in other termes aunswere thus that thou seest is broken And then if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the sacrament vnder which is present inuisibly the substaunce of the most precious bodye of Christ. If he will aske yet further is that body of Christ broken I wil say no. For I am learned in fayth that that glorious body now impassible cannot be deuided or broken and therefore it is whole in euery part of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in common bread in euery part that is broken According whereunto it is in the booke of common prayer sette forth howe in ech part of that is broken of the consecrate bread is the whole body of our sauior Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say Is not that that is broken bread I would aunswere as a beleuing man by fayth truely no. For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christ inuisibly there and the breaking to be not in it but in the visible figure Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my fayth is a most certayne truth beleueth things as they verely be for Christs word is of strength not onely to shew and declare as other mens wordes do but therewith effectuall to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clarks soberly entreat the matter such as minde well I meane to consider accidentes and substance which termes the rude vnderstand not it is not necessary therefore in those termes to make aunswere to such as be contentiously curious who labour with questions to dissolue the trueth of the mistery in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we should that is no inconuenience in the mistery but an imperfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauing such giftes of God as other haue nor studying to attayne learning as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scholes with a deuoute minde to aunswere all captious questions hath for the exercitation of mens sences bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is now picked out by this author and brought to the common peoples eares in which it might sound euill they not being able to make aunswere therunto wereby they might be snarled and intangled with vayne fansies against that trueth which before without curiosity of questions they truely and constantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible formes of bread wine for signification the thing whereof is the very body and bloud of Christ which being the trueth of the whole it is no absurdity to confes truely the partes as they be if occasion require howsoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carnall mans eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the trueth should be altered into a lye wherewith to make melody to theyr vnderstandinges For howsoeuer carnal reason be offended with spirituall truth it forceth not but agaynst the whole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine can be iustified with whose testimonye how the fayth of the church in the sacrament now agréeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this author to reporte the contrary Caunterbury HEre may the reader perceiue how much you sweat and labor so that it pittieth me to see what trauaile you take babling many things no thing to the purpose to aunswere my first absurditye And yet at the end you be enforced to affirme all that I charge you withall that is to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawed and swallowed without any substaunce at all And more I need not to say here then before I haue aunswered to your clarkely dialogue betweene the scholler and the rude man sauing this that you make all men so wise that they iudge accidents in their common vnderstanding to be called substaunces and that no man is able to know the difference of one substaunce from an other And here you fall into the same folly that Basill speaketh For if he that goeth about to seperate accidentes from their substaunce fayle of his purpose end in nothing indeed then you separating the accidentes of bread from their substaunce and the substaunce of Christes body from the accidentes by your owne saying alleadged of Basill you must fayle of your purpose in the end bring both
fayth to snare them rather thē to saue them But what skilleth that to the Papistes how many men perish which seeke nothing elles but the aduaūcement of their Pope whom they say no man can finde fault withall For though he neither care for his own soules health nor of his christen brother but draw innumerable people captiue with him into hell yet say the Papistes no man may reprehēd him nor aske the question why he so doth And where you speake of the sobernesse and deuotion of the schoole authors whom before you noted for boasters what sobernesse and deuotion was in them being all in manner monkes and fryers they that be exercised in them do know wherof you be none For the deuotion that they had was to their God that created them which was their Pope by contention sophistication and all subtle meanes they could deuise by their witte or learning to confirme and establish whatsoeuer oracle came out of theyr Gods mouth They set vp their Antichrist directly agaynst Christ and yet vnder pretence of Christ made him his vicar generall giuing him power in heauen earth and in hell And is not then the doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the reall and sensuall presence of Christ in the sacrament to be beleued trow you seing that it came out of such a gods mouth was set abroad by so many of his Aungels And is not this a simple and playne doctrine I pray you that visible formes and substances be transubstantiated and yet accidents remayn A playne doctrine be you assured which you confesse your selfe that the simple and playne people vnderstand not nor your selfe with the helpe of all the Papistes is not able to defend it where the true doctrine of the first catholick christian fayth is most playne cleare and comfortable without any difficulty scruple or doubt that is to say that our Sauiour Christ although he be sitting in heauē in equality with his father is our life strēgth◠food and sustenaunce who by his death deliuered vs from death and daily nourisheth and increaseth vs to eternall life And in tokē hereof he hath prepared bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken of vs in his holy supper to put vs in remembrance of his sayd death and of the celestiall feeding nourishing increasing and of all the benefites which wee haue thereby which benefites through fayth and the holy ghost are exhibited and geuen vnto all that worthely receiue the sayd holy supper This the husbandman at his plough the weauer at his loume and the wife at her rocke can remember and geue thankes vnto God for the same This is the very doctrine of the Gospel with the consent wholly of al the old ecclesiastial doctors howsoeuer the Papistes for their pastime put vysers vpon the sayd doctors and disguise them in other coates making a play and mocking of them Now followeth the second absurdity Secondly these Transubstantiatours do say contrary to all learning that the accidentes of bread and wine doe hang alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And what can be sayd more foolishly Winchester The Mayster of the sentences shewing diuers mens sayings in discussion as they can of this mistery telleth what some say that had rather say somewhat then nothing which this author rehearseth as a determination of the church that indéede maketh no doctrine of that poynt so but acknowledgeth the mistery to exéede our capacity And as for the accidentes to be stayd that is to say to remayne without their naturall substaūce is without difficulty beleued of men that haue fayth considering the almighty power of Christ whose diuine body is there present And shall that be accounted for an inconuenience in the mistery that any one man saith whose saying is not as a full determination approued If that man should encounter with this author if he were aliue so to do I think he would say it were more tolerable in him of a zeale to agrée with the true doctrine to vtter his conceit fondly then of a malice to dissent from the true doctrine this author so fondly to improue his saying But if he should appose this author in learning and aske him how he will vnderstand Fiat lux in creation of the world where the light staied that was then create But I will proceed to peruse the other differences Caunterbury THe doctrine that euen now was so simple and playne is now agayne waxed so full of ambiguities and doubtes that learned men in discussing therof as they can be fayne to say rather some thing than nothing and yet were they better to say nothing at all then to say that is not true or nothing to purpose And if the master of the sentences saying in this poynt vary from the cōmon doctrine of the other Papists why is not this his errour reiected among other wherin he is not commonly helde And why do your selfe after approue the same saying of the Master as a thing beleeued without difficultie that the accidents be stayed without their naturall substāce And then I would know of you wherin they be stayed seeing they be not stayed in the ayre as in their substance nor in the bread and wine nor in the body of Christ For eyther you must appoynt some other stay for them or els graunt as I say that they hange alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And eyther I vnderstand you not in this place you speake so diffusely or els that thing which the Master spake and your self haue here affirmed you cal it a tollerable conceit fondly vttered And where as to answere the matter of the staying of the accidents you aske wherin the light was stayed as the creation of the world this is a very easy opposall and soone answered vnto For first God created heauen and earth and after made light which was stayed in them as it is now although not deuided from the darkenes in such sort as it was after Now followeth the third absurdity Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there really corporally and naturally present without any accidents of the same And so the Papistes make accidents to be without substances and substances to be without accidents Winchester How Christes body is in circumstance present no man can define but that it is truly present and therfore really present corporally also and naturally with relation to the truth of the body present and not to the maner of presence which is spirituall exceeding our capacitye and therefore therein without drawing away accidentes or adding wee beleeue simplye the trueth howesoeuer it liketh this author without the booke to terme it at his pleasure and to speake of substaunce without accidentes and accidents without substance which perplexity in wordes can not iest out the truth of the catholike beleefe And this is on the authors part nothing but iesting with a wrong surmise and supposall as
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
which this author teacheth vs in deede it is And thus It is in deede bread quoth this author but call it not so quoth this Theodoret It is not in deede the body of Christ quoth this author but yet in any wise call it so quoth Theodoret. Here is playne simulation and dissimulation both togither For by forbidding of the name of bread according to Theodorets teaching we dissemble and hide that it is by this authors teaching and by vsing the name of our Lordes body according to Theodorets teaching we fayne it to be that it is not by this authors teaching which sayth there is onely a figure and by this meanes in so high a mistery we should vse vntruthes on both sides in simulation and dissimulation which is a meruaylous teaching I deny not but thinges signifying may haue the name of that they signify by a figure of speach but we read not in any doctrine giuen that the thing signifying should haue the name by figure and be deliuered from the name of that it is in deede And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his new Catholike fayth ioyned with the teaching of Theodoret and the secret Epistle of S. Chrisostom as this author would haue them vnderstanded But those men Theodoret and Chrisostome in the sence they ment as I vnderstand them taught a true doctrine For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a reall naming of the body of Christ there present in deede and therfore a true perfect name which as S. Chrisostomes secret Epistle sayth the thing is worthy to haue declaring by that worthines the thing named to be there in deed And likewise I vnderstand the other name of bread worthely done away bicause the substance wherupon in reason the name was grounded is changed according to the true doctrine of Transubstantiation therfore that name of bread in their doctrine is truely layd away although Theodoret writeth the visible matter of bread and wine to be seene and felt as they were before and therfore sayth their substance which there signifieth the outward nature is séene and felt to remayne which termes with conuenient vnderstanding may thus agrée with the catholicke teaching of transubstantiation and so in the sacrament on euery part but in the heauenly and earthlye part to be a full whole and perfect truth as the high mystery being the sacrament of our perfect vnity in body and soule with Christ doth require Wherby in my iudgement as this author hath agaynst his owne determination in this enterprise vttered that confirmeth the truth of the reall presence of Christes most precious bodye in the sacrament which he doth in speciall entreating the wordes of S Augustine in the xxvii leafe of hys book besides that in diuers other places he doth the like so bringing vs forth this Theodoret and his secret epistle of S. Chrisostome he hath brought forth that may serue to conuince him in transubstantiation Howbeit as for transubstantiation Zuinglius taketh it truely for a necessary consequence of the trueth if there bee in the sacrament the reall presence of Christes body as there is in déed For as a carnall man not instruct by fayth aswell after consecration as before as he is of the earth speaketh and calleth it bread and asking him what it is will neuer aunswere otherwise and if one asked him whether it were the body of Christ would thinke the questioner mocked him so the faythfull spirituall man answering to that question what it is would after consecration according to fayth aunswere the body of Christ and thinke himself mocked if he were asked is it not bread vnles he had bene taught Christ to haue sayd it had bene both his body and bread As for calling it by the name of bread which it was he would not greatly stick and one thing may haue many names but one thing is but one substance whereby to aunswere to the question what it is sauing onely in the person of Christ wherein we know vnited the two substances of god and man And this matter I repeate and summarily touch agayne to leaue in the readers brest the principall poynt of our beliefe of this mistery to be of the reall presence that is to say vnfayned substantiall presence and therefore the true presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament which hath bene in al ages taught and bene as it is the Catholick fayth of Christendome as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages Caunterbury FOr the conclusion of al these questions when you see that you can make no aunswere but that you be driuen to so many absurdities and that I haue answered so playnely vnto euery one that there is left neither absurdity nor difficulty at al then you deuise the best way and most easy for your selfe to lay apart all questions and idle talke when all these questions and idle talke needed not if the papistes of their idle braines had not deuised their transubstantiation and thereupon moued this idle talke themselues which hath bene occasion not onely of much dissention in all Christian realmes but of the effusion also of much innocent bloud But when the Papistes like vnto Lucifer haue ascended into heauen and searched by vayne and arrogant questions the bowels and secrets of gods maiesty and his wisedome Yea euen whether God haue made the world so well as he might haue done theu they commaund other to keepe silence and not to enter into the bottomles secrecy of Gods misteries nor to seeke that is aboue their reach but to eudeuour themselues to doe that God commanndeth which counsaile as it is most godly and holesome so if the Papistes themselues had obserued in the beginning no man should haue needed to haue troubled his braynes with such fryuolous questions and idle talke But the Papists do like boyes in the schole that make rods to beat other aud when they should be beaten with the roddes which they made themselues then they wish that al rods were in the fier So the Papistes when they see themselues ouerthrowne in their owne questions which they first deuised themselues to be beaten with their owne rods then they cry peace hold hands and question no more But to aunswere the absurdityes layed vnto the Papistes charge you recompence me agayne with â—â— great huge absurdities One is that Christ is really but in heauen onely the other is that bread is stil bread Here thou mayst iudge gentle reader what errours I defend that am by force driuen to such two absurdities that I am fayne to say as I haue written in my booke and as the Apostles and Euangelistes sayd But beware I would aduise thee that thou say not as Gods word teacheth for if thou doost thou mayst be sure to be taken of the Papistes for an hereticke Fynally you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread the body and not the
body simulation and dissimulation wherin when you haue well practised your selfe in all your booke thorow at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue betweene Chrysostome Theodoret and me But Chrysostome Theodoret and I shall agree well enough for they tell not what in no wise may be but what was commonly vsed that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered what I wrote in my booke concerning figuratiue speaches and negatiues by cōparisō which you also haue allowed you should haue well perceiued your labor here spēt all in vaine For in all figures and sacramentes the signes remayning in their owne proper natures chaunge neuertheles their names and be called by the names of the more high and excellent thinges which they signify And both Chrysostome and Theodoret shew a cause thereof which is this that we should not rest in the sight of the sacramentes and figures but lift vp our mindes to the thinges that be thereby represented And yet in the sacramentes is neither simulation nor dissimulation except you will call all figuratiue speaches simulation and say that Christ simuled when he sayd he was a vine a dore a herdman the light of the world and suche like speaches But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit being now so sore trauailed with impugning of the truth to deuise a prety mery dialog of Quoth he and quoth he And if I were disposed to dally and trifle I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation of quoth he and quoth you euen betwene you and Christ. But as I haue declared before all thinges which be exalted to an hier dignity be called by the names of their dignity So muche the many times their former names be forgotten and yet neuertheles they be the same thinges that they were before although they be not vsually so called As the surnames of Kinges and Emperours to how many be they knowen or how many doe call them thereby but euery man calleth them by their royall and imperiall dignities And in like maner is it of fygures and sacramentes sauing that their exaltation is in a figure and the dignities royall and imperiall be reall and indeed And yet he should not offend that should call the princes by their original names so that he did it not in contempt of their estates And no more should he offend that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified And therefore Theodoret sayth not that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread and that he offendeth that so calleth it for he calleth it bread himselfe but with this addition of dignity calling it the bread of life which it signifieth As the cap of maintenāce is not called barely and simply a cap but with addition of maintenaunce And in like manner we vse not in common speach to call bread wine and water in the sacraments simple and common water bread and wine but according to that they represent vnto vs we call them the water of baptisme the water of life sacramentall water sacramentall and celestiall bread and wine the bread of lyfe the drinke that quencheth our thirst for euer And the cause Theodoret sheweth why they be so called that we hearing those names should lift vp our mindes vnto the thinges that they bee called and comfort our selues therewithall And yet neither in the sacraments iu the cap of maintenaunce nor in the imperiall or royall maiesties is any simulation or dissimulation but all be playn speaches in common vsage which euery man vnderstandeth But there was neuer man that vnderstood any author further from his meaning then you do Theodoret and Chrysostome in this place For they ment not of any reall calling by chaungyng of substances but of a sacramentall chaunge of the names remaining the substaunces For Theodoret sayth in playne wordes that as Christ called bread his body so he called his body corne and called himselfe a vine Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corne or he into a vine And yet this must needes follow of your saying if Christes calling were a putting away of the former substance according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation But that Theodoret ment not of any such chaunging of substances but of chaunging of names he declareth so playnely that no man can doubt of his meaning These be Theodorets owne wordes Our Sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body and yet sayth he they kept their former substaunce fashion and figure And the cause wherfore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of hys body to dignify so earthly a thing by so heauenly a name Theodoret sheweth to be this that the godly receiuers of the Sacrament when they heare the heauenly names should lift vp their mindes from earth vnto heauen and not to haue respect vnto the bread outwardly only but principally to looke vpon Christ who with his heauenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly But there was neuer such vntrueth vsed as you vse in this author to hide the trueth and to set forth your vntrueth For you alter Theodoretes wordes and yet that suffiseth not but you geue such new and straunge significations to wordes as before was neuer inuented For where Theodoret sayth that the sacramentes remayne you turne that into the visible matter and then that visible matter as you take it must signify accidents And where Theodoret sayth in playne termes that the substaunce remayneth there must substaunce also by your saying signify accidentes which you call here outward nature cōtrary to your own doctrine which haue taught hetherto that substaunce is an inward nature inuisible and insensible And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the trueth nor with your selfe in other places And all these cantelless and false interpretations altering of the words and corrupting of the sence both of all authors and also of scripture is nothing els but shameles shiftes to deceiue simple people and to draw them from the olde Catholicke fayth of Christes Churche vnto your newe Romish errors deuised by Antichrist not aboue foure or fiue hundred yeares passed And where you say that in the sacrament in euery part both in the heauenly earthly part is an whole perfect truth Now is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament if there be no bread there at all but the color and accidents of bread For if there be none other truth in the heauēly part of the sacrament then is not Christ there at all but onely his qualities and accidentes And as concerning your vniust gathering of mine owne wordes vpon S. Augustine I haue aunswered
thereunto in the same place And where you haue set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall man after your owne imagination you haue so well deuised the matter that you haue made ii extremities without any meane For the true faythfull man would answere not as you haue deuised but he would say according to the old catholick fayth and teaching of the Apostles Euangelists Martyrs and confessours of Christes Churche that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts the earthly and the heauenly The earthly is the bread and wine the other is Christ himselfe The earthly is without vs the heauenlye is within vs The earthlye is eaten with our mouthes and carnally feedeth our bodies the heauenly is eaten with our inward man and spiritually feedeth the same The earthly feedeth vs but for a tyme the heauenly feedeth vs for euer Thus would the true faythfull man answere without leaning vnto any extremity either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accideÌ„ces of bread but professing beleuing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heauen and yet spiritually to dwell in his faythfull people and they in him vnto the worldes ende This is the true catholicke fayth of Christ taught from the first beginning and neuer corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers And where you say that one thing is but one substaunce sauing onelye in the person of Christ your teaching is vntrue not onely in the person of Christ but also in euery man who is made of ij substaunces the body and soule And if you had beene learned in philosophy you would haue founde your saying false also in euery corporall thing which consisteth of ij substaunces of the matter and of the forme And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament So vntrue it is that you moste vainely boast here that your doctrine hath bene taught in all ages and bene the catholicke faith which was neuer the catholique but onely the Papisticall fayth as I haue euidentlye proued by holy scripture and the old catholick authors wherein truely and directly you haue not aunswered to one Winchester In whose particular words although there may be sometime cauillations yet I will note to the reader foure marks and tokens imprinted rather in those olde authors deeds then wordes which be certayne testimonies to the truth of their fayth of the reall presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguing vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacrament wherein I note not the particuler sentences which sometime be daungerous speches but their whole doinges As Irene who was in the beginning of the church argueth agaynst the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh whome Irene reproueth by the féeding of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified fleshe of Christ in the Sacrament which flesh and â—t be there but in a figure then it should haue proued the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratiuely And if the Catholicke fayth had not bene then certainely taught and constantly beleued without varience Christes very flesh to be indeede eaten in that mistery it would haue beene aunswered of the heretickes if had bene but a figure but that appeareth not and the other appeareth which is a testimony to the truth of matter indéed Hylary reasonyng of the naturall coniunction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to come to passe by the receiuyng truely the very flesh of our Lord in our Lordes meate and thereupon argueth agaynst the Arrians which Arrians if it had not bene so really in déede would haue aunswered but all was spiritually so as there was no such naturall and corporall Communion in déede as Hylary supposed but as this author teacheth a figure and it had bene the Catholicke doctrine so that argument of Hylary had bene of no force Saint Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to conuince the Appolinaristes and Eutichians which were none argument if Christes very body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the Godhead is in the person of Christ beyng the effect of the argument this that as the presence of Christes body in this mistery doth not alter the propertie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie which agaynst those heretickes serued for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous arguyng to be embraced of the Nestorians who would hereby haue furthered their heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they would haue sayd As the earthly and heauenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanitie and Godhead not vnited in Christ which is false and in the comparynges we may not looke that all should aunswere in equalitie but onely for the point that it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanitie by his Godhead and yet we may not say that as in the Sacrament be but onely accidents of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidentes of the humanitie For that mistery requireth the whole truth of maÌ„s nature and therfore Christ tooke vpon him the whole man body and soule The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidentes onely beyng the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ. And this I write to preuent such cauillations as some would search for But to returne to our matter all these argumentes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very body as the celestiall part of the Sacrament beyng the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remayneth in the former proprietie with the very presence of the celestiall thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke Caunterbury AS for your foure markes tokens if you marke them well you shall perceaue most manifestly your ignorauÌ„ce and errour how they note and appoint as it were with their fingers your doctrine to be erronious as well of Transubstantiation as of the reall presence And to begyn with your first marke Irenee in deede proued the resurrection of our bodyes vnto eternall lyfe bycause our bodyes be nourished with the euerlastyng foode of Christes body And therfore as that foode is euerlastyng so it beyng ioyned vnto his eternall deitie giueth to our bodies euerlastyng lyfe And if the beyng of Christes body in any creature should geue the same lyfe then it might peraduenture be thought of some fooles that if it were in the bread it should giue life to the bread But
were the figure of the body of Christ in the Sacrament that processe declareth the mynde of the author to be that in the Sacrament is present the very truth of Christes body not in a figure agayne to ioyne one shadow to an other but euen the very truth to aunswere the figure and therfore no particular wordes in S. Hierome can haue any vnderstādyng contrary to his mynde declared in this processe Caunterbury TO S. Hierome I haue aunswered sufficiently before to your confutation of my third booke almost in the end which should be in vayne to repeate her agayne therfore I will go to your last marke Winchester Fourthly an other certaine marke is where the old authors write of the adoration of this Sacrament which can not be but to the thynges godly really present And therfore Saint Augustine writyng in his booke De Catechisandis rudibus how the inuisible thynges be honoured in this Sacrament meanyng the body and bloud of Christ and in the 98. Psalme speaketh of adoration Theodoretus also speakyng specially of adoration of this Sacrament These authors by this marke that is most certaine take away all such ambiguitie as men might by suspicious diuination gather sometyme of their seuerall wordes and declare by this marke of adoration playnly their fayth to haue bene and also their doctrine vnderstanded as they ment of the reall presence of Christes very body and bloud in the Sacrament and Christ him selfe God and mā to be there present to whose diuine nature and the humanitie vnite thereunto adoration may onely be directed of vs. And so to conclude vp this matter for as much as one of these foure markes and notes maybe founde testified and apparaunt in the auncient writers with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same this should suffice to exclude all argumentes of any by sentences and ambiguous speaches and to vphold the certaintie of the true Catholicke fayth in déede which this author by a wrong name of the Catholicke fayth impugneth to the great slaunder of the truth and his owne reproch Caunterbury YOur fourth marke also of adoratiō proueth no more that Christ is present in the Lordes Supper then that he is present in Baptisme For no lesse is Christ to be honored of him that is Baptised thē of him that receaueth the holy Communiō And no lesse ought he that is Baptised to beleue that in Baptisme he doth presently in deede and in truth put Christ vpon him and apparell him with Christ then he that receaueth the holy Communion ought to beleue that he doth presently feede vpon Christ eatyng his flesh and drinkyng his bloud which thyng the Scripture doth playnly declare and the old authours in many places do teach And moreouer the forme of Baptisme doth so manifestly declare Christ to be honored that it cōmaundeth the Deuill therein to honour him by these wordes Da honorem Deo Da gloriam Iesu Christo. With many other wordes declaryng Christ to bee honored in Baptisme And although our Sauiour Christ is specially to be adored and honored when he by his holy word and Sacramentes doth assure vs of his present grace benefites yet not onely then but alway in all our actes and deedes we should lift vp our hartes to heauen and ther glorifie Christ with his celestiall father and coeternall spirit So vntrue it is that you say that adoration can not be done to Christ but if he be really present The Papistes teach vs to haue in honour and reuerence the formes and accidentes of bread and wyne if they be vomited vp after the body and bloud of Christ be gone away and say that they must be had in great reuerence bicause the body and bloud of Christ had bene there And not onely the formes of bread and wyne say they must be kept with great reuerence but also the ashes of them for they commaund them to be burned into ashes must be kept with like reuerence And shall you than forbid any man to worshyp Christ him selfe when he doth spiritually and effectually eate his very flesh and drinke his very bloud when you will haue such honour and reuerēce done to the ashes which come not of the body and bloud of Christ but onely as you teach of the accidents of bread and wyne Thus haue I confuted your confutation of my second book concernyng Transubstātiation wherin you be so far from the cōfutation of my booke as you promised that you haue done nothyng els but confounded your selfe studying to seeke out such shiftes and cauillations as before your tyme were neuer deuised yet constrayned to graunt such errours and monstrous speaches as to Christen eares be intollerable So that my former booke aswell cōcernyng the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud as the eatyng and drinkyng of the same and also transubstantiation standeth fast and sure not once moued or shaken with all your ordinaunce shot agaynst it But is now much stronger then it was before beyng so mured and bulwarked that it neuer neede hereafter to feare any assault of the enemies And now let vs examine your confutation of the last part of my booke conteinyng the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiuiour Christ. ¶ The end of the second booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE FIFTE BOOKE AS touchyng the fift booke the title wherof is of the oblatiō and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ somewhat is by me spoken before which although it be sufficient to the matter yet some what more must also be now sayd wherewith to encounter the authours imaginations and surmises with the wrong construyng of the Scriptures and authours to wreast them besides the truth of the matter and their meanyng This is agréed and by the Scriptures playnly taught that the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ was and is a perfect worke once consummate in perfection with out necessitie of reiteration as it was neuer taught to be reiterate but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it It is also in the Catholicke teachyng grounded vpon the Scripture agrèed that the same sacrifice ones consummate was ordeined by Christes institution in his most holy Supper to be in the Church often remembred and shewed forth in such sort of shewyng as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ vnder the formes of bread and wyne which body and bloud the faythfull Church of Christen people graunt and confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue bene betrayed and shed for the sinnes of the world and so in the same Supper represented and deliuered vnto them to eate and fèede of it accordyng to Christes commaundement as of a most precious and acceptable sacrifice acknowledgyng the same precious body and bloud to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world whereunto they onely resort and onely accompt that their very perfect oblation and sacrifice of Christen people through which all other sacrifices necessarie on our part be
his death indeed So in the Lords supper according to his commaundement we remember his death preaching and commending the same vntill his return agayne at the last day And although it be one Christ that died for vs and whose death we remember yet it is not one sacrifice that he made of himselfe vpon the crosse and that we make of him vpon the alter or table For his sacrifice was the redemption of the world ours is not so his was death ours is but a remēbraunce thereof Hys was the taking away the shines of the world ours is a praising and thanking for the same and therefore his was satisfactory ours is gratulatory It is but one christ that was offred thē that is offred now yet the offeringes be diuers his was the thing and ours is the figure His was the originall and ours is as it were a patterne Therefore concludeth Lombardus that Christ was otherwise offered then and otherwise now And seing then that the offeringes and sacrifices be diuers if the first was propitiatory and satisfactory ours cannot be so except we shall make many sacrifices propitiatory And then as S. Paule reasoneth either the first must be insufficient or the other in vayne And as Christ onely made thys propitiatory sacrifice so he made but one and but once For the making of any other or of the same agayne should haue beene as S. Paule reasoneth a reprouing of the first as vnperfect and insufficient And therefore at his last supper although Christ made vnto his father sacrifices of lauds and thankesgeuing as these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do declare yet he made there no sacrifice propitiatory for then either the sacrifice vpon the crosse had bene voyd or the sacrifice at the supper vnperfect and vnsufficient And although he had at his supper made sacrifices propitiatory yet the priests do not so who do not the same that Christ did at his supper For he ministred not the sacrament in remembrannce of his death which was not then brought to passe but he ordained it to be ministred of vs in remembraunce thereof And therfore our offering after Lombardus iudgement is but remembraunce of that true offering wherein Christ offered himselfe vpon the crosse And so did Christ institute it to be And Lombardus sayth not that Christ is dayly offered for proportion of our sinnes but because we dayly sinne wee dayly bee put in the remembraunce of Christes death which is the perfect proportion for sinne And the priest as Lombardus sayth maketh a memoriall of that oblation of Christ and as Hesechius sayth he doth in the name of the people so that the sacrifice is no more the priestes then the peoples For the priestes speak the wordes and the people should aunswere amen as Iustinus sayth The priest should declare the death and passion of Christ and all the people should looke vpon the crosse in the mount of Caluary see Christ there hanging and the bloud flowing out of his side into theyr wounds to heale all their sores and the priest and people altogether should laud and thanke instantly the Chyrurgion and Phiscycion of their soules And this is the priestes and peoples sacrifice not to be propitiators for sinne but as Emissene sayth to worship continually in mistery that was but once offered for the price of sinne and this shortly is the mind of Lombardus that the thing which is done at gods boord is a sacrifice so is that also which was made vpon the crosse but not after one manner of vnderstanding For this was the thing in deed and that is the anniuersary or commemoration of the thing And now haue I made it euident that Petrus Lombardus defaceth in no poynt my saying of the sacrifice but confirmeth fully my doctrine aswell of the sacrifice propitiatory made by Christ himselfe onely as of the sacrifice cōmemoratiue and gratulatory made by the preists and people So that in your issue taken vpon Lombard the verdit cannot but passe wyth me by the testimony of Lombard himselfe And yet I do not fully allow Lombardes iudgement in all matters who with Gratian his brother as it is sayd were ij chiefe champiōs of the Romish sea to spread abroad their errours and vsurped authority but I speake of Lombard onely to declare that yet in his tyme they had not cited so farre to make of theyr was a sacrifice propitiatory But in the end of this processe Lōbard speaketh with out the booke when he concludeth this matter thus that the virtue of this sacrament is the remission of veniall sin and perfection of vertue which if Lombard vnderstand of the sacrifice of Christ it is to little to make hys sacrifice the remission but of veniall sin And if he vnderstand it of the sacrifice of the priest it is to much to make the priests sacrifice either the perfection of vertue or the remission of veniall sinne which be the effects onely of the sacrifice of Christ. Now let vs consider the rest of your confutation Winchester The catholicke doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christes most precious body and bloud to be an iteration of the once perfited sacrifice on the crosse but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice and sheweth it also before the faythfull eyes and refresheth the effectuall memory of it so as in the dayly sacrifice without shedding of bloud we may sée with the eye of fayth the very body and bloud of Christ by Gods mighty power without diuision distinctly exhibits the same body and bloud that suffered and was shed for vs which is a timely memoriall to stir vp our fayth and to consider therin briefly the great charity of God towardes vs declared in Christ. The catholick doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to be in the same in essence that was offered on the crosse once assured therof by Christs wordes when he sayd This is my body that shal be betrayed for you The offering on the crosse was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin whereby to destroy the tyranny of sinne the effect whereof is geuen and dispensed in the sacrament of baptisme once likewise ministred and neuer to be iterate no more then Christ can be crucified agayne and yet by vertue of the same offering such as fall be releued in the sacrament of penaunce Caunterbury After you wilfull wrangling without any cause at the last of your own swing you come to the truth purely and sincerely professing and setting forth the same except in few wordes here and there cast in as it were cockle among cleane corne The offering on the crosse say you was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin the effect whereof is geuen and dispensed in the sacrament of baptisme once likewise ministred and neuer to be iterate but the catholick doctrine teacheth not that the dayly sacrifice is an
iteration of the once perfited sacrifice on the crosse but a representation thereof shewing it before the faith full eies and refreshing our memory therewith so that we may see with the eie of faith the very body and bloud of Christ by gods mighty power exhibite vnto vs the same body and bloud that suffered and was shed for vs This is a godly and catholicke doctrine but of the cokcle which you cast in by the way of distinction without diuision I cannot tell what you meane except you speak out your dreames more playnely And that it is the same body in substaunce that is dayly as it were offered by remembraunce which was once offered in the Crosse for sinne we learne not so playnly by these wordes This is my body Hoc est corpus meum as we do by these Hic Iesus assumptus est in coelum and Qui descendit ipse est qui ascendit suprae omnes coelos This Iesus was taken vp into heauen and he that descended was the same Iesus that ascended aboue all the heauens And where you say that by vertue of Christes sacrifice such as fal be releued in the Sacrament of penaunce the truth is that such as do fall be releued by Christ when so euer they returne to him vnfaynedly with hart and mynde And as for your wordes concernyng the Sacrament of penaunce may haue a Popishe vnderstandyng in it But at length you returne to your former errour and goe about to reuoke or at the least euill fauoredly to expounde that which you haue before well spoken Your wordes be these Winchester The dayly offeryng is propitiatory also but not in that degrée of propitiation As for redemption regeneration or remission of deadly sinne which was once purchased by force therof is in the Sacramentes ministred but for the increase of Gods fauour the mitigation of Gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities the subduyng of temptations and the perfection of vertue in vs. All good workes good thoughtes and good meditations may be called sacrifices and the same be called sacrifices propitiatorie also for so much as in their degrée God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christes death which is the reconciliation betwene God and maÌ„ ministred dispensed particularly as God hath appointed in such measure as he knoweth But S. Paule to the Hebrues exhortyng men to charitable déedes sayth with such sacrifices God is made fauorable or God is propitiate if we shall make new Englishe Whereupon it foloweth bycause the Priest in the dayly sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for she wyng forth and remembraunce of Christes death that act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must néedes be propitiatory and prouoke Gods fauour and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect with God to the members of Christes body particularly beyng the same done for the whole body in such wise as God knoweth the dispeÌ„sation to be méete conuenient accordyng to which measure God worketh most iustly and most mercyfully otherwise then man can by his iudgement discusse determine To call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstandyng that signifieth not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christes most precious body and bloud the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered beyng propitiatorie and satisfactorie for all the world or els the worde satisfactorie must haue a signification and meanyng as it hath sometyme that declareth the acceptation of the thyng done and not the propre contreuaile of the action after which sort man may satisfie God that is so mercyfull as he will take in good worth for Christes sake maÌ„s imperfect endeuour and so the dayly offering may be called a sacrifice satisfactory bicause God is pleased with it beyng a maner of worshyppyng of Christes passion accordyng to his institution But otherwise the dayly sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest called satisfactorie and it is a word in déede that soundeth not well so placed although it might be saued by a signification and therfore thinke that word rather to be well expounded then by captious vnderstandyng brought in slaunder when it is vsed and this speach to be frequented that the onely immolatâ—on of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God And I haue read the dayly sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a Sacrifice satisfactorie but this speach hath in déede bene vsed that the Priest should sing satisfactorie which they vnderstode in the satisfaction of the Priestes duety to attend he prayer the was required to make and for a distinction therof they had prayer sometyme required without speciall limitation and that was called to pray not satisfactorie Finally in man by any his action to presume to satisfie God by way of counteruaile is a very mad and furious blasphemy Caunterbury TO defend the Papisticall errour that the dayly offering of the Priest in the Masse is propitiatory you extend the word Propitiation other wise then the Apostles do speakyng of that matter I speake playnly accordyng to S. Paule and S. Iohn that onely Christ is the propitiation for our sinnes by his death You speake accordyng to the Papistes that the Priestes in their Masses make a sacrifice propitiatory I call a sacrifice propitiatory accordyng to the Scripture such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods indignation agaynst vs obteineth mercy and forgiuenes of all our sinnes and is our raunsome and redemption from euerlastyng damnation And on the other side I call a sacrifice gratificatory of the sacrifice of the Church such a sacrifice as doth not reconcile vs to God but is made of them that be reconciled to testifie their dueties and to shewe them selues thankefull vnto him And these sacrifices in Scripture be not called propitiatory but sacrifices of Iustice of laude prayse and thankes geuyng But you confounde the wordes and call one by an others name callyng that propitiatory whiche the Scripture calleth but of Iustice laude and thankyng And all is nothyng els but to defend your propitiatory sacrifice of the Priestes in their Masses whereby they may remit sinne and redeeme soules out of Purgatory And yet all your wyles and shiftes will not serue you for by extendyng the name of a propitiatory sacrifice vnto so large a signification as you do you make all maner of Sacrifices propitiatory leauyng no place for any other sacrifice For say you all good deedes and good thoughtes be Sacrifices propitiatorie and then be the good workes of the lay people Sacrifices propitiatorie as well as those of the Priest And to what purpose then made you in the begynnyng of this booke a distinction betwene sacrifices propitiatorie and other Thus for desire you haue to defend the Papisticall errours you haue not fallen
onely into imaginations contrary to the truth of Gods word but also contrary to your selfe But let passe away these Papisticall inuentions and let vs humbly professe ourselues with all our Sacrifices not worthy to approche vnto God nor to haue any accesse vnto him but by that onely propitiatorie sacrifice which Christ onely made vpon the Crosse. And yet let vs with all deuotion with whole hart and mynde and with all obedience to Gods will come vnto the heauenly Supper of Christ thankyng him onely for propitiation of our sinnes In which holy Communion the act of the Minister and other be all of one sort none propitiatorie but all of laudes and thankes geuyng And such sacrifices be pleasaunt and acceptable to God as S. Paule sayth done of them that be good but they winne not his fauour and put away his indignation from them that be euill For such reconciliation can no creature make but Christ alone And where you say that to call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactorie must haue an vnderstādyng that signifieth not the action of the priest here you may see what a businesse and hard worke it is to patch the Papistes ragges together and what absurdities you fall into thereby Euen now you sayd that the acte of the Priestes must needes bee a Sacrifice propitiatorie and now to haue an vnderstandyng for the same you bee driuen to so shamefull a shift that you say either cleane contrary that it is not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christ or els that the action of the Priest is none otherwise satisfactorie then all other Christen mens workes be For otherwise say you the dayly Sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest can not be called satisfactorie Wherefore at length knowledgyng your Popish doctrine to sound euill fauoredly you confesse agayne the true Catholicke teachyng that this speach is to be frequented and vsed that the onely immolation of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God And where you say that you haue not read the dayly sacrifice of Christs most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory if you haue not read of satisfactory Masses it appeareth that you haue read but very little of the Schoole Authours And yet not many yeares agoe you might haue heard them preached in euery pardon But because you haue not read therof read Doctour Smithes booke of the sacrifice of the Masse and both your eares and eyes shal be full of it Whose furious blasphemies you haue with one sentēce here most truely reiected wherfore yet remaineth in you some good sparkes of the spirit that you so much detest such abhominatiō And yet such blasphemies you go about to salue and playster as much as you may by subtle and crafty interpretations For by such exposition as you make of the satisfactory singyng of the Priest in doyng his duetie in that he was required to do by this exposition he singeth aswell satisfactory in saying of Mattens as in saying of Masse for in both he doth his duetie that he required vnto and so might it be defended that the Player vpon the Orgaines playeth satisfactory when he doth his duety in playing as he is required And all the singyng men in the Church that haue wages thereto sing satisfactory aswell as the Priestes when they sing accordyng to that they be hyered vnto And then as one singyng man or player on the Orgaines receauyng a stipende of many men to play or sing at a certaine tyme if he do his duety satisfieth them all at once so might a priest sing satisfactory for many persons at one tyme which the teachers of satisfactory Masses vtterly condemne But if you had read Duns you would haue written more Clerkely in these matters then you now do Now let vs heare what you say further Winchester Where the Authour cityng S. Paul Englisheth him thus that Christes Priesthode can not passe from him to an other These wordes thus framed be not the simple and sincere expression of the truth of the text Whiche sayth that Christ hath a perpetuall Priesthode and the Gréeke hath a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gréek Schooles expresse and expounde by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyng the Priesthode of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of Leui wher was amōg mortal men succession in the office of Priesthode but Christ liueth euer and therfore is a perpetuall euerlastyng Priest by whose authoritie Priesthode is now in this visible Church as S. Paule ordered to Timothe and Tite and other places also confirme which Priestes visible Ministers to our inuisible Priest offer the dayly Sacrifice in Christes Churche that is to say with the very presence by Gods omnipotencie wrought of the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ shewyng forth Christes death and celebratyng the memory of his Supper and death accordyng to Christes institution so with dayly oblation and sacrifice of the selfe same Sacrifice to kindle in vs a thankeful remēbraunce of all Christes benefites vnto vs. Caunterbury VVHere you find your selfe greued with my citing of S. Paul that Christes priesthood cannot passe from him to another which is not say you the truth of the text which meaneth that the Priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession your manner of speach herein is so darke that it geueth no light at all For it semeth to signify that Christes priesthood endeth but not to goe to other by succession but by some other meanes which thing if you meane then you make the endles priesthood of Christ to haue an end And if you mean it not but that Christs priesthood is endles and goeth to no other by succession nor other wise then I pray you what haue I offended in saying that Christs priesthood cannot passe from him to an other And as for the greeke wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any manner of succession whether it be by inheritance adoption election purchase or any other meanes And he that is instituted and inducted into a benefice after an other is called his successor And Erasmus calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod in alium transire non potest And so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify quod successione caret That is to say a thing that hath no succession nor passeth to none other And because Christ is a perpetuall and euerlasting priest that by one oblation made a full sacrifice of sinne for euer therfore his priesthood neither nedeth nor can passe to any other wherefore the ministers of Christes church be not now appoynted priests to make a new sacrifice for sinne as tho Christ had not done that at once sufficiently for euer but to preach abroad Christes sacrifice and to be ministers of his wordes
moreouer that Christ him selfe commeth downe vpon the child apparelleth him with his own selfe And as at the Lordes holy Table the Priest distributeth wine bread to feede the body so we must thinke that inwardly by fayth we see Christ feedyng both body and soule to eternall lyfe What comfort can be deuised any more in this world for a Christē man And on the other side what discomfort is in your papisticall doctrine what doubtes what perplexities what absurdities what iniquities what auayleth it vs that there is no bread nor wyne or that Christ is really vnder the formes and figures of bread and wyne and not in vs or if he be in vs yet he is but in the lippes or the stomacke and tarieth not with vs. Or what benefite is it to a wicked man to eate Christ and to receaue death by him that is lyfe From this your obscure perplex vncertaine vncomfortable deuilish and Papisticall doctrine Christ defend all his and graunt that we may come often and worthely to Christes holy Table to comfort our feeble and weake fayth by remembraunce of his death who onely is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sinnes and our meate drinke and foode of euerlastyng lyfe Amen Here endeth the Aunswere of the most Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury c. vnto the crafty and Sophisticall cauillation of Doct. Steuen Gardiner deuised by him to obscure the true sincere and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST THE Aunswere of Thomas Archebishop of Caunterbury c. agaynst the false calumniations of doctour Richard Smith who hath taken vpon him to confute the defence of the true catholik doctrine of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. I Haue now obtayned gentle reader that thing which I haue much desired which was that if all men would not imbrace the truth lately set forth by me concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ at the least some man would vouchsafe to take penne in hand and write against my booke bicause that therby the truth might both better be serched out and also more certaynly knowen to the world And herein I hartely thanke the late Bishop of Winchester and doctor Smith who partely haue satisfied my long desire sauing that I would haue wished aduersaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures more exercised in the olde auncient ecclesiasticall authors and hauing a more godly zeale to the triall out of the truth than are these two both being crafty sophisters the one by art and the other by nature both also being drowned in the dregges of papistry brought vp and confirmed in the same the one by Duns and Dorbell and such like Sophisters the other by the Popish Canon law wherof by his degree taken in the uniuersity he is a professor And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester I will declare his craftye Sophistications in myne aunswere vnto his booke But doctour Smith as it appeareth by the title of his preface hath craftely deuised an easy way to obtayne his purpose that the people being barred from the serching of the truth might be stil kept in blindnes and errour as wel in this as in al other matters wherin they haue bene in times past deceaued He seeth full well that the more diligently matters be serched out and discussed the more clearly the craft and falsehode of the subtill Papistes will appeare And therfore in the preface to the reader he exhorteth all men to leaue disputing and resoning of the fame by learning and to giue firme credite vnto the church as the title of the sayd preface declareth manifestly As who should say the truth of any matter that is in question might be tryed out without debating and reasoning by the word of God wherby as by the true touchstone all mens doctrines are to be tryed and examined But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light and to be tryed to the vttermost For as pure golde the more it is tryed the more pure it apeareth so is all manner of truth Where as on the other side all maskers counterfayters and false deceiuors abhorre the light and refuse the triall If all men without right or reason would geue credite vnto this Papist and his Romish church agaynst the most certayne word of God and the olde holye and Catholicke Churche of Christ the matter should be soone at an end and out of all controuersie But for as muche as the pure word of God and the first church of Christ from the beginning taught the true catholike fayth and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the cleane contrary the chaffe can not be tryed out from the pure corne that is to say the vntruth discerned from the very truth without threshing windowing and fanning serching debating and reasoning As for me I ground my beleefe vpon gods word wherin can be no errour hauing also the consent of the primatiue church requiring no man to beleue me further then I hane gods word for me But these Papistes speake at their pleasure what they lift and would be beleeued without godes word bicause they beare men in hand that they be the church The church of Christ is not founded vpon it selfe but vppon Christ and his word but the Papistes build their church vpon them selues deuising new articles of the fayth from tyme to tyme without any scripture and founding the same vpon the Pope and his cleargy monkes and fryers and by that meanes they be both the makers and Iudges of their fayth themselues Wherfore this Papist like a politike man doth right wisely prouide for himselfe and his church in the first entry of his booke that all men should leaue searching for the truth and sticke hard and fast to the church meaning himselfe and the church of Rome For from the true catholike church the Romish church which he accomteth catholike hath varied and dissented many yeares passed as the blindest that this day do liue may well see and perceaue if they will not purposely winke and shut vp their eyes This I haue written to answere the title of his preface NOw in the beginning of the very preface it selfe when this great doctor should recite the wordes of Ephesine counsell he translateth them so vnlearnedly that if a young boy that had gone to the grammer schole but thre yeres had done no better he should scant haue escaped some scholemasters handes with sixierkes And beside that he doth it so craftily to serue his purpose that he cannot be excused of wilfull deprauation of the wordes calling celebration an offering and referring the participle made to Christ which should be referred to the word partakers and leauing out those wordes that should declare that the sayd counsell spake of no propiciatory sacrifice in the Masse but of a sacrifice of laud and thankes which christen people geue vnto God
viii chap. prouing by authority of the oldest authors in Christs church that he called bread his body and wine his bloud And agayne in the ix x. xi and xii chapters I haue so fully intreated of such figuratiue speaches that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speake of any more but I referre the reader to those places And if M. doctor require a further answere herein let him looke vpon the late bishop of Winchesters booke called the detection of the diuels sophistry where he writeth plainly that when Christ spake these wordes This is my body he made demonstration of the bread THan further in this prologue this Papist is not ashamed to say that I set the cart before the horses putting reason first and fayth after which lye is so manifest that it needeth no further proofe but onely to looke vpon my booke wherein it shall euidently appeare that in all my fiue bookes I ground my foūdation vpon gods word And least the Papistes should say that I make the expositions of the scripture my selfe as they commonly vse to do I haue fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs that were in the beginning of the church and many yeares after vntill the Antichrist of Rome rose vp and corrupted altogither And as for naturall reason I make no mention therof in all my v. bookes but in one place onely which is in my second booke speaking of Transubstantiation And in that place I set not reason before fayth but as an handmayden haue appoynted her to do seruice vnto fayth and to wayte vpon her And in that place she hath done such seruice that D. Smith durst not once looke her in the face nor find any fault with her seruice but hath flylye and craftely stolen away by her as though he saw her not But in his owne booke he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christes owne wordes putting the wordes behind that goe before the wordes before that goe behind that except a shameles Papist no man durst be so bolde to attempt any such thing of his owne head For where the Euangelist and S. Paule rehearse Christes wordes thus Take eate this is my body he in the confutation of my second booke turneth the order vpside downe and sayth This is my body take eate After this in his Preface hee rehearseth a great number of the wonderfull workes of God as that God made all the world of nought that he made Adam of the earth and Eue of his side the bush to flame with fire and burne not and many other like which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture And vpon these he concludeth most vainly and vntruly that thing which in the scripture is neyther expressed nor vnderstanded that Christ is corporally in heauen and in earth and in euery place where the sacrament is And yet D. Smith sayth that Gods word doth teach this as playnly as the other vsing herein such a kind of sophisticall argumēt as all Logitiās do reprehend which is called petitio principij whē a mā taketh that thing for a supposition and an approued truth which is in controuersy And so doth he in this place when he sayth Doth not Gods word teach it thee as playnly as the other Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be graunted him as a truth which he ought to proue and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in questiō that is to say whether it be as playnly set out in the scripture that Christes body is corporally in euery place where the sacrament is as that God created all thinges of nothing Adam of the earth and Eue of Adams side c. This is it that I deny and that he should proue But he taketh it for a supposition saying by interrogation doth not the word of God teach this as playnly as the other Which I affirme to be vtterly false as I haue shewed in my third boobe the xi and twelfe chap. where I haue most manifestly proued as well by Gods word as by aūcient authors that these wordes of Christ This is my body and This is my bloud be no playne speaches but figuratiue THen forth goeth this papist vnto the vi chap. of S. Thou saying Christ promised his disciples to geue them such bread as should be his owne very naturall flesh which he would geue to death for the life of the world Can this his promise sayth M. Smith be verified of common bread Was that giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world Wherto I answer by his owne reason Can this his promise be verified of sacramentall bread was that geuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world I meruayle here not a little of M. Smithes eyther dulnes or maliciousnes that cannot or will not see that Christ in this chap. of S. Ihon spake not of Sacramentall bread but of heauenly bread nor of his flesh onely but also of his bloud and of his godhead calling them heauenly bread that giueth euerlasting life So that he spake of him selfe wholy saying I am the bread of life He that cōmeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleueth in me shall not thirst for euer And neyther spake he of common bread nor yet of sacramentall bread For neyther of them was giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world And there can be nothing more manifest then that in this vi chap. of Ihon Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh but of his very flesh And that aswell for that the sacrament was not then instituted as also that Christ sayd not in the future tense the bread which I will giue shal be my flesh but in the present tense the bread which I will geue is my flesh which sacramentall bread was neyther then his flesh nor was then instituted for a Sacrament nor was after giuen to death for the life of the world But as Christ when he sayd vnto the woman of Samaria The water which I will geue shall spring into euerlasting life he ment neyther of materiall water nor of the accidents of water but of the holy ghost which is the heauenly fountayne that springeth vnto eternall life so likewise when he sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world he ment neyther of the materiall bread neither of the accidents of bread but of his owne flesh Which although of it selfe it auayleth nothing yet being in vnity of persō ioyned vnto his diuinity it is the same heauenly bread that he gaue to death vpon the crosse for the life of the world But here M. Smith asketh a question of the tyme saying thus When gaue Christ that bread which was his very flesh that he gaue for vs to death if he did it not at his last supper when he sayd This is my
is it to offer Christes body and bloud at Masse to purchase thereby euerlastyng lyfe if it be not the Masse to be a Sacrifice to pacifie Gods wrath for sinne and to obtaine his mercy Smith fol. 24. 148. and .164 Priestes doe offer for our saluation to get Heauen to auoyde Hell fol. eodem ¶ Matters wherein the Byshop varied from him selfe THe body of Christ in the Sacramēt is not made of bread but is made present of bread pag. 79. lin 6. c. and pag. 202. lin 40. c. Of bread is made the body of Christ pag. 344. lin 8. The Catholicke fayth hath frō the beginnyng confessed truely Christes intent to make bread his body pag. 26. lin 40. Christ gaue that he made of bread pag. 257. lin 50. And of many breads is made one body of Christ pag. 144. lin 23. And fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ that is to say made the body of Christ pag. 295. lin 30. Christ spake playnly This is my body makyng demonstration of the bread when he sayd This is my body in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. I will passe ouer the phantasies of them who wrote the principall chief text This is my body from consecration of the Sacrament to the demonstration of Christes body c in the deuilish deuils Sophistry fol. 70. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 42. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine pag. 251. lin 8. Illis verbis hoc est Corpus meum substantia corporis significatur nec de pane quic quam intelligitur quum corpus de substantia sua nō aliena predicetur fol. 24. fa. 2. Mar Ant. Constant. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the litterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. What can be more euidently spoken of the presence of Christes naturall body and bloud in the most blessed Sacrament of the aultar than is in these wordes This is my body in the deuils Sophistry fol. 5. Where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quātitie pag. 71. lin 47. And he is present in the Sacrament as he is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. c. We beleue simply the substaunce of Christes body to be in the Sacrament without drawyng away of accidentes or adding pag. 353. lin 1. Christ is not present in the Sacrament after the maner of quantitie but vnder the forme and quantitie of bread and wine pag. 71. lin 50. pag. 90. lin 43. In such as receiue the Sacrament worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally and naturally and carnally pag. 166. lin 19. and pag. 173. lin 54. and pag. 191. lin 47. The maner of Christes beyng in the Sacrament is not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall pag. 159. lin 17. and pag. 197. lin 32. We receiue Christ in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receiue him worthely pag. 167. lin 9. and pag. 174. lin 1. When an vnrepentaunt sinner receiueth the Sacrament hee hath not Christes body within him pag. 225. lin 43. He that eateth verely the flesh of Christ is by nature in Christ Christ is naturally in him pag. 17. lin 38. c. An euill man in the Sacrament receiueth indeede Christes very body pag. eadem lin 7. Euill men eate verely the flesh of Christ pag. 225. lin 47. Christ geueth vs to be eaten the same flesh that hee tooke of the virgin pag. 241. lin 27. We receiue not in the Sacrament Christes body that was Crucified pag. 243. lin 16. Saint Augustines rule De doctrina Christiana pertaineth not to Christes Supper pag. 117. lin 21. The sixt of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made to the eatyng of a token of Christes flesh pag. 4. lin 40. S. Augustin meaneth of the sacrament pag. 119. lin 24. The sixt of Iohn must needes be vnderstand of corporall and sacramētall eatyng pag. 17. lin 48. Reason in place of seruice as beyng inferiour to fayth will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough pag. 265. lin 1. And as reason receiued into faithes seruice doth not striue with Transubstantiation but agreeth well with it so mans sences be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation as a matter whereof they can no skill for the sences can no skill of substaunces pag. 271. lin 24. c. Thine eyes say there is but bread and wyne Thy tast sayth the same Thy feelyng and smellyng agree fully with them Hereunto is added the carnall mans vnderstandyng which bycause it taketh the begynning of the senses proceedeth in reasonyng sensually in the deuils sophistry fol. 6. The Church hath not forborne to preache the truth to the confusion of mans senses and vnderstandyng fol. 15. It is called bread bycause of the outward visible matter pag. When it is called bread it is meant Christ the spirituall bread pag. 284. lin 25. The fraction is in the outward signe not in the body of Christ pag. 144. lin 39. and pag. 348. lin 21. And in the deuils sophistry fol. 17. That which is broken is the body of Christ pag. 348. lin 18. The inward nature of the bread is the substaunce pag. 286. lin 23. Substaunce signifieth the outward nature pag. 359. lin 22. The substaunces of bread and wine be visible creatures pag. 285. lin 48. and pag. 286. lin 44. Accidents be the visible natures and visible elementes pag. 363. lin 39. Christ is our satisfaction holy and fully and hath payde our whole debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his wrath agaynst vs pag. 81. lin 39. The act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must needes be propitiatory and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect pag. 437. lin 13. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wyne pag. 251. lin 8. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the literal sense hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. And it is a singular miracle of Christ vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their propre sense ibidem lin 21. The sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was neuer reiterate pag. 368. lin 46. Priestes do sacrifice Christ pag. 381. lin 42. c. And the Catholicke doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to bee the same in essence that was offered on the Crosse pag. 436. lin 11. The Nestorians graunted both the Godhead manhode alwayes to be in Christ continually pag. 309. lin 18. The Nestorians denyed Christ conceyued God or borne God but that he was afterward God as a mā that is not borne a Byshop is after made a Byshop So the Nestorians sayd that the Godhead was
not of his fleshe as it is vnited vnto his diuinitie pag. 27. lin 53. and. pag. 329. lin 24. God in Baptisme giueth onely the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the aultar the very body and bloud of Christ. pag. 34. lin 44. Unworthy receiuers of the sacrament receiue Christes body with mouth onely the worthy receiuers both with mouth and hart pag. 54. lin 47. c. We must beleue Christes workes to be most perfectly true accordyng to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in Scripture driueth vs from it how soeuer it seeme repugnaunt to reason pag. 62. lin 20. The Fathers did eate Christes body and drinke his bloud in truth of promise not in truth of presence pag. 74. lin 23. c. The Fathers did eate Christ spiritually but they did not eate his body present spiritually and sacramentally pag. eadem lin 26. Their Sacramentes were figures of the thynges but ours contayne the very thynges ibid. lin 27. Albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verified that the Fathers did eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud yet there is no such forme of wordes in scripture And it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the Fathers before Christes Natiuitie did not eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ. pag. 78. lin 28. And although S. Paule in the truth to the Corinthes be so vnderstanded of some that the Fathers should eate and drinke the spirituall meate and drinke that we doe yet to that vnderstandyng all doe not agree Ibidem lin 34. c. Their Sacramentes contayned the promise of that which in our sacramentes is geuen Ibidem lin 36. And although that willyng obedience was ended and perfected vpon the Crosse to the whiche it continued from the begynnyng yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham the earnest will and offeryng was accoumpted for the offeryng in deede so the declaration of Christes will in his last supper was an offeryng of him selfe to God the Father pag. 82. lin 2. c. In that mystery he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the world by the same will that he sayd his body should bee betrayed for vs. Ibidem lin 12. As Christ offered him selfe vpon the Crosse in the execution of his will so hee offered him selfe in his Supper in declaration of his will pag. 82. lin 13. c. Christes body in the supper or communion is represented vnto vs as a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world and it is the onely sacrifice of the Churche and the pure and cleane sacrifice wherof Malachie spake pag. 84. lin 4. pag. 88. lin vltima c. As Christ declareth in the supper him selfe an offeryng and sacrifice for our sinne offeryng him selfe to his Father as our Mediatour so the Church at the same supper in their offeryng of laudes and thankes ioyne them selues with their head Christ representyng and offeryng him pag. 89. lin 10. The sunne beames bee of the same substaunce with the sunne pag. 92. lin 5. We haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sunne Ibidem lin 7. When Christ sayd This is my body this word This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. To eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud is of it selfe a propre speach pag. 112. lin 35. Carnally Ibidem lin 50. with teeth and mouth pag. 112. lin 8. and pag. 34. lin 38. To eate Christes body carnally may haue a good signification pag. 113. lin 4. Origene doth not meane to destroy the truth of the letter in these words of Christ. Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. pag. 114. lin 40. S. Augustin taketh the same for a figuratiue speache bycause it seemeth to commaunde in the letter carnally vnderstanded an haynous and wicked thyng to eate the flesh of a man pag. 116. lin 40. The sayd woordes of Christ. Except you eate c. is to the vnfaythfull a figure but to the faythfull they be no figure but spirite and life Ibidem lin 48. The Fathers called it a figure by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecie apt onely to bee vnderstand of men beleuyng pag. 117. lin 3. That is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded Ibid. lin 13. This word Represent in S. Hierome and Tertullian signifieth a true reall exhibition pag. 120. lin 27. and pag. 128. lin 11. The word Eucharistia can not be well Englished pag. 161. In Gods word and in Baptisme we be made participant of Christes Passion by his spirite but in the Lordes Supper we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanitie exhibite to vs for foode So as in this mystery we receiue him as man and God and in the other by meane of his Godhead we be participant of the effect of his Passion suffered in his manhode In this Sacrament we receiue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the generall resurrection spirituall with our soule In Baptisme we haue bene made spirituall by regeneration of the soule pag. 158. lin 45. c. In Baptisme Christes humanitie is not really present though the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there pag. 159. lin 4. The maner of Christes beyng in the sacrament is onely spirituall Ibidem lin 16. To vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the Church Ibidem lin 34. Our perfect vnitie with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christ bodily naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode pag. 166. lin 32. By Christes flesh in the sacrament we be naturally in him and he is naturally in vs. Ibidem lin 45. c. Christ dwelleth naturally in vs and we bee corporally in him Ibidem lin 35. Christes flesh is very spirituall and in a spirituall maner deliuered vnto vs. pag. 167. lin 12. and pag. 243. lin 11. and pag. 243. lin 28. and pag. 295. lin 33. Christ dwelleth in vs naturally for the naturall communication of our body and his pag. 167. lin 19. When Christ vnited him selfe vnto vs as man which he doth geuyng his body in the sacrament to such as worthely receiue it then he dwelleth in them corporally pag. 172. lin 27. In Baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes Passion and bloud Christes Godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie pag. 181. lin 16. c. In Baptisme our vnitie with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue effect of Christes bloud pag. 181. lin 2. and. 16. In Baptisme our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body in deede but in hope onely pag. 181. lin 6. In Baptisme we be vnited to Christes manhode by his diuinitie but in the Lordes Supper
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the
Pope I thinke it was accordyng to the other othes which he vseth to minister to Princes which is to be obedient to him to defend his person to maintaine his authoritie honour lawes landes and priuileges And if it be so then I beseech your Maiestie to looke vpon your othe made to the crowne and the Realme and to expēd and way the two othes together to see how they agree and then to do as your graces cōscience shall geue you for I am surely perswaded that willyngly your Maiestie will not offend nor do agaynst your conscience for nothyng But I feare me there be contradiction in your othes and that those which should haue enformed your grace throughly did not their dueties therein And if your Maiestie ponder the two othes diligently I thinke you shall perceaue that you were deceaued and then your highnes may vse the matter as God shall put in your hart Furthermore I am kept here from company of learned men from bookes from counsell from penne and incke sauyng at this tyme to write to your Maiestie which all were necessary for a man in my case Wherfore I beseech your Maiestie that I may haue such of these as may stand with your Maiesties pleasure And as for myne appearaunce at Rome if your Maiestie will geue me leaue I will appeare there and I trust that God shall put in my mouth to defend his truth there aswell as here but I referre it wholly to your Maiesties pleasure Your poore Oratour T. C. ¶ To the Lordes of the Counsell IN most humble wise sueth vnto your right honourable Lordshyps Thomas Cranmer late Archb. of Cant. beseechyng the same to be a meanes for me vnto the Queenes highnesse for her mercy pardō Some of you know by what meanes I was brought and trayned vnto the will of our late soueraigne Lord kyng Edward the vi what I spake agaynst the same wherein I referre me to the reportes of your honours Furthermore this is to signifie vnto your Lordshyps that vpon Monday Tuesday and Wednisday last past were open disputations here in Oxford agaynst me M. Ridley and M. Latymer in three matters concernyng the Sacrament First of the reall presence secondly of Trāsubstantiation and thyrdly concernyng the Sacrifice of the Masse How the other two were vsed I can not tel for we were separated so that none of vs knew what the other said nor how they were ordered But as concernyng my selfe I can report that I neuer knew nor heard of a more confused disputation in all my lyfe For albeit there was one appointed to dispute agaynst me yet euery man spake his mynde and brought forth what him lyked without order and such hast was made that no aunswere could be suffered to be geuen fully to any argumēt in such weighty large matters there was no remedy but the disputations must needes be ended in one day whiche can scantly well be ended in three monethes And when we had aunswered them then they would not appoint vs one day to bring forth our proofes that they might aunswere vs agayne beyng required of me thereunto whereas I my selfe haue more to say then can be well discussed in .xx dayes The meanes to resolue the truth had bene to haue suffered vs to aunswere fully to all that they could say and then they agayne to aunswere to all that we could say But why they would not aunswere vs what other cause can there be but that either they feared the matter that they were not able to aunswere vs or els as by their hast might well appeare they came not to speake the truth but to condemne vs in post hast before the truth might be throughly tryed and heard for in all hast we were all three condemned of heresie vpon Friday This much I thought good to signifie vnto your Lordshyppes that you may knowe the indifferent handlyng of matters leauyng the iudgement thereof vnto your wisedomes and I beseech your Lordshyppes to remember me a poore prisoner vnto the Queenes Maiestie and I shall pray as I doe dayly to God for the long preseruation of your good Lordshyppes in all godlynesse and felicitie ¶ A Letter wherein hee reproueth and condemneth the false and sclaunderous reportes of the Papistes which sayd that he had set vp Masse agayne at Canterbury AS the deuill Christes auncient aduersary is a lyer the father of lying Euē so hath he sturred vp his seruaunts and members to persecute Christ his true word and Religion with lying whiche he ceasseth not to do most earnestly at this present For whereas the Prince of famous memory kyng Henry the eight seyng the great abuses of the Latin Masse reformed some thyng therein in his tyme and also our late soueraigne Lord kyng Edward the vj. tooke the same whole away for the manifold errours and abuses therof and restored in the place therof Christes holy Supper accordyng to Christes owne institution and as the Apostles in the primatiue Church vsed the same the deuil goeth about by lying to ouerthrow the Lordes holy Supper and to restore his Latin satisfactory Masse a thyng of his owne inuention and deuise and to bryng the same more easely to passe some haue abused the name of me Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury brutyng abroad that I haue set vp the Masse at Canterbury and that I offred to say Masse at the buriall of our late soueraigne Prince kyng Edward the vj. and also that I offred to say Masse before the Queenes highnes and at Paules Church and I wot not where And although I haue bene wel exercised these xx yeares to suffer and beare euill reportes and lyes and haue bene much greued thereat but haue borne all thynges quietly yet when vntrue reportes and lyes turne to the hinderaunce of Gods truth they be in no wise to be suffred Wherfore these be to signifie vnto the world that it was a false flatteryng lying dissemblyng Monke which caused Masse to be set vp there without myne aduise or counsell Reddat illi Dominus in die illo And as for offering my selfe to say Masse before the Queenes highnes or in any other place I neuer did it as her grace well knoweth But if her grace giue me leaue I shal be ready to proue agaynst all that will say the contrary that all that is sayd in the holy Communion set out by the most innocent and godly Prince kyng Edward the vj. in his high Court of Parliament is conformable to the order which our soueraigne Christ did both obserue and commaunded to be obserued and which his Apostles and primatiue Church vsed many yeares whereas the Masse in many thyngs not onely hath no foundation of Christ his Apostles nor the primatiue Church but is manifestly contrary to the same and containeth many horrible abuses in it And although many vnlearned and malitious do report that M. Peter Martyr is vnlearned yet if the Queenes highnesse will graunt thereunto I with
catholica firmiter paragrapho vna The second is of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament De coÌ„secra dist 1. Ego Beâ—eng Lege Roffen contra Oerol in proaemio lib. 3. corroborat 5. Christ is not corporally in earth Iohn 6. Math. 26. Mark 24. Actes 3. Coloss. 3. 1. Cor. 11. The third is that euill men eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. The fourth is of the dayly sacrifice of Christ. Ibacuk 2. D. Smith Some say that Christ in naturally in the sament A manifest falshoode in the printing of the Byshoppes booke Some say that Christ is rent and torne with teeth in the sacrament Why the order of my booke was changed by the Bishop Untrue report The teaching hetherto euen at this day of the church of England agreeth with that this author calleth papistes Crafty conueiance of spech by this Author Worthy receauing of Christs precious body bloud 1. Cor. 6. A difference should be of contraries Chap. 1. The presence of Christ in the sacrament Christ corporally is ascended into heauen Act. 3. Cap. 2. The difference betwene the true and papisticall doctrine concerning the preseÌ„ce of Christes body The first coÌ„parison Misreport of bread and wine for the formes figures of them Smyth Tee booke of common prayer The secoÌ„d part The difference Repugnaunce The 1. comparison I sect reproued that were called Stercoranists The booke of common prayer That the Papiste say that Christ goâ— in no â—â—rther theÌ„ the mouth or stomacke Thomas Bonauentura Read Smith Fol. 64 Hugo Innocentius 3 li. ca. 25. The secoÌ„d part Innocent 3. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. whether Christ be receaued in the mouth The difference August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. Iohn 13. 1. Cor. 10. The fourth comparyson Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Christ is the body of all the figures Really that is in deede Cyrillus ad Calosyrium episcopum Hesychius in Leuit. li 3. ca. 3. Christ beyng present in the sacrament is at the same tyme present in heauen Truely Really Substantially Augustin Psal. 33. What is found in a blind glose may not be takeÌ„ for the teaching of the church yet I neuer red of flyng It is in man daÌ„gerous to affirme or deny extreamyties although they be be true for it maketh him suspect of presumtion How long christ taryeth with the receyuour of the sacrament Metonymia The Fathers in the old law receiued the same things in their sacrameÌ„ts that we do in ours Reseruation Cyrill Hesichius De consecrat d. 2. Tribus gradibus The benefite comfort in this sacrament Iohn 5. The maner of presence Math. 18. Math. 6. The comparisoÌ„ The 5. comparison Pugnat cum alijs Papistis What is receued of all christen meÌ„ hath therein a manifest token in truth It is a folly to answere a corious demaunder Quintus Curtius maketh mention of this faith of Alexander Fath of God his work can not by mans deuise haue any qualification Sabellians Arrians Bernard super Cant. ser. 31. It is good at al times to coÌ„uert from error to truth 1. Tim. 1. The booke of common praier The Papists say that whole Christ is in euery part of the coÌ„secrated bread Thomas 3. part sum q. 76. art 3. Innocentius 3. lib. 4. cap. 8. A subtil sleight Wanton reason True christian men A Dialog What is to be wondered at in the SacrameÌ„t Sabellius Arrius The contrary hereof is noted for a doctrine Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Whether a bird or â—east eat the body of Christ. Lib. 4. distinct 13. In erroribus fol 134. b. Vide Marcum Constantium fol. 72. obiect 94. Thomas 3. part sum q. 80. art 3. Peryn A demurre vpoÌ„ this Issue August contra litteras Pe til lib. 20. Marcus constaÌ„tius dicit quod Ethnici ideÌ„ fortasse sumunt quod bruti i. sacrameÌ„tumtantuÌ„ The word very may make wrangling A demurre whether euill men eat the body of Christ. Iohn 6. 1. Cor. 11. August contra lit Petil. li. 2. cap 37. Truthes fained frends Very August in Ioh. tra 59. Smyth The 8. comparison 3. Manner of eatinges Cause of error Gods promises annexed to his Sacraments We must in teaching exalt the Sacraments after their dignity 3. Manner of eatinges True sacrameÌ„tall eating 1. Cor. 11. Whether Christ be really eaten without the sacrament The comparisoÌ„ Really Smyth Christes body is vnderstanded of his humanity I meruailous saying of this â—â— ther without Scripture Christ in thinstitution of the Sacrament spake of his humanity saying This is my body Phil. 4. There Note this contrariety in the Author The coÌ„parison Theodoret. dialog 1. D. Smith Whether in the Sacrament Christes body hath his proper forme and quantity D. Smith Iohn 16. Mark 16 Luke 24. â—Act 1. All. There A riddle may coÌ„taine truth of nay and pea being in appearaÌ„ce two contraries Augustinus I speciall difference in S. Augustine â—â—ne of Kentes 〈◊〉 Nouelty of speech The fathers did eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud The diuersitie of the sacrameÌ„ts of the new and olde testament August in Ioan. Tract 26. The Fathers did eate Christs body and drinke his bloud before he was borne 1. Cor. 10. August de vtil paeniten August in psal 77. August in IoaÌ„ Tract 26. August contra Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. 20. cap 21. August in psal 73. Iohn 1. August de fide ad Pet. cap. 19. Bertram Smyth Ione of Kent The 11. comparison The booke of common prayer in this Realme Christes body in the sacrament is not made of the matter of bread The booke of common prayer Prouerb 23. Rom. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Cor. 2. Iac. 8. Esay 1. Math. 22. 1. Pet. 2. Iohn 11. Domin 3. post Trin. Secret Muneram libidinem quibus oblata sanctifica vt tui nobis vnigeniti corpus saÌ„guis fiant ad medelaÌ„ Whether the body of Christ be made of bread Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Making by conuersion Gen. 2. Iohn 2. D. Smith Christ is our satisfaction How Christ satisfied Christes wiâ—â— Christes once offering Phil. 1. Rom. 12. Truthes linked together Emissenus Christ is the inuisible priest 1. Cor. 4. Errors One offering of Christ not many 1. Iohn 2. Mala. 1. Errors The whole church by the minister the priest offereth Christ present as a sacrifice propitiatory wherin is shewed our Lords death Iacob 5. Whether the Masse be satisfactory by the deuotioÌ„ of the priest Thom. part 3. qâ— 79. art 5. Ioh. 11. The declaration of Christes will to die was not a sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Heb. 11. * Math. 5. Gen. 22. 2. Reg. 12. Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iohn 2. Iohn 6. Iohn 10. Heb. 2. Rom. 6. Heb. 7. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 3. Heb. 9. Ibidem Phil. 2. Cyprianus lib. 2. epi. 3. August ad Bonifacium epist. 23. Heb. 10. 1. Cor. 11. A chaine of errours Malac. 14. Esay 53. Heb.