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
deceaued by him I will write here the very wordes of Cirill in Greeke as they be of Decolampadius brought forth and published in his name wherby the reader that vnderstandeth the Greeke as many do at this tyme may iudge of DecolaÌ„padius conscieÌ„ce in handling this matter The wordes of Ciril be alleaged of DecoclaÌ„padius to be these in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These wordes be by Decolampadius translated in this wise Nonne igitur â—um qui videtur filium Christum alium a deo verbo qui ex deo esse affirmant cui apostolatus functio tributa sit Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit mentes credentium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiose introtrudens humanis cogitationibus subijcere enitens ea qua sola pura inexquisita fide capiuntur This is Decolampadius translation of the Greeke as the same is by Decolampadius alleadged Which compared with the Greeke and the congruite and phrase of the Greeke tongue considered doth playnly open a corruption in the Greeke text First in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be a participle in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which participles depend of the third person reproued of Cirill and nominatiue case to the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath the nown 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his accusatiue case for congruity will not suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the nominatiue case as Decolampadius maketh it bicause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should then depend on it which be the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the neuter and besides that the sence hath so no good reason to attribute assertion to the mistery by the way of declaration the mistery of nature secret hath neede of declaration and maketh none but hideth rather and the mistery cannot declare properly that should lead or subdue men to vayne imagination But Cirill intending to reproue the conclution of him that attributeth to that is seene in Christ the nature meaning the person of his humanity the office of the apostle and so therby semeth to make in Christ two seuerall persons esteming that is seene an other sonne from the second person sheweth how that man so concluding doth affirme an absurdity That is to say declareth that mistery of our humanam commixtionem for so hath the publique translation and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should signifie eating of a man as Decolampadius would haue it and cannot with this construction to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accusatiue case haue any sence and then that man so concluding may be sayd therwith leaâ—ing the mynd of them that beleeue into slender and darke imaginations or thoughtes and so going about to bring vnder mans reasonings such things as be taken or vnderstanded by an onely simple bare and no curious faâ—th And this is vttered by Cirill by interogation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which continueth vnto the last word of all that is here written in Greeke ending in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Decolampadius to frame these wordes to his purpose corrupteth the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maketh it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby he might cut of the interrogatiue and then is he yet fayne to ad euidently that is not in the Greeke a copulatiue causal enim and then when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by the cutting of the interrogation and the addition of enim made the nominatiue case then can not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 depend of it bicause of the gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bicause of the article determineth the principall mistery in Christes person and after publique translation it should seeme the Greeke word was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the publique translatioÌ„ is expressed with these two wordes humanam commâ—xtionem This one place and there were no moâ— like may shew with what conscience Decolampadius handeled the matter of the sacrament who was learned in the Greeke tongue much exercised in translations and had once written a grammer of the Greeke and yet in this place abuseth himselfe and the reader in peruerting Cirill agaynst all congruites of the speach agaynst the proper significations of the wordes agaynst the conuenient connection of the matter with deprauation of the phrase and corruption of certayne wordes all agaynst the common and publique translation and when he hath done all this concludeth in the end that he hath translated the greeke faythfully when there is by him vsed no good fayth at all but credite and estimation of learning by him abused to deceaue well meaning simplicity and serueth for some defence to such as be bold to vse and follow his authority in this matter As the author of the booke semeth to haue followed him herin for els the publique autentique translations which be abroad as I sayd of the printes of Basill and Colon haue no such matter and therfore the fault of the author is to leaue publique truth and search matter whispered in corners But thus much must be graunted though in the principall matter that in the mistery of the sacrament we must exclude all grosenâ—s and yet for the truth of Gods secret worke in the sacrament graunt also that in such as receaue the Sacrament worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally as Cirill sayth and naturally and carnally as Hilary sayth And with this true vnderstanding after the simplicity of a Christian fayth which was in these fathers Hilary and Cirill the contention of these three enuious wordes in grose capacities grossely taken naturall carnall and corporall which carnality hath engendred might soone be much asswaged and this author also considering with him selfe how much he hath bene ouerseen in the vnderstanding of them and the speciality in this place of him selfe and Decolampadius might take occasion to repent and call home himselfe who wonderfully wandreth in this matter of the sacrament and hauing lost his right way breaketh vp hedges and leapeth ouer diches with a wonderous trauayle to goe whether he would not being not yet as appeareth determined where he would rest by the variety of his owne doctrine as may appeare in sundry places if they be compared togither Caunterbury I Sayd very truely when I sayd that such answere as I made to Hilary will serue for Cirill for so will it do indeede although you wrangle and striue therin neuer so much For Cirill and Hilary entreate both of one matter that we be vnited togither and with Christ not onely in will but also in nature and be made one not onely in consent of godly religion but also that Christ taking our corporall nature vpon him hath made vs partakers of his godly nature knitting vs togither with him vnto his father and to his holy spirit Now let the
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
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
corporis Christi est Is not the bread which we breake the communion of Christes body And that euill men do not eate Christe his fleshe nor drinke his bloud for the scripture saith expressely He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him which is not true of ill men And for the corporall absence of Christ what can be more plainly said in the letter then he sayd of himself that he forsoke the world besides other scriptures which I haue alleaged in my 3. booke the 4. chapter And the scripture speaketh plainly in the Epistle to the Hebrues that Christ was neuer more offred then once But here you take such a large scope that you flee from the foure proper matters that be in controuersie vnto a new scope deuised by you that I should absolutely deny the presence of Christ and say That the bread doth only signifie Christes body absent which thing I neuer said nor thought And as Christ sayth not so nor Paule sayth not so euen so like wise I say not so and my booke in diuers places saith cleane contrary that Christ is with vs spiritually present is eaten dronken of vs and dwelleth within vs although corporally he be departed out of this world and is ascended vp into heauen Winchester And to the entent euery notable disagréement from the truth may the more euidently appeare I will here in this place as I will hereafter likewyse when the case occurreth ioyne as it were an issue with this author that is to say to make a stay with him in this point triable as they say by euidence and soone tried For in this point the scriptures bee already by the author brought forth the letter wherof proueth not his fayth And albeit he trauaileth bringeth forth the saying of many approued writers yet is there no one of them that writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the faith catholike And to make the issue playne and to ioyne it directly thus I say No author known and approued that is to say Ignatius Polycarpe Iustine Irene Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome Hilary Gregory Nazianzene Basill Emissen Ambrose Cyrill Hierome Augustine Damascene Theophilast none of these hath this doctrine in playne termes that the bread onely signifieth Christes body absent nor this sentence that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer after consecration nor that Christes body is none otherwyse present in the Sacrament but in a signification nor this sentēce that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped because there is nothyng present but in a signe And herein what the truth is may soone appeare as it shall by their workes neuer appeare to haue ben taught and preached receiued and beleued vniuersally and therfore can be called no catholike faith that is to say allowed in the whole through and in outward teaching preached and beleued Caunterbury IN your issues you make me to say what you list and take your issue where you list and then if xii false varlets passe with you what wonder is it But I will ioyne with you this issue that neither scripture nor aūcient author writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of your faith And to make the issue plaine to ioyne directly with you therin thus I say That no auncient and catholike authour hath your doctrine in playne termes And because I will not take my issue in bye matters as you do I will make if in the foure principall pointes wherin we vary wherupon my booke resteth This therfore shal be mine issue That as no scripture so no auncient author known and approued hath in plaine termes your Transubstantiation nor that the body and bloud of Christ be really corporally naturally and carnally wider the formes of bread and wine nor that euil men do eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ nor that Christ is offered euery day by the priest a sacrifice propiciatorie for sinne Wherfore by your owne description and rule of a catholike faith your doctrine and teaching in these 4. articles cannot be good and catholike except you can finde it in plaine termes in the scripture and old catholike doctors which when you do I will hold vp my hand at the barre and say giltie And if you cannot then it is reason that you do the lyke per legem Talionis Winchester If this author setting apart the worde Catholike would of his owne wil go about to proue howsoeuer scripture hath bene vnderstanded hitherto yet it should be vnderstanded in dede as he now teacheth he hath herein diuers disaduantages and hindrances worthy consideration which I will particularly note First the preiudice and sentence geuen as it were by his own mouth against himself now in the booke called the Catechisme in his name set forth Secondly that about vij C. yere ago one Bertram if the booke set forth in hys name be his enterprised secretly the lyke as appereth by the said booke yet preuayled not Thirdly Berengarius beyng in dede but an Archdeacō about v. C. yeres past after he had openly attempted to set forth such like doctrine recanted so fayled in his purpose Fourthly Wickliffe not much aboue an C. yeares past enterprised the same whose teaching God prospered not Fiftly how Luther in his workes handled them that would haue in our tyme raised vp the same doctrine in Germany it is manifest by his their writings wherby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many ouerthrowes so many rebuts so oftē reproofes to be desperate and such as God hath not prospered and sauoured to be receyued at any tyme openly as his true teaching Herein whether I say true or no let the stories try me and it is matter worthy to bée noted because Gamaliels obseruation written in the Actes of the Apostles in allowed to marke how they prosper and go forward in their doctrine that be authors of any news teaching Caunterbury I Haue not proued in my booke my iiij assertions by mine owne wit but by the collation of holy scripture and the sayings of the old holy catholike authors And as for your v. notes you might haue noted thē against your selfe who by them haue much more disaduauntage and hinderance then I haue As concerning the Catechisme by me set forth I haue answered in my fourth booke the 8. chapter that ignorant men for lack of iudgement and exercise in olde authors mistake my said Catechisme And as for Bertrame he did nothing els but at the request of king Charles set out the true doctrine of the holy catholike church from Christ vnto his tyme concerning the sacrament And I neuer heard nor red any mā that condemned Bertrame before this tyme and therfore I can take no hinderance but a great aduantage at his handes For all men that hitherto haue written of Bertrame haue much commended him And
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
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
the faithfull people Thus the Reader may see that I misreport not the Papists nor charge them with any other words then they doe write that is to say that the body of Christ is naturally and sensibly in the Sacrament and broken and torne in peeces with our teeth But saith Smith the meaning of Berengarius in his recantatiō was otherwise that the formes of bread and wine are broaken and torne with our teeth but Christ is receaued wholly without breaking of his body or tearing with our teeth Well what so euer the meaninge of Berengarius was his wordes be as I report so that I make no false report of the Papistes nor vntruely charge them with that they say not But how should men know what the Papists meane when they say one thing and meane another For Berengarius said that not only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth and you say he ment contrary that only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth Berengarius said that also the very flesh and bloud of Christ be broken and torne and you say he ment clean contrary that the flesh and bloud of Christ be not broaken and torne Well then would I faine learne how it may be knowen what the Papists meane if they mean yea when they say nay and mean nay when they say yea And as for S. Iohn Chrisostom and other old authors by whom you would excuse this manner of speech they helpe you herein nothing at all For not one of them speake after this sorte that Berengarius doth For although though they say sometimes that we see Christ touch him and breake him vnderstanding that speech not of Christ him selfe but of the Sacraments which represent him yet they vse no such forme of speech as was prescribed to Berengarius that we see feele and break not only the sacraments but also Christ him selfe And likewise of Loth Abraham Iacob Iosue Mary Magdalen and the Apostles whom you bring forth in this matter there is no such speeche in the scripture as Berengarius vseth So that all these things be brought out in vame hauing no colour to serue for your purpose sauing that same thing you must say to make out your booke And as for al the rest that you say in this proces concerning the presence of Christ visible and inuisible nedeth no answere at all because you prooue nothing of all that you say in that matter which may easely therfore be denied by as good authoritie as you affirme the same And yet all the olde writers that speake of the diuersity of Christes substantiall presence and absence declare this diuersitie to be in the diuersity of his two natures that in the nature of his humanitie he is gone hence and present in the nature of his diuinitie and not that in diuers respectes and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent which I haue proued in my third booke the fifth chapter And for as much as you haue not brought one author for the proofe of your saying but your own bare wordes nor haue aunswered to the authorities alleadged by me in the forsaid place of my third booke reason would that my proofes should stand and haue place vntill such time as you haue proued your sayings or brought some euidēt matter to improue mine And this I trust shall suffice to any indifferent Reader for the defence of my first booke Winchester Wherein I will kéepe this order First to consider the third booke that speaketh against the faith of the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament then against the fourth and so returne to the second speaking of Transubstantiation wherof to talke the reall presence not being discussed were cleerely superfluous And finally I will somewhat say of the fifte booke also Caunterbury BUt now to returne to the conclusion of the Bishops booke As it began with a marueilous sleight and suttlety so doth he conclude the same with a like notable suttlety changing the order of my bookes not answering thē in such order as I wrote them nor as the nature of the thinges requireth For seeing that by all mennes confessions there is bread and wine before the consecration the first thing to be discussed in this matter is whether the same bread and wine remain still after the cōsecratiō as Sacraments of Christs most precious body and bloud And next by order of nature and reason is to be discussed whether the body and bloud of Christ represented by those Sacramentes be present also with the said Sacramentes And what manner of presence Christ hath both in the Sacraments and in thē that receiue the Sacramentes But for what intent the Bishoppe changed this order it is easie to perceiue For he saw the matter of Transubstantiation so flat plain against him that it was hard for him to deuise an answere in that matter that should haue any apparance of truth but all the world should euidētly see him cleerely ouerthrowen at the first onset Wherefore he thought that although the matter of the reall presence hath no truth in it at all yet for as much as it seemed to him to haue some more apparaunce of truth then the matter of Transubstantiatiō hath he thought best to beginne with that first trusting so to iuggle in the matter and to dasell the eyes of them that be simple and ignorant and specially of such as were alredy perswaded in the matter that they should not well see nor perceiue his lieger de main And whē he had won credite with them in that matter by making them to wonder at his crafty iuggeling then thought he it should be a fitte and meete time for him to bring in the matter of Transubstantiation For when men be amased they doe wonder rather then iudge And when they be muffeled and blindfolded they cannot finde the right way though they seek it neuer so fast nor yet follow it if it chaunce them to finde it but geue vp cleerely their own iudgement and follow whom so euer they take to be their guid◠And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of Transubstantiation thought the bishop if I can first perswade them and get their good willes in the reall presence This sleight and suttlety thou maist iudge certainly good Reader to be the cause and none other wherefore the order of my booke is chaunged without ground or reason The ende of the first booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE THIRD BOOKE IN the beginning of the third booke the author hath thought good to note certain differences which I wil also particularly consider It followeth in him thus They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine But we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine Note here Reader euen in the entry of the comparison of these differences how vntruly the true faith of the Church is reported
which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine which was the doctrine of Luther but the true faith is that Christes most precious body and bloud is by the might of his word and determination of his will which he declareth by his word in his holy Supper present vnder forme of bread and wine The substance of which natures of bread and wine is conuerted into his most precious body bloud as it is truely beleeued taught in the Catholick church of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant So as the Author of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittingly against his conscience to say they teach calling them papists that Christ is in the bread and wine but they agrée in forme of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holy Communion in that it is there said the body and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wine And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong vntrue report of the faith of the Catholick Church made of this Author in the setting forth of this difference on that parte which it pleaseth him to name Papistes And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference such as no Catholick man would deny For euery Catholick teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament vnles he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him For otherwise such one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condemnation Christ cannot be receued worthely but into his own temple which be ye S. Paul saith and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him is not his As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecration in substance Wherefore appeareth how the Author of this booke in the lieu and place of a difference which he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholick man must néedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud or the bread and wine as this Author speaketh But as this Author would haue speaken plainly and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges he should in the second parte haue said from what contrary to that the Catholick Church teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaration of the second parte to say that repugneth not to the first matter and that no Catholicke man will deny considering the said two teachinges be not of one matter nor shoote not as one might say to one marke For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely as before is sayd which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy so both the differences thus taught make but one Catholick doctrine Let vs sée what the Author saith further Caunterbury NOw the craftes wiles and vntruthes of the first booke being partly detected after I haue also answered to this booke I shall leaue to the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answere I shall rehearse the wordes of mine owne thirde boke which you attēpt next out of order to impugne My words be these Now this matter of Transubstantiatiō being as I trust sufficiently resolued which is the first part before rehearsed wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth order requireth next to intreate of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacramēt thereof wherin is no lesse cōtentiō thē in the first part For a plain explication whereof it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people that our Sauiour Christ being perfecte God and in all thinges equall and coeternall with his Father for our sakes became also a perfect man taking flesh and bloud of his blessed mother and virgin Mary sauing sinne being in all thinges like vnto vs adioyning vnto his diuinity a most perfect soul of man And his body being made of very flesh and bones not onely hauing all members of a perfect mannes body in due order and proportion but also being subiect to hunger thirst labour sweate werines cold heate and all other like infirmities and passions of a manne and vnto death also and that the most vile and painfull vpon the crosse and after his death he rose againe with the self same visible and palpable body and appeared therewith and shewed the same vnto his Apostles and specially to Thomas making him to put his handes into his side and to feele his woundes And with the selfe same body he forsooke this world and ascended into heauen the Apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father there shall remaine vntill the last day when he shall come to iudge the quick dead This is the true Catholick faith which the Scripture teacheth and the vniuersall Church of Christ hath euer beleeued from the beginning vntill within these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares last passed that the Bishop of Rome with the assistance of his Papistes hath set vp a new faith and beleefe of their own deuising that the same body really corporally naturally and sensibly is in this worlde still and that in an hundred thousand places at one time being inclosed in euery pixe and bread consecrated And although we doe affirme according to Gods word that Christ is in all persons that truly beleeue in him in such sort that with his flesh and bloud he doth spiritually nourish and feede them and geueth them euerlasting life doth assure them thereof as well by the promise of his word as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper which he did institute for the same purpose yet we doe not a little vary from the hainous errors of the Papists For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine but we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the bread wine Here it pleaseth you to passe ouer all the rest of my sayinges and to aunswere onely to the difference betweene the Papists and the true Catholicke faith Where in the first ye finde fault that I haue vntruely reported the Papisticall faith which you
bloud signifying to theÌ„ that worthely do eat that bread drink that cuppe that they be inwardly and inuisibly fed with Christes flesh and bloud as they outwardly and visibly receaue the sacraments of them To be short here in this processe you vse plenty of words at your pleasure to make the reader beleue that I should suppose confusion monstrousnes absurditie and vnseemelinesse to be in Gods holy sacraments where as I do no more but tel what monstrous absurdities and errors the Papists do teach in the sacraments But if the reader take good heede to your talk he shall finde that you lacking good matter to aunswere this comparison do fall vnto railing and enforce your pen to inuent such stuffe as might bring me into hatred vndeserued which kind of rhetorick is called Canma facunda and is vsed onely of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their aduersary which is yet an other trick of the deuils sophistry And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred you couple me with Sabellius and Arrius whose doctrines as you say were facile and easy as here you confesse mine for to be But if all such expositions as make the Scriptures plain should by and by be slaunderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius then should all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger because that by their paines they haue made hard questions facile and easy And yet whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to vnderstand or not I cannot define but it seemeth so hard that you cannot vnderstand it except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulnes that you can and wil not vnderstaÌ„d it Now followeth the sixt comparison Furthermore the Papistes say that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ if they by chaunce doe eate the Sacramentall bread We say That no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ nor drink his bloud but onely man Winchester I haue red that some intreate these chances of dogges and cattes but I neuer heard any of that opinion to say or write so as a doctrine that a dogge or a catte eateth the body of Christ and set it forth for a teaching as this author most impudently supposeth and I maruell much that such a worde and such a reporte can come out of a christian maÌ„nes mouth and therefore this is by the author a maruelous surmise Whereupon to take occasion to bring the aduersatiue But for the Authors parte being such a saying on that side as all christendome hath euer taught that no creature can eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ but onely man But this abhominable surmysed no truth in the former parte of his comparison may be taken for a proofe whether such beastly asseuerations procéede from the spirite of truth or now And whether truth be there intended where such blasphemy is surmised But let vs see the rest Caunterbury YEt stil in these comparisons you grauÌ„t that part of the difference to be true which I affirme but you say that I reporte vntruely of the Papistes impudently bearing them in hand to say such abhominable beastly asseuerations as you neuer heard Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in deniall of that thing which either you know the Papists do say or you are in doubt whether they say or saying hauing not read what it is that they say For why doe they reiect the Master of the sentences in this point that he said a mouse or bruite beast receaueth not the body of Christ although they seeme to receau it Wherin if you say as the Master did that the mouse receiueth not the body of Christ looke for no fauor at the papists hands but to be reiected as the Master was unles they forbeare you vpon fauour and because that in other matters you haue bene so good a captayne for them they will pardon you this one faulte Aâ—d so is this first parte of the difference no vntrue surmise of me but a determination of the Papistes condemning who so euer would say the contrary And this is a common proposition among the schoole diuines that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the forme of the bread is remayning where so euer it be whereof your S. Thomas wryteth thus Quidam vero dixerunt quod quaÌ„ primum Sacramentum sumitur à mure vel cane desinit ibi esse corpus Christi Sed hoc deregat veritati huius Sacramenti Substantia enim panis sumpta à peccatore I am diu manet dion per calorem naturalem est in digestione igitur tam diu manet corpus Christi sub speciebus Sacramentalibus And Perin in his booke printed and set abroad in this matter for all men to read saith That although the mouse or any other beast doe eate the Sacrament yet neuerthelesse the same is the very and reall body of Christ. And he asketh what inconuenience it is against the verity of Christs reall body in the Sacrament though the impassible body lye in the mouth or maw of the beast Is it not therfore the body of Christ Yes vndoubtedly saith he So that now these abhominable opinions and beastly asseuerations as you truely terme them meaning thereby to bite me as appeareth be fitte termes and meete for the Papists whose asseuerations they be Now followeth the seuenth comparyson They say that euery man good and euill eateth the body of Christ. We say that both doe eate the Sacramentall bread and drink the wine but none do eate the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud but only they that be liuely members of his body Winchester In this comparison the former part speaking of such men as be by baptisme receiued into Christes church is very true confirmed by S. Paule and euer since affirmed in the church in the proofe whereof here in this booke I wil not trauell but make it a demurre as it were in law whereupon to fly the truth of the hole matter if that doctrin called by this author the doctrine of the Papistes and is in déede the Catholick doctrine be not in this point true let all be so iudged for me If it be true as it is most true let that be a marke whereby to iudge the rest of this authors vntrue asseuerations For vndoubtedly S. Augustine sayth We may not of mens matters estéeme the Sacraments they be made by him whose they be but worthely vsed they bring reward vnworthely handled they bring iudgement He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely and he that vseth it vnworthely lie not one but that thyng is one whether it be handled worthely or vnworthely so as if is neither better ne worse but life or death of them that vse it Thus saith S. Augustine and therefore be the receauers worthy or vnworthy good or euil the substance of Christs Sacrament is all one as beyng Gods worke
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
as it is in the very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and after is al one in nature substance bignes forme and fashion and yet it is not called as an other common body but with addition for the dignitie of his exaltation it is called a heauenly a godly an immortall and the lordes body so likewise the bread and wine before the consecration and after is all one in nature substance bignes form and fashion and yet it is not called as other common bread but for the dignitie wherunto it is taken it is called with addition Heauenly bread The bread of life and the bread of thankes giueng The fift that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to affirme for a certayne truth in religion any thing which is not spoken of in holy scripture And this is spoken to the great and vtter condemnation of the Papistes which make and vnmake newe articles of our fayth from tyme to tyme at their pleasure without any scripture at all yea quite and clean contrary to scripture And yet wyll they haue all men bound to beleue what soeuer they inuent vpon perill of damnation and euerlasting fyre And yet wil they constrayne with fyre and fagot all men to consent contrary to the manifest wordes of God to these their errours in this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes body and bloud First that there remayneth no bread nor wine after the consecration but that Christes flesh and bloud is made of them Second that Christes body is really corporally substantially sensibly and naturally in the bread and wine Thirdly that wicked persons do eat and drincke Christes very body and bloud Fourthly that priestes offer Christ euery day and make of him a new sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Thus for shortnes of tyme I doe make an end of Theodoretus with other old auncient writers which do most clearly affirme that to eat Christes body and to drink his bloud be figuratiue speaches And so be these sentenses likewise which Christ spake at his supper This is my body This is my bloud Winchester The author bringeth in Theodoret a greek whom to discusse particularly wer lōg tedious one notable place there is in him which toucheth the poynt of the mater which place Peter Marter alleageth in greek and then translateth it into Latin not exactly as other haue done to the truth but as he hath done I will write in here And then will I wryte the same translated into english by one that hath translated Peter Marters booke and then will I adde the translation of this author and finally the very truth of the Latine as I will abide by and ioyn an issue with this author in it wherby thou reader shalt perceaue with what sinceritie thinges be handled Peter Marter hath of Theodoret this in Latin which the same Theodoret in a disputation with an Heritique maketh the catholique man to say Captus es ijs quae tetenderas retibus Neque enim post sancti ficationem mistica simbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur manent enim in priori sua substantia figura specie adeoque videntur palpantur quemadmodum antea Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur tanquam ea existentia quae creduntur He that translateth Peter Marter in english doth expresse these wordes thus Lo thou art new caught in the same nette which thou haddest sette to catche me in For those same misticall signes do not depart away out of their owne proper nature after the hallowing of them For they remayne still in their former substance and their former shape and their former kind and are euen as well seene and felte as they were afore But the thinges that are done are vnderstanded and are beleued and are worshiped euen as though they were in very deede the thinges that are beleued This is the common translation into English of Peter Marters booke translated which this author doth translate after his fashion thus Thou art taken with thine owne nette for the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and be seen and touched as well as before Yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Thus is the translation of this author Myne English of this latine is thus Thou art taken with the same nettes thou diddest lay forth For the misticall tokens after the sanctification go not away out of their proper nature For they abide in their former substance shape and forme and so far forth that they may be seene and felt as they might before But they be vnderstanded that they be made and are beleued and are worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued This is my translation who in the first sentence meane not to vary from the other translations touching the remayne of substance shape forme or figure I will vse all these names But in the second parte where Theodoret speaketh of our beleefe what the tokens be made and where he sayth those tokens be worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued thou mayst see reader how this author flieth the wordes beleue and worship which the common translation in english doth playnly and truly expresse how soeuer the translator swarued by colour of the word tanquam which there after the greeke signifieth the truth and not the similitude onely like as saynt Paule Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam sint which is to make to be indeed not as though they were And the greeke is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it were an absurditie to beleue thinges otherwise then they be as though they were and very Idolatrie to worship wittingly that is not as though it were in dede And therfore in these two words that they beleued that they be made and be worshiped is declared by Theodoret his fayth of the very true reall presence of Christs glorious flesh wherunto the Deitie is vnited Which fleshe S. Augustine consonantly to this Theodoret sayd must be worshiped before it be receiued The word worshiping put here in english is to expresse the word Adorantur put by Peter in latine signifieng adoring being the verbe in Greke of such signification as is vsed to expresse godly worship with bowing of the knée Now reader what should I say by this author that conueieth these two wordes of beleuing and worshiping and in stede of them cometh in with reuerence taking reputing and esteming wherof thou mayst esteme how this place of Theodoret pinched this author who could not but see that adoring of the sacramēt signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored which els were an absurditie and therfore the author toke payne to
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
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
vnto his Apostles and ascended into heaueÌ„ Which things diuers hereticks sayd were not done verily in deed but apparantly to mens sightes and that in deed he had no such carnall corporall body as he appered to haue And agaynst such errors speaketh the epistle and not of the reall and corporall presence of Christ in the sacrameÌ„t although Eucharistia or the sacrament be ordeyned for a remembrance of that very body and so hath the name of it as the sacraments haue the names of the things which they signify But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from the true sence and purpose that was ment to an other sence and purpose that was not ment may appeare the truth of the Papistes who wrast and misconstrue all old auncient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and vngodly purposes Next in my book followeth mine aunswere to Dionisius Dionysius also Whom they alleage to prayse and extoll this sacrament as in deed it is most worthy being a sacrament of most high dignity and perfection representing vnto vs our most perfect spirituall coniunction vnto Chryst and our continuall nourishing feeding comfort and spiritual life in him yet he neuer sayd that the flesh and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wine really corporally sensibly and naturally as the Papists would beare vs in hand but he calleth euer the bread and wine signes pledges and tokens declaring vnto the faythfull receiuers of the same that they receaue Christ spiritually that they spiritually eat his flesh drinke his bloud And although the bread and wine be figures signes tokens of Christes flesh and bloud as S. Dionyse calleth them both before the Consecration and after yet the Greek annotations vpon the same Dionyse do say that the very things themselues be aboue in heauen And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in thys poynt of Christes real and corporal presence so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean agaynst them and that specially in three poynts in Transubstantiation in reseruation of the Sacrament and in the receiuing of the same by the Priest alone Winchester As touching Dionysius a wise reader may without any note of mine se how this author is troubled in hym and calleth for ayd the help of him that made the greek commeÌ„taries vpon Dionysius and pleadeth therwith the forme of the wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally wherof two that is to say really and sensibly the old authors in sillables vsed not forsomuch as I haue red but corporally and naturally they vsed speaking of this sacrament This Dionyse spake of this mistery after the dignitie of it not contending with any other for the truth of it as we do now but extolling it as a marueilous high mistery which if the bread be neuer the holyer and were onely a signification as this author teacheth were no high mistery at all As for the things of the Sacrament to be in heauen the church teacheth so and yet the same thinges be indéede present in the sacrament also which is a mistery so deepe and darke from mans naturall capacitie as is onely to be be beleued supernaturally without asking of the question how wherof S. Chrisostom maketh an exclamation in this wise O great beneuolence of God towards vs he that sitteth aboue with the father at the same houre is holden here with the hands of all men and geueth himselfe to them that will claspe and embrace him Thus sayth Chrisostom confessing to be aboue and here the same things at once and not onely in mens brests but hands also to declare the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible Sacrament whereby Christ is present in the mids of our sences and so may be called sensibly present although mans sences can not comprehend and feel or tast of him in their proper nature But as for this Dionyse he doth without argumeÌ„t declare his fayth in the adoratioÌ„ he maketh of this SacrameÌ„t which is openly testified in his workes so as we need not to doubt what his fayth was As for this authors notes they be descant voluntary without the tenor part being be like ashamed to alleadge the text it self least his thrée notes might seeme fayned without ground as before in S. Clements epistle and therfore I will not trouble the reader with them Canterbury I Aske no more of the reader but to read my book and theÌ„ to iudge how much I am troubled with this author And why may not I cite the grek commentaryes for testimony of the truth Is this to be termed a callyng for ayd Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for ayde Is not your doing rather a caling for ayd when you be fayne to flye for succor to Martin Luther Bucer Melancthon Epinius Ionas Peter Marter and such other whom al the world knoweth you neuer fauored but euer abhorred their names May not this be termed a calling for ayd when you be driuen to such a straight and need that you be glad to cry to such men for helpe whom euer you haue hindered and defamed asmuch as lay in you to do And as for pleading of those wordes really corporally sensibly and naturally they be your owne termes and the termes wherein resteth the whole contention betweene you and me and should you be offended because I speak of those termes It appeareth now that you be loth to here of those wordes and would very gladly haue them put in silence and so should the variance betweene you and me clearely ended For if you will confesse that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament really corporally sensibly and naturally then you and I shal shake hands and be both earnest frends to the truth And yet one thing you do here confesse which is worthy to be noted had in memory that you read not in any old author that the body of Christ is really and sensibly in the sacrament And hereunto I adde that none of them say that he is the bread and wine corporally nor naturally No neuer no papist said that Christes body is in â—he sacrament naturally nor carnally but you alone who be the first auâ— or of this gros error which Smith himself condeÌ„neth and denieth that euer ChristiaÌ„ man so taught although some say that it is there really some substantially and some sensibly Now as concerning the high mistery which S. Denys speaketh of he declareth the same to be in the meruelous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures beyng made after his image and being his liuely temples and Christes misticall body and not in the vnreasonable and vnsensible and vnliuely creatures of bread and wine wherin you say the deep and darke mistery standeth But notwithstanding any holines or godlines wrought in the receauers of them yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselfes but be only tokens
the author of this booke forgetteth himselfe to call Christ in vs naturally by his Godhead which were then to make vs al Gods by nature which is ouer great an absurdity and Christ in his diuine nature dwelleth only in his father naturally in vs by grace But as we receaue him in the sacrament of his flesh and bloud if we receiue hym worthily so dwelleth he in vs naturally for the naturall communication of our nature and hys And therfore where this author reporteth Hylary to make no difference betwéene our vnyon to Christ in Baptisme and in the supper let him trust in him no more that told hym so or if this author will take vpon him as of his owne knowledge then I must say and if he were another would say an aunswere in french that I will not expresse And hereupon will I ioynin the Issue that in Hylary the matter is so playn otherwise then this author rehearseth as it hath no coulor of defence to the contrary And what Hylary speaketh of Baptisme and our vnity therin I haue before touched and this vnity in flesh is after treated apart What shall I say to this so manifest vntruth but that it confirmeth that I haue in other obserued how there was neuer one of them that I haue red writing against the Sacrament but hath in his writings sayd somewhat so euidently in the matter or out of the matter discrepant from truth as might be a certayn marke to iudge the quality of his spirite Canterbury HEre you confesse that you cited Hilary vntruely but you impute the fault to your copy What copy you had I know not but aswell the citation of Melancthon as all the printed bookes that euer I saw haue otherwise then you haue written and therfore it seemeth that you neuer red any printed booke of Hylarius Marry it might be that you had from Smyth a false copy written who informed me that you had of him all the authorityes that be in your booke And hauing al the authorities that he had with great trauell gathered by and by you made your booke and stale from him all his thanck and glory like vnto Esops choughe which plumed himselfe with other birds fethers But whersoeuer you had your copy all the books setforth by publike fayth haue otherwise then you haue cited And although the false allegatiō of Hylary toucheth you somewhat yet chiefly it toucheth Smyth who hath erred much worse in his translation then you haue done albeit nether of you both handle the matter sincerely and faithfully nor agree the one with the other But I trow it be your chaunce to light vpon false bookes For wheras in this sentence Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit negit prius naturaliter vel se in Christo vel Christum sibi inesse one false print for naturaliter hath non naturaliter it seemeth that you chaunced vpō that false print For if you haue found Hilary truely corrected as you say you haue your fault is the more that out of a true copy would pick out an vntrue translation And if you haue so done then by putting in a little prety not where none ought to be with that little prity trip you haue cleane ouerthrowne your selfe For if it be an errour to deny that Christ is not naturally in vs as it his rehersed for an errour then must it be an errour to affirme that Christ is naturally in vs. For it is all one thing that he is not and to affirme that he is naturally in vs. And so by your owne translation you ouerthrow your selfe quite and cleane in that you say in many places of your book that Christ is naturally in vs and ground your saying vpon Hylarie Whereas now by your owne translation Hylary reiecteth that clearely as an haynous error And as concerning this word truely it fetteth not liuely forth a real and substanciall presence as you say it doth for Christ is truely in all his faithfull people and there truely eate his flesh and drinke his bloud and yet not by a reall and corporall but by a spirituall and effectuall presence And as concerning the word perfecta or peafectae in the print which I haue of your book is neyther of both but be left quite out Neuerthelesse that fault I impute to no vntruth in you but rather to the negligence either of your pen or of the printer But for the perfectnes of the vnity between Christ and vs you declare here to be the perfect vnity to be that which is but the one halfe of it For the perfect vnity of vs with Christ is not onely to haue Christ corporally and naturally dwelling in vs but likewise we to dwell corporally and naturally in him And Hylary declareth the second part to pertain to our vnity with Christ aswell as the first which of sleight pollicy you leaue out purposely because it declareth the meaning of the first part which is not that Christ is in them that receaue the sacrament and when they receaue the sacrament only but that he naturally tarrieth and dwelleth in all them that partayn to him whether they receaue the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth naturally in them so do they in him And although you haue excused your peruersity by your false copy yet here I will ioyne an issue with you that you did neither aleage Hylaries wordes before truely nor yet now do truely declare them As for the fyrst part you haue confessed your selfe that you were deceiued by a false copy And therfore in this part I plead that you be gilty by your own cōfessiō And as concerniug the second part Hylary speaketh not of the vnitye of Christ with the sacrament nor of the vnity of Christ with vs onely when we receaue the sacrament nor of the vnity of vs with Christ onely but also with his father by which vnity we dwell in Christ and Christ in vs also we dwell in the Father and the father in vs. For as Christ beyng in his father his father in him hath lyfe of his father so he beyng in vs we in him geueth vnto vs the nature of his eternity which he receiued of his father that is to say immortality and life euerlasting which is the nature of his Godhead And so haue we the Father and the Sonne dwelling in vs naturally and we in them forasmuch as he geueth to vs the nature of his eternitie which he had of his father and honoureth vs with that honoureth vs with that houour which he had of his father But Christ giueth not this nature of eternity to the Sacrament except you will say that the sacrament shall haue euerlasting lyfe as you must needes say if Christ dwell naturally in it after Hylaries maner of reasoning For by the saying of Hylary where Christ dwelleth there dwelleth his father giueth eternall lyfe by his sonne And so be
you a goodly sauiour that can bring to euerlasting life both bread and drinke which neuer had life But as this nature of eternity is not geuen to the sacrament so is it not geuen to them that vnworthely receiue the sacrament which eat and drink their owne damnation Nor it is not geuen to the liuely members of Christ onely when they receaue the sacrament but so long as they spiritually feede vpon Christ eating his flesh and drinking his bloud either in this life or in the life to come For so long haue they Christ naturally dwelling in them they in him And as the Father naturally dwelleth in Christ so by Christ doth he naturally dwell in vs. And this is Hylaries mind to tell how Christ and his father dwel naturally in his faythfull members and what vnity we haue with them that is to say an vnity of nature and not of wil onely and not to tel how christ dwelleth in the sacrament or in them that vnworthely receaue it that he dwelleth in them at that time onely when they receiue the sacrament And yet he sayth that this vnity of faythfull people vnto God is by fayth taught by the sacrament of Baptisme of the Lords table but wrought by Christ by the sacrament and mistery of his incarnation and redemption whereby he humbled himself vnto the lowlines of our feeble nature that he might exalt vs to the dignity of his godly nature and ioyne vs vnto his father in the nature of his eternity Thus is playnly declared Hylaries mind who ment nothing lesse thē as you say to entreat how many diuers wayes we be one in Christ but onely to entreat and proue that we be naturally in Christ and Christ in vs. And this one thing he proueth by our fayth and by the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Lords supper and still he sayth aswell that we be naturally and corporally in him as that he is naturally in vs. And where you speak of the vnity in baptisme and say that Hylarius handleth that matter aboue some capacities howsoeuer Hilary handleth the matter you handle it in such sort as I thinke passeth all mens capacities vnles your selfe make a large commentary therto For what these your wordes meane 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 sayeth in nature one and what that one thing is which they do that be baptised I think no man can tell except you read the riddle your self And now to your issue If you can shew of the words of Hylary in this place that Christ is naturally in the Sacraments of bread and wine or in wicked persons or in godly persōs onely when they receiue the sacramēt then will I confesse the issue to passe vpon your syde that you haue declared this Author truely that he maketh most clearely for you against me And if you can not shew this by Hylaries words then must you hold vp your hand and say Giltie And yet furthermore when Hylary sayth that we be naturally in Christ he meaneth not that our bodyes be contayned within the compasse of his body but that we receaue his naturall eternitie And so likewise when he sayth that Christ dwelleth naturally and carnally in vs he meaneth not that his body is contained corporally within the compase of our mouthes or bodyes which you must proue by his playne wordes if you will iustifie your yssue that he speaketh most clearly for you but he meaneth that Christ communicateth and geueth vnto vs the nature of his eternitie or euerlasting lyfe And he dwelleth in vs by his incarnation as S. Iohn sayth Verbum caro factum est habit auit in nobis the word was made flesh and dwelled in vs. And as he may be sayde to dwell in vs by receauing of our mortall nature so may we be sayd to dwell in him by receauing the nature of his immortalitie And neuer man found faulte as you truely say at this notable place of Hillary nor agayne neuer learned man hitherto expounded him as you do And when I sayd that Christ is in vs naturally by his godhead I forgatte not what I sayd as you say of me for I playnly expounded what I ment by naturally that is to say not by naturall substaunce to make vs godes but by naturall condition geuing vnto vs immortality and euerlasting life which he had of his father and so making vs pertakers of his godly nature and vniting vs to his father And if we atayne to the vnitie of his father why not vnto the vnitie of the godhead not by naturall substaunce but by naturall proprietie As Cirill sayth that we be made the children of God and heauenly men by participatiō of the deuine nature as S. Peter also teacheth And so be we one in the father in the sonne and in the holy ghost And where you say that we receaue Christ in the sacrament of his flesh and bloud if we receaue him worthily here you haue giuen good euidence agaynst your selfe that we receaue him not and that he dwelleth not in vs naturally except we receaue him worthely And therfore where you say that there is none that writeth agaynst the truth in the sacrament but he hath in his writinges somewhat discrepant from truth that might be a certayn marke to iudge his spirite this is so true that your selfe differ not onely from the truth in a nomber of places but also from your owne sayinges And where you bidde me trust him no more that told me that Hilary maketh no difference betwene our vnion in Christ in baptisme and in his holy supper it was very Hilary himselfe of whom I lerned it who sayth that in both the sacramentes the vnion is naturall and not in will onely And if you will say the contrary I must tell you the french aunswer that you would tell me And herein I will not refuse your issue Now come we to Ciril of whome I write as followeth And this answer to Hilarius will serue also vnto Ciril whom they alleadge to speake after the same sort that Hilarius doth that Christ is naturally in vs. The wordes which the recite be these We deny not sayth Cyril agaynst the heretike but we be spiritually ioyned to Christ by fayth and sincere charitie but that we should haue no maner of coniunction in our flesh with Christ that we vtterly deny and think it vtterly discrepant from Godes holy scriptures For who doubteth but Christ is so the vine tree and we so the branches as we get thence our life Heare what S. Paule sayth We be all one body with Christ for though we be many we be in one in him All we participate in one foode Thinketh this heretike that we know not the strength and vertue of the misticall benediction which when it is made in
nature must needs be vnderstād fyguratiuely by some similitude or propriety of one substance vnto an other and can in no wise be vnderstand properly and playnly without a figure And therfore when Christ is called the sonne of God or bread is called bread it is a most playne and proper spech but when Christ is called bread or bread is called Christ these can in no wise be formall and proper speches the substāces and natures of them being so diuers but must nedes haue an vnderstanding in figure signification or similitude as the very nature of all sacramentes require as al the old writers do playnly teach And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ his body bycause it is so in deed for then it were no figuratiue speach as all the old authors say it is And as for this word corporall you openly confessed your owne ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambheth when I asked you what corporall body Christ hath in the sacrameut whether he had distinction of members or no your answere was in effect that you could not tell And yet was that a wiser saying then you spake before in Cyril where you sayd that Christ hath onely a spirituall body and a spirituall presence and now you say he hath a corporall presēce And so you confoūd corporal spiritual as if you knew not what either of them ment or wist not or cared not what you sayd But now I will returne to my booke rehearse myne aunswere vnto S. Iohn Chrysostome which is this Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrisostome who in sound of words maketh most for the aduersaries of the truth but they that be familiar and acquanted with Chrisostomes manner of speaking how in all his writynges he is full of allusions schemes tropes and figures shall soone perceyue that he helpeth nothing their purposes as it shall well appeare by the discussing of those places which the Papistes do alleadge of him which be spicially two One is in Sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs And the other is De proditione Iudae And as touching the first no man can speake more playnly agaynst them then S. Iohn Chrisostome speaketh in that sermon Wherfore it is to be wondred why they should alleage hym for their partie vnlesse they be so blind in their opinion that they can se nothing nor discerne what maketh for them nor what against thē For there he hath these wordes When you come to these misteries speaking of the Lordes boord and holy communion do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God meaning of Christ. These be S. Iohn Chrisostome his owne wordes in that place Than if we receiue not the body of Christ at the hands of a man Ergo the body of Christ is not really corporally and naturally in the Sacrament and so geuen to vs by the Priest And then it followeth that all the Papistes be lyers because they fayne and teach the contrary But in this place of Chrisostome is touched before more at lēgth in answering to the Papistes Transubstantiation Wherfore now shall be answered the other place which they alleadge of Chrisostome in these wordes Here he is present in the sacramēt and doth cōsecrate which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper For it is not man which maketh of the bread and wine being set forth to be consecrated the body and bloud of Christ but it is Christ himselfe which for vs is crucified that maketh himselfe to be there present The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest but the consecration is by the vertue might grace of God himselfe And as this saying of God Increase be multiplied fill the earth once spoken by God tooke alwayes effect toward generation euen so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken doth throughout all churches to this present shall to his last comming geue force and strength to this sacrifice Thus farre they reherse of Chrisostomes words Which wordes although they sound much for the purpose yet if they be throughly cōsidered and conferred with other places of the same author it shal well appeare that he ment nothing lesse thē that Christes body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine but that in such sort he is in heauen onely and in our mindes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen to eate him there although sacramētally as in a signe and figure he be in the bread wine and so is he also in the water of Baptisme and in them that rightly receaue the bread wine he is in a much more perfection then corporally which should auayle them nothing but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power geuing them eternall lyfe And as in the first creatiō of the world all liuing creatures had their first life by gods onely word for God onely spake his word and all things were created by and by accordingly and after their creation he spake these wordes Increase and multiply and by the vertue of those wordes all thinges haue gendred increased euersince that tyme euen so after that Christ sayd Eat this is my body drinke this is my bloud Do this hereafter in remembraunce of me by vertue of these wordes and not by vertue of any man the bread and wine be so cōsecrated that whosoeuer with a liuely fayth doth eat that bread and drinke that wine doth spiritually eat drinke and feede vpon Christ sitting in heauen with his Father And this is the whole meaning of S. Chrisostome And therfore doth he so often say that we receaue Christ in baptisme And when he hath spoken of the receauing of him in the holy communion by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme without declaring any diuersity of his presence in the one from his presence in the other He sayth also in many places that We ascend into heauen and do eat Christ sitting there aboue And where S. Chrisostome and other Authors do speak of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes passing all mans wit senses and reason they meane not of the working of God in the water bread wine but of the maruaylous working of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramētes secretly inwardly and spiritually transforming them renuing feding comforting and nourishing them with his flesh and bloud through his most holy spirite the same flesh and bloud still remayning in heauen Thus is this place of Chrisostome sufficiently aunswered vnto And if any man require any more thē let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of Transubstantiation Winchester This author noteth in Chrisostome two places and bringeth them forth and in handling the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reprofe For where in the second booke
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
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
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
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
Eucharistia nourisheth our flesh and bloud by alteration which they could not do if no bread wine nor water were there at all But here is not to be passed ouer one exceeding great craft and vntruth in your translation that to cast a mist before the readers eyes you alter the order of Iustines wordes in that place where the pith of the matter standeth For where Iustine sayth of the foode of bread wine and water after the consecration that they nourish our flesh and bloud by alteration the nourishment which Iustine putteth after consecration you vntruly put it before the consecration and so wilfully and craftely alter the order of Iustinus wordes to deceaue the reader and in this poynt will I ioyne an issue with you Is such craft and vntruth to be vsed of Bishoppes and then in matters of fayth and religion wherof they pretend and ought to be true professors But I meruayle not so much at your sleights in this place seeing that in the whole booke through out you seeke nothing lesse then the truth And yet all your sleightes will not serue you for how can the foode called Eucharistia nourish before the consecration seeing it is not eaten vntill after the consecration The next author in my booke is Irene whome I alleadge thus Next him was Irenaeus aboue 150. yeares after Christ who as it is supposed could not be deceaued in the necessary poyntes of our fayth for he was a disciple of Policarpus which was disciple to S. Ihon the Euangelist This Irenaeus followeth the sense of Iustinus wholy in this matter and almost also his wordes saying that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of God is called vpon it it is not than common bread but the bread of thankes geuing hauing two thinges in it one earthly and the other heauenly What ment he by the heauenly thing but the sanctification which cōmeth by the inuocation of the name of God And what by the earthly thing but the very bread which as he sayd before is of the earth and which also he sayth doeth nourish our bodies as other bread doth which we do vse Winchester Next Iustine is Irene in the allegation of whome this author maketh also an vntrue reporte how hath not this for mē of wordes in the forth booke contra Valentinum that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of god is called vpon it is not thru common bread but the bread of thankes giuing hauing two thinges in it one earthly and the other heauenly This is Irene alleadged by this author who I say writeth not in such forme of wordes For his wordes be these Like as the bread which is of the earth receauing the calling of God is now no common bread but Eucharistia consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly so our bodies receauing Eucharistian be no more corruptible These be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receauing the calling of God the bread of thankes giuing but Eucharistia and in this Eucharistia he sheweth how that that he calleth the heauenly thinges is the body and bloud of Christ and therfore sayth in his fift booke When the chalice mixt and the bread broken receaue the word of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased And how say they that our flesh is not able to receaue gods gift who is eternall life which flesh is nourished with the body and bloud of Christ These be also Irenes wordes wherby appeareth what he ment by the heauenly thing in Eucharistia which is the very presence of Christes body and bloud And for the playne testimony of this fayth this Irene hath bene commonly alleadged and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius as one most auncient and most playnly testifying the same So as his very wordes truly alleadged ouerthrow this author in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament and therfore can nothing help this authors purpose agaynst Transubstantiation Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this Author in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both Caunterbury WHo seeth not that as you did before in Iustine so agayne in Irene you seeke nothing els but meare cauilations and wrangling in wordes Is not Eucharistia called in english thankes giuing If it be not tell you what it is called in English And doth not Iren say Panes in qup gratiae actae sunt that is so say bread wherein thankes be giuen what haue I offended then in englishing Eucharistiam thankes giuing Do not I write to English men which vnderstand not what this greeke word Eucharistia meaneth what greate offence is it then in me to put it into English that English men may vnderstaud what is sayde Should I do as you do put greeke for English and write so obscurely that English men should not know the authors meaning And do you not see how much the words of Ireneus by you aleadged make agaynst your selfe These be his wordes after your citation When the chalice mixt and the bread broken receaue the word of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is stayd and encreased Doth not Irene say here playnly that the chalice mixt and the bread broken after the word of God which you call the wordes of consecration is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ and not the body and bloud of Christ And sayth he not further that they stay and increase the substance of our bodies But how can those thinges stay and increase our bodies which be transubstantiated and gone before we receaue them And haue you forgotten now in Irene what you sayd in the next leafe before in Iustine that the alteration and nourishment by the foode of bread and wine was vnderstande before the consecration which you confesse now to be after the consecration And when you thus obscure the authors wordes peruerting and corrupting both the wordes and sences yet shall you conclude your vntrue dealing with these wordes concerning me Is not this a goodly and godly entres of this author in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both Now followeth Origene next in my booke Shortly after Ireneus was Origene about 200. yeares after Christs ascension Who also affirmeth that the materiall bread remayneth saying that the matter of the bread auayleth nothing but goeth downe into the bealy and is auoyded dounward but the word of God spoken vpon the bread is it that auayleth Winchester As for Origene in his owne wordes sayth the matter of the bread remayneth which as I haue before opened it may be graunted but yet he termeth it not as this author doeth to call it materiall bread When God formed Adam of clay
catholike Church But now what illusions and dreames you fantasy of Emissenes wordes it is a wonder to heare First that the substance of bread and wine is an inward nature and that in baptisme the whole man is not regenerated but the soule onely and that the soule of man is the substance of man and made the sonne of God And now when it serueth for your purpose the body of Christ is a corporall substance which in all your booke before was but a spirituall body and the substance of bread and wine be visible creatures which were wont with you to be inward and inuisible natures and now is the inward nature of the bread the substance of the bread where as in other places the outward fourmes be the substance so litle substance is in your doctrine that from tyme to tyme you thus alter your sayings This is no tripping but so shamefull a fall and in so foule and stincking a place that you shall neuer be able to spunge the filthines out of your clothes and to make your selfe sweete agayne And you appoynt at your pleasure both terminum a quo terminum ad quem and the changes and the thinges that be changed altogither otherwise then Emissene doth For in Emissene the changes be regeneration and nourishing or augmentation the thing that is changed is the man both in regeneration and in nutrition or augmentation and in regeneration terminus a quo is the sonne of perdition and terminus ad quem is the sonne of God And in nutrition terminus a quo is the hunger and thirst of the man and terminus ad quem is the feeding and satisfying of his hunger and thirst But you appoynt the changes to be Transubstātiatiō and regeneration and the thinges that be changed in Transubstantiation you say is the substance of bread and wine and the same to be terminum a quo and the flesh and bloud of Christ say you is terminus ad quem And in regeneration you assigne terminum a quo to be the soule of man onely and terminum ad quem to be regenerated the sonne of God And so being viii thinges in these ii mutations in each of them the change the thing that is changed the thing from whence it is changed and the thing wherunto it is changed you haue mist the butte clearly in all sauing ii that is to say regeneration and the thing wherunto regeneration is made and in all other vi you missed the quishion quite And yet if the change were in the substance of bread and wine proportionably to the change of the soule being the substance of man as you say if you should make the proportions agree then as the soule being the mans substance remayneth without Transubstantiation so must the bread and wine remayne without transubstantiation And if the substance of the bread and wine be not the visible signe in the lordes supper because substance as you say is a thing inuisible then is not the substance of water the visible signe in baptisme bring no more visible the substance of the one then the substance of the other Now of Hilary I write thus Hilarius also in few wordes sayth the same There is a figure sayth he for bread and wine be outwardly seene And there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued And this Hilarius was within lesse then 350. yeares after Christ. Winchester But I will examine moe particularieties I haue before answered to Hilary so whome neuerthelesse I would aptly haue sayd somewhat now to note how he distincteth outwardly and inwardly by beleefe and corporall sight For outwardly as Emissene sayth we see no change and therfore we see after Consecration as before which we may therfore call bread but we beleue that inwardly is which as Emissene sayth is the substance of the body of Christ wherunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread as by the comparison of Emissene doth appeare Caunterbury YOur distinction made here of outwardly and inwardly is a playne confusion of Hilarius mynd and contrary to that which you wrote before in Emissene For there you sayd that the visible creatures be changed meaning by the visible creatures the substances of bread and wine and now when Hilary sayth that bread and wine be seene you say that their substances be not seene but the outward formes onely which you say be called bread and wine But here appeareth into how narrow a straight you be driuen that be fayne for a shift to say that the accidents of bread without the substance be called bread Epiphanius is next in my booke And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme sayth that the bread is meat but the vertue that is in it is it that giueth life But if there were no bread at all how could it be meate Winchester These wordes of Epiphanius do playnly ouerturne this authors doctrine of a figuratiue speach for a figure can not geue life onely God giueth life and the speach of this Epiphanius of the sacrament doth necessarily imply the very true presence of Christes body author of life And then as often as the author is ouerthrowen in the truth of the presence so often is he by Zuinglius rule ouerthrowen in Transubstantiation As for the name of bread is granted bicause it was so and Transubstantiation doth not take away but it is meate bicause of the visible matter remayning These sayings be sought out by this author onely to wrangle not taken out where the mistery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine therof but onely signified by the way and spoken of vpon occasion the sence wherof faythfull men know otherwise then appeareth at the first readings to the carnall man but by such like speaches the Arrians impugned the diuinity of Christ. Caunterbury Epiphanius speaking of the bread in the Lordes supper and the water in baptisme sayth that they haue no power nor strength of thē selues but by Christ. So that the bread feedeth and the water washeth the body but neither the bread nor water giue life nor purge to saluation but onely the might and power of Christ that is in them And yet not in them reserued but in the action and ministration as it is manifest of his wordes And therfore as in baptisme is neyther the reall and corporall presence of Christes body nor transubstantiation of the water no more is in the Lordes supper eyther Christes flesh and bloud really and corporally present or the bread and wine transubstantiated And therfore Epiphanius calleth not bread by that name bicause it was so but bicause it is so in deede and nourished the body As Hilary sayd there is a figure for bread and wine be openly seene he sayth not there was a figure for bread and wine were openly seene And the figure giueth not life nor washeth not inwardly but Christ that is in the figure tanquam
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
himselfe in his owne wordes But that S. Augustine sayth touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the Sacrament without wresting or writhing may be agreed in couenient vnderstanding with the doctrine of Transubstantiation and therfore is an authority familiar with those writers that affirme Transubstantiation by expresse wordes out of whose quiuer this author hath pulled out his bolt and as it is out of his bow sent turneth backe and hitteth himselfe on the forehead and yet after his fashion by wrong and vntrue translation he sharpened it somewhat not without some punishment of God euidently by the way by his owne wordes to ouerthrow him selfe In the second columne of the 27. leafe and the first of the 28. leafe this author maketh a processe in declaration of heresies in the person of Christ for conuiction wherof this author sayth the olde fathers vsed arguments of two examples in eyther of which examples were two natures togither the one not perishing ne confounding the other One example is in the body and soule of man An other example of the Sacrament in which be two natures an inward heauenly and an outward earthly as in man there is a body and a soule I leaue out this authors owne iudgement in that place and of thée O reader require thine whether those fathers that did vse both these examples to the confutation of heretikes did not beleeue as apeareth by the processe of their reasoning in this poynt did they not I say beleeue that euen as really and as truely as the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truely is the body of Christ which in the Sacrament is the inward inuisible thing as the soule is in the body present in the Sacrament for els and the body of Christ were not as truely and really present in the Sacrament as the soule is in mans body that argument of the Sacrament had not two thinges present so as the argument of the body and soule had wherby to shew how two thinges may be togither without confusion of eyther ech remayning in his nature for if the teaching of this author in other partes of this booke were true than were the Sacrament like a body lying in a traunce whose soule for the while were in heauen and had no two thinges but one bare thing that is to say bread and bread neuer the holier with signification of an other thing so farre absent as is heauen from earth and therfore to say as I probably thinke this part of this second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of this author when he minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Transubstantiation onely and to striue for bread onely which not withstanding the new enterprise of this author to deny the reall presence is so fierce and vehement as it ouerthroweth his new purpose ere he cōmeth in his order in his booke to entreate of For there can no demonstration be made more euident for the catholike fayth of the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then that the truth of it was so certaynly beleued as they tooke Christes very body as verely in the sacrament euen as the soule is present in the body of man Caunterbury WHen you wrote this it is like that you had not considered my third booke wherin is a playne and direct answer to all that you haue brought in this place or els where concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament And how slender proofes you make in this place to proue the reall presence because of the Sacrifice euery man may iudge being neyther your argument good nor your antecedent true For S. Augustine sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ is the sacrifice of the church and if he had so sayd it inferreth not this conclusion that the body of Christ should be really in the bread and his bloud in the wine And although S. Augustine sayth that bread is Christes body yet if you had well marked the 64.65 66. leaues of my booke you should there haue perceaued how S. Augustine declareth at length in what manner of speach that is to be vnderstand that is to say figuratiuely in which speach the thing that signifieth and the thing that is signified haue both one name as S. Ciprian manifestly teacheth For in playne speach without figure bread is not the body of Christ by your owne confession who do say that the affirmation of one substance is the negation of an other And if the bread were made the body of Christ as you say it is then must you needes cōfesse that the body of Christ is made of bread which before you sayd was so foolish a saying as were not tollerable by a scoffer to be deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And seeing that the bread is not adnihilate and consumed into nothing as the schoole authors teach then must it needes follow that the body of Christ is made of the matter of bread for that it is made of the forme of bread I suppose you will not graunt And as touching the second place of S. Augustine he sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ be really in the Sacrament but that in the Sacrifice of the church that is to say in the holy administration of the Lordes supper is both a Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sacrament the Sacrament being the bread and wine and the thing signified and exhibited being the body and bloud of Christ. But S. Augustine sayth not that the thing signified is in the bread and wine to whome it is not exhibited nor is not in it but as in a figure but that it is there in the true ministration of the Sacrament present to the spirite and fayth of the true beleuing man and exhibited truely and indeede and yet spiritually not corporally And what neede any more euident proofes of S. Augustines mynd in this matter how bread is called Christes body then S. Augustines owne wordes cited in the same place where the other is de consecratione dist 2. Hoc est quod dicimus These be S. Augustines wordes there cited Sicut coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum re uera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significanti misterio sic Sacramentum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh after a manner is called the body of Christ where in very deede it is a sacrament of Christes body that is to say of that body which being visible palpable mortall was put vppon the crosse And as that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes
the two natures in the Sacramēt chiefly agaynst the Eutichians to proue that nature of man to cōtinue in Christ after the adunatiō being no absurdity for two differēt natures to cōstitute one person the same two natures remayning in theyr property and that natures to be aliud aliud which signifieth differēt and yet in that not to be alius alius in person which alius and alius in person the Eutichians abhorred and catholiquely for so much agaynst the Nestorians who by reason of two natures would haue two persons and bicause those Nestorians fansied the person of Christ patible to suffer all apart therfore they denied Christ conceyued God or borne God for the abolition of which part of their heresy and to set forth the vnity of Christes person the blessed virgine was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara gods mother which the Nestorians deluded by an exposition graunting she might so be called bicause her sonne they sayd was afterward God and so she might be called gods mother as an other woman may be called a bishops mother if her sonne be made a bishop afterward although he departed no bishop from her And hereof I write thus much bicause it should appeare that Gelasius by his arguments of the Sacrament and of the two natures in man went not about to proue that the godhead remayned in Christ after his incarnation as the author of this booke would haue it for the Nestorian sayd the godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merite and therfore with them there was no talke of remayning when they estemed Christes nature in his conception singuler and onely by gods power conceyued but onely man And agayne the Eutichian so affirmed the continuance of the diuine nature in Christ after the adunation as Gelasius had no cause to proue that was graunted that is to say the remayne of the diuine nature but on the other side to proue the remayne of the humayne nature in Christ which by the Eutichians was by implication rather denyed Nestorius deuided God and man and graunted alwayes both to be in Christ continually but as two persons and the person of Christ being God dwelling within the person of Christ being man and as Christ man encreased so Christ God dignified him and so diuided one Christ into two persons bicause of the two natures so different which was agaynst the rules of our fayth and destroyed therby the mistery of our redemption And the Eutichians affirming catholiquely to be but one person in Christ did perniciously say there was but one nature in Christ accompting by implication the humayne nature transfused into the diuine nature and so confounded And to shew the narrow passage Uigilius spake of Cirillus a catholike author bicause writing of the vnity of Christes person he expressed his meaning by the word nature signifiing the whole of any one constitution which more properly the word person doth expresse The Eutichians would by that word after gather that he fauored their part so taking the word at a vantage And bicause the same Cyrillus vsed the word subsistence to signifie substance and therfore sayd in Christ there were two subsistences meaning the diuine substance and humayne substāce forasmuch as the word subsistence is vsed to expresse the person that as to say hipostasie There were that of that word frowardly vnderstanded would gather hee should say that there were two persons in Christ which was the Nestorians heresie that he impugned Such captiousnes was there in wordes when arrogant men cared not by what meane to mayntayne their errour These were both pernitious heresies and yet subtill and each had a meruailous pretence of the defence of the glory of God euen as is now pretended agaynst the Sacrament And either part abused many scriptures and had notable apparances for that they sayd so as he that were not well exercised in scriptures and the rules of our fayth might be easely circumuented Nestorius was the greate Archebishop of Constantinople vnto whome Cirill that condemneth his heresy writeth that seing he sclandereth the whole Church with his heresie he must resist him although he be a father bicause Christ sayth he that loueth his father aboue me is not worthy me But Nestorius as appeareth although he vsed it ilfauordly had much learning and cloked his heresy craftely denying the grosse matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christes and other specialities layd to his charge and yet condemning the doctrine of Cyrill and professing his owne fayth in his owne termes could not hide his heresie so but it appeareth to bee and contayne in effect that he was charged with and therfore an admonishing was geuen by a catholike writer Beleue not Nestorius though he say he teach but one Christ. If one should heare aske what is this to the purpose to talke so much of these sectes I Answere this knowledge shall generally serue to note the manner of them that goe about to deceaue the world with false doctrine which is good to learne An other speciall seruice is to declare how the author of this booke eyther doth not know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of or els misreporteth them of purpose And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened shall geue light of the truth of the mistery of the Sacrament who agaynst the Eutichians vseth two arguments of examples one of the two different natures to remayne in one person of man and yet the Eutichians defamed that coniunction with remayne of two different natures and called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double nature and Gelasius to enconter that terme sayth they will with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature reserue not one Christ and whole Christ. And if two different natures that is to say soule and body make but one man why not so in Christ For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man that is to shew Gelasius sayth two diuers qualities in the same man not to deuide the same into two men and so intendeth to shew there ought to be no scruple to graunt two different natures to remayne in their propriety for feare that euery diuers nature should make a diuers person and so in Christ diuide the vnity concluding that the integritie of Christ can not be but both the natures different remayning in their property Carnall imagination troubled the Eutichians to haue one person of two such differente natures remayning in their property which the Nestorians releued with deuise of two persons and the Eutichians by confusion of the humayne nature Then commeth Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ and noteth the person of Christ to be a principall mistery and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mistery which sence his wordes must needes haue bicause he calleth Christ the principall mistery and as in one place he sayth the image and
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
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
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
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
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
they alleage it is bread but after the wordes of the consectation it is the body of Christ. For answere herevnto it must be first knowen what consecation is Consecration is the seperation of any thing from a prophane and worldly vse vnto a spirituall and godly vse And therfore when vsuall and common water is taken from other vses and put to the vse of baptisme in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy ghost then it may rightly be called Consecrated water that is to say water put to an holy vse Euen so when common bread and wine be taken and seuered from other bread and wine to the vse of the holy communion that portion of bread and wine although it be of the same substaunce that the other is from the which it is seuered yet it is now called consecrated or holy bread and holy wine Not that the bread and wine haue or can haue any holines in thē but that they be vsed to an holy work and represent holye and godlye thinges And therfore S. Dionise calleth the bread holy bread and the cup an holy cup as soone as they bebe set vpon the aultare to the vse of the holy communion But specially they may be called holy and consecrated when they be seperated to that holy vse by Christes owne wordes which he spake for that purpose saying of the breade This is my bodye And of the wine This is my bloud So that cōmōly the authors before those wordes be spokē do take the bread and wine but as other cōmon bread and wine but after those wordes be pronounced ouer thē then they take thē for consecrated holy bread wine Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holines or godlinesse or can be the body and bloud of Christ but that they represent the very body and bloud of Christ and the holy foode and nourishment which we haue by him And so they be called by the names of the body and bloud of Christ as the signe token and figure is called by the name of the very thing which it sheweth and signifieth And therfore as S. Ambrose in the wordes before cited by the aduersaries saith that before the consecration it is bread and after the consecration it is Christes body so in other places he doth more playnly set forth his meaning saying these wordes Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing but after the consecratiō is signisied the body of christ Likewise before the consecartion it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ. And agayne he sayth When I treated of the sacraments I tolde you that that thing which is offered before the words of Christ is called breade but when the wordes of Christ bee pronounced then it is not called breade but it is called by the name of Christes body By which wordes of S. Ambrose it appereth playnely that the bread is called by the name of Christes body after the consecratiō although it be still bread yet after consecration it is dignified by the name of the thing which it representeth as at length is declared before in the proces of Transubstantiation and specially in the words of Theodoretus And as the bread is a corporall meat and corporally eaten so sayth S. Ambrose is the body of Christ a spirituall meat and spiritually eaten and that requireth no corporall presence Winchester As touching S. Ambrose this author taketh a great enterprise to wrastle with him whose playne and euident words must nedes be a rule to try his other words by if any might be writhed What can be more playnly spoken thē S. Ambrose speaketh whē he sayth these wordes It is bread consecration but after it is Christes body By the word consecration is siguified as it is here placed Gods omnipotent work Wherfore in this place it cōprehendeth asmuch as Emissen said in these wordes he conuerteth by the secret power of his word God is the worker and so consecratiō signifieth the whole action of his omnipotency in working the substance of this high mistery therefore the diffinition of the wordconsecration as it is generally taken can not be a rule to the vnderstanding of it in this high mistery where it is vsed to expres a singular work as the circumstāce of S. Ambrose writing doth declare For as Philip Melancthon writeth to Decolampadius S. Ambrose would neuer haue trauailed to accumulate so many miracles as he doth speaking of this matter to declare Gods omnipotency and he had not thought the nature of bread to be chaunged in this mistery These be Melancthons very wordes Now to aunswere the question as it were at the word change this author shall come with a sacramentall change which is a deuise in termes to blind the rude reader S. Ambrose doth expresse playnly what the change is whē he writeth the wordes before rehersed It is bread before the consecration but after it is the body of Christ. Can a chaunge be more playnely declared The nere way for this author had bene to haue ioyned Ambrose with Clement and called him fayned by the Papistes rather then after the effect of consecration so opened by S. Ambrose himselfe to trauail to proue what it may signify if it were in an other matter And then to admonish the reader how the bread wine haue no holines which forme of speach not vnderstanded of the people engēdreth some scruple that nedeth not being no sound forme of doctrine for S. Paul speaketh teacheth thus that the creatures be sanctified by the word of God prayer and S. Augustine writeth of sanctified bread to be geuen to them that be catechised before they be baptised And this author himselfe expoundeth S. Cyprian in the. 35. leafe of this booke how the diuinity is poured into the bread Sacramentally which is a straunge phrase not expressing there Cyprians minde and far discrepant from the doctrine here And in an other place this author saith that as hote and burning yron is yron still yet hath the force of fyre so the bread wine be turned into the vertue of Christs flesh and bloud By which similitude bread may conceyue vertue as yron conceyueth fyre then as we cal yron burning and fyry so we may call bread vertuous and holy vnles the author would agayn resemble bread to a whetstone that may make sharp and haue no sharpenee in it at all Which matter I declare thus to shew that as this author dissenteth from truth in other so be dissenteth from that he vttereth for truth himselfe and walketh in a maze impugning the very truth in this sacrament and would haue that taken for a Catholick doctrine that is not one and the same doctrine through this whole booke so farre of is it from the whol of Christiā teaching But now
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
popish diuines but the true worshippers of Christ worship him in spirite sitting in his high glory and Maiesty and pluck him not downe from thence corporally to eate him with their teeth but spiritually in hart ascend vp as S. Chrisostō sayth and feede vpon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his father To which spirituall feding is required no bodely presence nor also mouth nor teeth and yet they that receaue any sacrament must adore Christ both before and after sitting in heauen in the glory of his father And this is neyther as you say it is a cold nor grosse teaching of S. Augustine in this place to worship the flesh and humanity of Christ in heauen nor your teaching is not so farre from all doubtes but that you seeme so afrayd your selfe to stand to it that when you haue sayde that Christ is to be worshipped in his humanity as it were to excuse the matter agayne you say you speake not properly And this doctrine of S. Augustine was very necessary for ij considerations One is for the exposition of the Psalme which he tooke in hand to declare where in one verse is commaunded to worship the earth being gods fotestole and this he sayth may be vnderstād in the flesh of Christ which flesh being earth and the foode of faythfull christen people is to be worshipped of all that feede and liue by him For notwithstanding that his flesh is earth of earth and a creature and that nothing ought to be worshipped but God alone yet is found out in Christ the explication of this great doubt and mistery how flesh earth and a creature both may and ought to be worshipped That is to say when earth and flesh being vnited to the godhead in one person is one perfect Iesus Christ both God and man And this is neyther a cold nor grosse saying of S. Augustine but an explication of the diuine and high mistery of his incarnation The other cause why it is necessary both to teach and to exhort men to honor Chistes flesh in heauen is this that some know it not and some doe it not For some heretikes haue taught that Christ was but a man and so not to be honored And some haue sayd that although he be both God and man yet his diuinity is to be honored and not his humanity For extirpation of which errors it is no grosse nor cold saying that Christes flesh in heauen is to be honored And some know right well the whole Christ God and man ought to be honored with one entier and godly honor and yet forgetting them selfe in theyr factes do not according to their knowledge but treading the sonne of God vnder their feete and despising the bloud wherby they were sanctified crucifie agayne the sonne of God and make him a mocking stocke to all the wicked And many professing Christ yet hauing vayne cogitatiōs and phātasies in their heades do worship and serue Antichrist and thinking them selues wise become very fooles in deed And count you it then a cold and a grosse saying that Christ in heauen is to be honored wherin so many olde authors haue trauayled and written so many bookes and wherin all godly teachers trauayle from tyme to tyme And yet bring you here nothing to proue that S. Augustine spake of the reall presence of Christes flesh in the sacramēt and not of Christ being in heauen but this your cold and grosse reason And this will serue to answere also the place here following of S. Ambrose who spake not of the worshipping of Christ onely at the receauing of the sacrament but at all tymes and of all resonable creatures both men and angels Winchester And for the more manifest confirmation that S. Augustine ought thus to be vnderstanded I shall bring in S. Ambrose saying of whome it is probable S. Augustine to haue learned that he writeth in this matter Saynt Ambrose wordes in his booke De spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. be these Non mediocris igitur quaestio ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum Legimus enim alibi Coelum ucihi thronus terra autem scabellum pedum meorum Sed nec terra adoranda nobis quia creatura est dei Videamus tamen ne terrà m illam dicat adorandam Propheta quam Dominus Iesus in carnis assumptione suscepit Itaque per scabellum terrae intelligitur per terram antem caro christi quam hodie quoque in misterys adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu ut supra diximus adorarunt neque enim diuisus Christus sed vnus Which wordes may be englished thus It is therfore no meane question and therfore we should more diligently consider what is the foote stoole For we read in an other place heauen is my throne and the earth the foote stoole of my feete But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of vs bicause it is a creature of God And yet let vs see though least the prophet means that earth to be worshipped which our Lord Iesus tooke in the taking of flesh So then by the footestoole let the earth be vnderstanded and then by the earth the flesh of Christ which we do now worship also in the misteries and which the Apostles as we haue before sayde worshipped in our Lord Iesu for Christ is not deuided but one Hitherto S. Ambrose wherby may appeare how S. Ambrose and S. Augustine tooke occasion to open their fayth and doctrine touching adoration vpon discussion of the selfe same words of the prophet Dauid And S. Ambrose expressely noteth our adoration in the misteries where we worship Christes flesh inuisibly present as the Apostles did when Christ was visibly present with them And thus with these so playne wordes of S. Ambrose consonant to those of S. Augustine and the opening of S. Augustines wordes as before I trust I haue made manifest how this Author trauayleth agaynst the streame and laboreth in vayne to writh S. Augustine to his purpose in this matter The best is in this author that he handleth S. Augustine no worse then the rest but all after one sort bycause they be al of like sort agaynst his new catholique fayth cōfirme the old true Catholique fayth or do not improue it For of this high mistery the authors write some more obscurely and darkely thē other and vse diuersities of speaches and wordes wherwith the true doctrine hath bene of a very few impugned but euer in vayne as I trust in God this shall be most in vayne hauing this author vttered such vntruthes with so much blinde ignorāce as this worke well wayed cōsidered that is to say who made it when he made it of like how many were or might haue bene should haue bene of coūsayle in so great a matter who if they were any be al reproued in this one worke all such circūstāces cōsidered this booke may do as much good to releaue
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