presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament so I trust to shew this author ouerseene in the article of transubstantiation For enter wherunto first I say this that albeit the word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall counsaile where the Bishop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstanding of Christes wordes and was in that counsayle confessed not for the authority of the Bishop of Rome but for the authority of truth being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome but the true doctrine of Christes mistery and therfore in this realme the authority of Rome cessing was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realme in an open counsayle specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath bene repelled yet that doctriue was neuer hitherto by any publique counsayle or any thing set forth by authority empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this author should not improue it by the name of the Bishop of Rome seing we read how truth was vttered by Balsaam and Caiphas also and S. Paule teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or enuy so Christ be preached the person should not empayre the opening of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alow for truth impugning the article of Transubstantiation not meaning therby as this author doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament of the aniter as is afore sayd in the discussion of which truth of Transubstantiation I for my part should be speciall defended by two meanes wherwith to auoyd the enuious name of Papist One is that Zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knowen nor good christen man as some sayd neither sayth playnly writing to Luther in the matter of the Sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament there is of necessity Transubstantiation also Wherfore seing by Luthers trauayle who fauored not the Byshops of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth most certayne and manifest it appeareth that according to the true catholqiue sayth Christ is really present in the sacrament it is now by Zuinglius iudgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is TransubstantiatioÌ„ also which shal be one meane of purgation that I defend not Transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necessity of the truth howsoeuer it liketh Duns or Gabriell to write in it whose sayinges this author vseth for his pleasure An other defence is that this author himselfe sayth that it is ouer great an absurdity to say that bread insensible with many other termes that he addeth should be the body of Christ and therfore I thinke that the is that is to say the inward nature and essence of that Christ deliuered in his supper to be eaten and dronken was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine and therfore can well agree with this author that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christ nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter which considerations will enforce him that beleueth the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body as the true catholique â—ayth teacheth to assent to Transubstantiation not as determined by the church of Rome but as a consequent of truth beleued in the mistery of the Sacrament which Transubstantiation how this author would impugne I will without quarell of enuious wordes consider and with true opening of his handeling the matter doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth agaynst the truth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I heard this Author if he be the same that is named once reherse more seriously in a solemne and open audience to the conuiction and condemnation as followed of one that erroniously mayntayned agaynst the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholique fayth Caunterbury IN this booke which answereth to my second booke rather with taunting wordes then with matter I will answere the chief poyntes of your intent and not contend with you in scolding but will geue you place therin First I charge none with the name of papistes but that be well worthy therof For I charge not the hearers but the teachers not the learners but the inuenters of the vntrue doctrine of Transubstantiation not the kinges faythfull subiects but the Popes darlinges whose fayth and belefe hangeth of his onely mouth And I call it their doctrine not onely bycause they teach it but bycause they made it and were the first fynders of it And as in the third booke concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament you haue not shewed myne ignorance or wilfulnes but your owne so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation Which word say you albeit the same was fyrst spoken of in the generall counsell where the Byshop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older Here at the first brunt you confesse that the name of Transubstantiation was giuen at the counsell So that either the matter was not before as it was not in deed or at the least it was before a namelesse child as you do graunt vntill the holy father Innocent the thyrd which begat it assembled a company of his frendes as godfathers to name the child And by what authority the counsayle defined the matter of Transubstantiation it may easely appeare For authority of scripture haue they none nor none they do alleadge And what the authority of the Pope was there all men may see being present in the same no lesse then .800 Abbottes and Priours who were all the Popes owne chyldren of him created and begotten And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realme in an open counsell the authority of Rome ceasing you speake here a manifest vntruth wittingly agaynst your conscience For you know very well and if you will denie it there be enough yet aliue can testify that diuers of the clergy being of most godly liuing learning and iudgement neuer consented to the articles which you speake of And what meruayle was it that those articles notwithstanding diuers learned men repugning passed by the most voyces of the Parliament seing that although the authority of Rome was then newely ceased yet the darkenes and blindnes of errours and ignoraunte that came from Rome still remayned and ouershadowed so this Realme that a great number of the Parliament had not yet theyr eyes opened to see the truth And yet how that matter was enforced
sunne and the moone of a man and a beast of fish and flesh betwene the body of one beast and an other one herbe and an other one tree an other betwene a man and a woman Yea betwene our body and Christes and generally betwene any one corporall thing and an other For is not the distinction of all bodely substances knowen by their accidents without the which a mans body can not be knowen to be a mans body And as substances can not be substances without accidents so the nature of accidentes can not be without substāces whose being deffinitiō is to be in substāces But as you speake of substances and accidentes agaynst scripture sense reason experience and all learning so doe you also speake manifestly agaynst your selfe For you say that euery thing that is must haue a substance wherein it is stayde and that euery naturall visible thing is of two partes of substance and accidentes and yet by your Transubstantiation you leaue no substance at all to stay the accidentes of the bread and wine And moreouer this is a meruaylous teaching of you to say that the accidents of bread be one parte of breade and be called the outward kinde of bread the sensible parte of bread the nature and matter of bread and very bread Was there euer any such learning taught before this day that accidentes should be called partes of substances the nature of substances and the matter of substances and the very substāces themselues If euer any man so wrotte tell who it is or els knowledge the truth that all these matters be inuented by your owne imagination wherof the rude man may right well say Here is sophistry in deede and playne iuggling But you conuey not your iuggling so craftely but that you be taken as the Grekes terme it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen with the māner Now as concerning your expert lapidarie if his sences be deceaued how shall he iudge a true stone from a counterfaite Doth he not diligently looke vpon it with his sight to discerne truely of it For tell me I pray you how a man without sences shall iudge a true diamond Put out his eyes and is not a white saphire a diamond and a glas all one in his iudgemēt Mary if he be a man of cleare sight of true knowledge and experience in the iudgement of stones and be therewithall a man of good fayth and honesty as you tell the tale they that be ignorant will be ashamed to controll his iudgement But if he be blinde or be a man neither of fayth nor honesty but his experience hath ben euer exercised to deceaue all that trust him and to sell them white saphirs for diamondes then no man that wise is will take a glas or saphire at his handes of trust although he say it be a true diamond Euen so likewise the Papistes being so accustomed with these marchandises of glistering glasses and counterfayte drugges to deceaue the world what wise men will trust them with their fayned Transubstantiation being so manifestly agaynst the playne wordes of scripture agaynst all reason sence and auncient writers And although you haue taken neuer so great labor and paynes in this place to answere myne argumentes wherin you do nothing els but shew your ignorance in philosophy and logike yet all is in vayne except you could proue Transubstantiation to be a matter of our fayth which being not proued all that you haue spoken here serueth to no purpose nor concludeth nothing For you are not so ignorant in sophistry but you know well though that of a false Antecedent can no Consequent directly follow And as concerning these wordes of Christ This is my body by your owne teaching in these wordes he called bread his body which can be no formall and proper speach but spoken by a figure as the order of the text playnly declareth and all the old authors do testify And where you say that although the substance of bread and wine be gone yet the sences haue their proper obiect still remayning as they had before that is to say the colours greatnes thicknes weight sauour and tast expresse thē I pray you playnly what thing it is that is coloured great thinne or thicke heauy or light sauoury or tasted For seing you confesse that these do remayn you must confesse also that there remayneth bread For that greatnes thicknes thinnes colours and weight be not in the body of Christ nor in the ayre which can not be wayed and in some thing they must nedes be for by your owne saying euery thing hath a substance to stay it therfore they must nedes be in the substance of bread and wine And to say that the accidents of bread be the natures matters and substances therof is nothing els but to declare to the world that you make wordes to signify at your pleasure But other shift haue you none to defend your Transubstantiation but to deuise such monstrous kindes of speaches as neuer was heard of before For you say that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine remayne not but be changed into the body and bloud of Christ the olde writers say directly contrary that the nature matter and substance remayne Christ sayth Theodoret called bread and wine his body and bloud and yet changed not their natures And agayne he sayth The bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substance forme and figure which they had before And Origene sayth that the matter of bread auayleth nothing but as concerning the materiall part therof it goeth downe into the bealy and is auoyded downward And Gelasius sayth that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be Now seeing that your doctrine who teach that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine be changed and remayne not is as cleane contrary to these olde writers with many other as black is contrary to white and light to darknes You haue no remedy to defend your errour and wilfull opinion but to imagine such portentuous and wonderfull kindes of speaches to be spoken by these authors as neuer were vttered before by no man that is to say that the outward aparance and accidences of any thing should be called the nature matter and substance therof But such monsters had you rather bring forth then you would in one iote relent in your errour once by you vttered and vndertaken by you defended And yet bring you nothing for the profe of your saying but that if the authors wordes should be vnderstand as they be spoken this should follow thereof that bread and wine should be seene and felt which as no man doubteth of but all men take it for a most certayne truth so you take it for a greate inconuenience and absurdity So farre be you forced in this matter to vary in speach and iudgement from the sentence and opinion of all men And
as 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
mysterie of Christes incarnation the humanitie is extinguished by the presence of his Godhead and so there remayneth no more but the substaunce of his diuinitie as the Eutichians sayd And thus the similitude of Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete ioyned to the saying of the Papistes frameth a good Argument for the heretickes But those Authours framed their Argumēt cleane cōtrary on this wise that the bread and wyne be not transubstantiate or extinguished but continue still in their owne substaunces figures fashion and all naturall proprieties and therfore doth the humanitie of Christ likewise endure and remayne in proper substaunce with his naturall proprieties without extinction or transubstantiation For those Authours take no bread and wyne for the visible proprieties onely of bread and wyne but for very true bread and wyne with all their naturall qualities and conditions And the heretickes shall soone finde out your cauillation where to auoyde the matter you say that the mysterie of the Sacrament requireth not the truth of the substaunce For why should the Authours bryng them forth to proue the truth of the substaunce in Christ if there were no true substaunce in them Thus all your shiftes and Sophistications be but wynde or colours cast ouer the truth to bleare mens eyes which colours rubbed of the truth appeareth cleare and playne And your first marke is not clearely put out but turned to a marke spectacle for your selfe wherin you may clearely see your owne errour and how foule you haue bene deceaued in this matter and open your eyes if God will geue you grace to put away your inducate hart to see the cleare truth Winchester An other certaine token is the wondryng and great marueling that the old authors make how the substaunce of this Sacrament is wrought by Gods omnipotencie Baptisme is marueiled at for the wonderfull effect that is in man by it how man is regenerate not how the water or the holy Ghost is there But the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures how they be so chaunged into the body bloud of Christ which is a worke wrought of God before we receiue the Sacrament Which worke Cyprian sayth is ineffable that is to say not speakeable which is not so if it be but a figure for then it may be easely spoken as this authour speaketh it with ease I thinke he speaketh it so often of a presence by signification if it may so be called euery man may speake and tell how but of the very presence in déede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament no creature can tell how it may be that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body and therewith continually reignyng there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in déede which Christ in déede worketh being neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen as S. Chrisostome doth with a maruaile say If the maruaile were onely of Gods worke in man in the effect of the Sacrament as it is in Baptisme it were an other matter but I sayd before the wonder is in the worke of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receiued which declareth the old authours that so wonder to vnderstand the reall presence of Christes very body and not an onely signification which hath no wonder at all And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it and calleth the worke ineffable S. Chrisostome wondreth at it S. Ambrose wondreth at it Emissene wondreth at it Cyrill wondreth at it What should we now doubt whether their sayth were of a signification onely as this authour would haue it which is no wonder at all or of the reall presence which is in déede a wonderfull worke Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the old fathers there can no construction of sillables or wordes disswade or peruert the truth thus testified Caunterbury AS touchyng this your second marke in the ministration of the Sacramentes aswell of the Lordes holy Supper as of Baptisme God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receauers not in the outward visible signes For it is the person Baptised that is so regenerate that he is made a new creature without any reall alteration of the water And none otherwise it is the Lordes Supper for the bread wine remaine in their former substaunce neither be fed nor nourished yet in the man that worthely receiueth them is such a wonderfull nourishmēt wrought by the mighty power of God that he hath thereby euerlasting life And this is the ineffable worke of God wherof Cyprian speaketh So that aswell in the Lords Supper as in Baptisme the marueilous workyng of God passing the comprehension of all mans wit is in the spirituall receiuers not in the bread wine water nor in the carnall vngodly receauers For what should it auayle the liuely members of Christ that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures But in his members he is present not figuratiuely but effectually and effectually and ineffably worketh in them nourishyng and feedyng them so wonderfully that it passeth all wittes and toungues to expresse And neuerthelesse corporally he is ascended into heauen and there shall tarry vntill the world shall haue an end And therfore sayth Chrisostome that Christ is both gone vp into heauen and yet is here receaued of vs but diuersly For he is gone vp to heauen carnally is here receaued of vs spiritually And this wonder is not in the woorkyng of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receaued as you fayne it to be nor in thē that vnworthely receaue it carnally but in them that receaue Christ spiritually beyng nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated that they may be fed of the same thyng wherof they be regenerated and so be throughly Os ex ossibus eius caro ex carne eius Bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh And consideryng deepely this matter Cyprian wondreth as much at Gods worke in Baptisme as in the Lordes Supper Chrisostome wondreth as much Emissene wondreth as much Cyrill wondreth as much all Catholicke writers wonder as much as well how God doth spiritually regenerate vs to a new lyfe as how he doth spiritually feede and nourish vs to euerlastyng lyfe And although these thyngs be outwardly signified vnto vs by the Sacramentall bread wine and water yet they be effectually wrought in vs by the omnipotent power of God Therefore you had neede to seeke out some other marke or token for your purpose for this serueth nothyng at all For by his wonderfull workyng Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine then in the water of Baptisme Winchester A thyrd token there is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierome when he declareth vpon the Epistle Ad Titum so aduisedly at lēgth how Panes propositionis
body from his spirite affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite and in the communion but his flesh And that Christes spirit renueth our life but increaseth it not and that his flesh increceth our life but geueth it not And agaynst all nature reasō and truth you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christes body and bloud in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all And against scripture and all comformity of nature you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacrament that you leaue no distinction proportion nor fashion of mannes body at all And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother of the true doctrine of Christ that thus vnnaturally speaketh deuydeth and confoundeth Christes body If Salomon were aliue he would surely geue iudgement that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh so vnnaturally and so vnlike his mother and be geuen to the true church of the faithful that neuer digressed from the truth of Gods word nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body but speake according to the same that Christes body although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body occupying one place and being of a certayne height and measure hauing all members distinct and set in good order and proportion And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye is not only the beginning but also the contynuance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life By him we be regenerated by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature as Christ doth in his without mixtion or confusion This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother and like a true and right beleeuing christian man Marye of that doctrine which you teach I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof which in scripture is called Babilō because of commixtion or confusion Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth superstition with religiō godlines with hipocrisie scripture with traditions that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant to confound all the doctrine of Christ yea Christ him selfe shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother and the true naturall mother of Antichrist And for the conclusion of your matter here I doubt not but the indifferent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts sleightes shiftes obliquities manifest vntruthes it may be easely iudged that what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet nothing is lesse intended then that truth should ether haue victory or appeare and be seene at all Winchester And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes which this author is not afraid to vtter a matter wonderfull considering his dignity if he that is named be the author in déede which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth First I will note vnto the reader how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament to be the faith of the papistes which saying what foundacion it hath thou mayest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish defended stoutly the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in England in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gospels professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany where Hosiander is chiefe preacher in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the word truly is there and as Buter saith that is substancially Which Catechisme was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from the beginning alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene Ciprian Chrisostome Hillary Cirill Ambrose and Theophilacte which authors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to idle wittes with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estéemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is published abroad in printe wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse and that in it is dispensed the true body true bloud of Christ which is plainly the same in essence that is to say substāce and the same bloud in essence signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye taken for no papist among vs to much estéemed as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Ciprian Hilary Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basill Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iudgement he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words this is my body rehearsed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what
occasions men haue erred in reading the old fathers and wisheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error would also folow him in repentance I will not reader encombre thée with mo wordes of Erasmus Peter Martyr of Oxford taken for no Papist in a treatise he made of late of the Sacrament which is now translated into Englishe sheweth how as touching the real presence of Christes body it is not only the sentence of the papistes but of other also whom the sayd Peter neuerthelesse doth with as many shiftes and lyes as he may impugne for that point as well as he doth the Papistes for transubstantiation but yet he doth not as this author doth impute that fayth of the reall presence of Christs body and bloud to the only Papistes Wherupon Reader here I ioyne with the author an issue that the faith of the reall and substantiall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament is not the deuise of Papistes or their faith only as this author doth considerately slaunder it to be and desire therfore that according to Salamons iudgement this may serue for a note and marke to geue sentence for the true mother of the child For what should this mean so without shame openly and vntruely to call this fayth papishe but only with the enuious word of Papist to ouermatche the truth Caunterbury THis explication of the true catholicke fayth noteth to the Reader certayn euident manifest vntruthes vttered by me as he sayth which I also pray thee good reader to note for this intent that thou mayst take the rest of my sayinges for true which he noteth not for false doubtles they should not haue escaped noting as wel as the other if they had bin vntrue as he sayth the other be And if I can proue these thinges also true whichhe noteth for manyfest and euident vntruthes then mee thinketh it is reason that all my sayinges should be allowed for true if those be proued true which only be reiected as vntrue But this vntruth is to be noted in him generally that he either ignorantly mistaketh or willingly misreporteth almost all that I say But now note good Reader the euident and manyfest vntruthes which I vtter as he sayth The first is that the faith of the reall presence is the fayth of the papistes An other is that these wordâ—s my flesh is verely meate I doe translate thus My flesh is very meate An other is that I handle not sincerely the words of S. Augustine speaking of the eating of Christes body The fourth is that by these wordes this is my body Christ inteÌ„deth not to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receiue that worthely be members of Christes body These be the haynous and manifest errors which I haue vttered As touching the first that the faith of the real and substancial presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is the faith of the papistes this is no vntruth but a most certain truth For you confesse your selfe and defend in this booke that it is your faith and so do likewise all the papistes And here I will make an issue with you that the papistes beleeue the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament Aunswere me directly without colour whether it be so or not If they beleeue not so then they beleeue as I doe for I beleeue not so and then let them openly confesse that my belief is true And if they beleeue so then say I true when I say that it is the papistes faith And then is my saying no manifest vntruth but a meere truth so the verdict in the issue passeth vpon my side by your own confession And here the Reader may note well that once again you be faine to flye for succor vnto M. Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Aepinus whose names were wonte to be so hatefull vnto you that you coulde neuer with patience abide the hearing of them yet their sayinges helpe you nothing at all For although these men in this many other thinges haue in times past and yet peraduenture some doe the vayle of olde darcknes not cleerly in euery point remoued from their eyes agree with the papistes in part of this matter yet they agree not in the wholl and therfore it is true neuerthelesse that this fayth which you teache is the Papistes faith For if you would conclude that this is not the Papistes faith because Luther Bucer other beleue in many things as the papists do theÌ„ by the same reasoÌ„ you may conclude that the papists beleeue not that Christ was borne crucified dyed rose again ascended into heaueÌ„ which things Luther Bucer the other coÌ„stantly doth taught beleeued and yet the faith of the real preseÌ„ce may be called rather the fayth of the papists then of the other not only because the papists do so beleue but specially for that the papists were the first authors and inuentors of that faith and haue been the chief spreaders abroad of it and were the cause that other were blinded with the same error But here may the Reader note one thing by the way that it is a foule cloute that you would refuse to wipe your nose withal when you take such men to proue your matter whom you haue hetherto accounted moste vile and filthy heretickes And yet now you be glad to flye to them for succour whom you take for Gods enemyes and to whom you haue euer had a singular hatred You pretende that you stay your selfe vpon auncyent wryters And why runne you now to such men for ayde as be not onely new but also as you thinke be euill and corrupt in iudgement And to such as thinke you by your writinges and doinges as ranke a Papiste as is any at Rome And yet not one of these new men whom you alleadge doe throughlye agree with your doctrine either in transubstantiation or in carnall eating and drinking of Christes flesh and bloud or in the sacrifice of Christ in the masse nor yet throughlye in the reall presence For they affirme not suche a grosse presence of Christes body as expelleth the substance of bread and is made by conuersion therof into the substance of Christes body and is eaten with the mouth And yet if they did the auncyent authors that were next vnto Christs time whom I haue alleadged may not geue place vnto these new men in this matter although they were men of excellent learning and iudgement how so euer it liketh you to accept them But I may conclude that your faith in the Sacrament is popish vntill such time as you can proue that your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence was vniuersally receaued and beleeued before the bishops of Rome defined and determined the same And when you haue prooued that then will I graunt that in your first note you haue conuinced me of an euident
foūd this matter so fully prooued that he neither is nor neuer shal be able to answere thereto For I haue alleadged the scripture I haue alleadged the consent of the old writers holy fathers and martirs to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud For the Euangelistes speaking of the Lords supper say that he took bread blessed it brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body and of the wine he sayd Take this deuide it among you drinke it this is my bloud I haue alleadged Irene saying that Christ confessed bread to be his body and the cup to be his bloud I haue cyted Tertulliā who sayth in many places that Christ called bread his body I haue brought in for the same purpose Cyprian who sayth that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he named his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes I haue written the wordes of Epiphanius which be these that Christ speakinge of a loafe which is round in fashion and can neither see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierom writing ad Hedibiam sayth that Christ called the bread which he brake his body And S. Augustine sayth that Iesus called meate his body and drinke his bloud And Cyrill sayth more plainly that Christ called the peeces of bread his body And last of all I brought forth Theodorete whose saying is this that when Christe gaue the holy mysteries he called bread his body and the cuppe mixt with wine and water he called his bloud All these Authors I alleadged to prooue that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud Which because they speak the thinge so plainly as nothing can be more and Smith seeth that he can deuise nothinge to answere these Authors like a wily fox he stealeth away by them softly as he had a flea in his eare saying nothing to all these authors but that they proue not my purpose If this be a sufficient answere let the Reader be iudge for in such sort I could make a short answere to Smithes whol booke in this one sentence that nothing that he sayth proueth his purpose And as for proofes of his saying Smith hath vtterly none but onely this fond reason That if Christ had called bread his body then should bread haue been crucified for vs because Christ added these words this is my body which shal be geuē to death for you If such wise reason shall take place a man may not take a loafe in his hand made of wheate that came out of Danske and say this is wheate that grew in Danske but it must follow that the loafe grew in Danske And if the wife shall say this is butter of my own cow Smith shall proue by this speach that her mayd milked butter But to this fantasticall or rather frantike reason I haue spoaken more in mine aunswere to Smithes preface How be it you haue taken a wiser way then this graunting that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud but adding thereto that Christs calling was making Yet here may they that be wise learn by the way how euil fauoredly you and Smith agree among your selues And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answere vnto the Authors by me alleadged in this parte I may iustly require that for lacke of answere in time and place where he ought to haue answered he may be condemned as one that standeth mute And being condemned in this his chiefe demur he hath after nothing to answere at al. For this foundation being ouerthrown all the rest falleth down withall Wherefore now will I returne to aunswere you in this matter which is the last of the euident and manyfest vntruthes wherof you appeach me I perceaue here how vntoward you be to learn the truth being brought vp all your life in Papisticall errors If you could forget your law which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth and specially the Canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of Gods word you should be much more apte to vnderstand and receaue the secretes of holy scripture But before those scales fall from your sawlish eyes you neither can nor will perceaue the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christes body bloud But yet I shall doe as much as lyeth in me to teach and instruct you as occasion shall serue so that the fault shall be either in your euill bringing vp altogether in popery or in your dulnes or frowardnes if you attaine not true vnderstanding of this matter Where you speake of the miraculous workinge of Christ to make bread his body you must first learne that the bread is not made really Christes body nor the wine his bloud but sacramētally And the miraculous working is not in the bread but in them that duely eate the bread and drink that drink For the marueylous worke of God is in the feeding and it is Christen people that be fed and not the bread And so the true confession and beleefe of the vniuersall Church from the beginning is not such as you many times affirme but neuer can proue for the Catholicke church acknowledgeth no such diuision betweene Christes holy flesh and his spirite that life is renued in vs by his holy spirite and increased by his holy flesh but the true fayth confesseth that both be done by his holy spirite and flesh iointly together as well the renouation as the increace of our life Wherfore you diminish here the effect of baptisme wherin is not geuen only Christes spirite but wholl Christ. And herein I will ioyne an issue with you And you shall finde that although you thinke I lacke law where with to follow my plea yet I doubt not but I shall haue helpe of Gods word inough to make al men perceiue that you be but a simple diuine so that for lacke of your proofes I doubt not but the sentence shall be geuen vpon my side by all learned and indifferent iudges that vnderstand the matter which is in controuersy betweene vs. And where you say that we must represse our thoughtes and imaginations and by reason of Christes omnipotency iudge his intent by his wil it is a most certayne truth that Gods absolute and determinate wil is the chiefe gouernour of all thinges and the rule wherby all things must be ordered and therto obey But where I pray you haue you any such will of Christ that he is really carnally corporally naturally vnder the formes of bread and wine There is no such will of Christ set forth in the scripture as you pretend by a false vnderstanding of these wordes this is my body Why take you then so boldly vpon you to say that this is Christs will and intent when you haue no warrant in scripture to beare you It is not a sufficient
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
most certayne truth that Christs body is not made of bread And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place why stand you not constantly therin but goe from it againe in all the rest of your booke defending the Papisticall doctrine cleane contrary to yours in this pointe in that they teach that Christes body is made of bread And you varry so much from your selfe herein that although you deny the Papistes sayinges in wordes that Christes body is made of bread yet in effect you graunt and maintayn the same which you say is intollerable and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play For you say that Christ calleth bread his body and that his calling is making And then if he make bread his body it must needes follow that he maketh his body of the bread moreouer you say that Christes body is made present by conuersion or turning of the substance of bread into the substance of his precious bodye where of must follow that his body is made of bread For when so euer one substāce is turned into another thē the second is made of the first As because earth was turned into the body of Adam we say that Adam was made of earth and that Eue was made of Adams ribbe And the wine in Galily made of water because the water was turned into wine and the ribbe of Adames side into the body of Eue. If the water had beene put out of the pottes and wine put in for the water we might haue saide that the wine had been made present there where the water was before But then we might not haue said that the wine had been made of the water because the water was emptied out and not turned into wine But when Christ turned the water into the wine then by reason of that turning we say that the wine was made of the water So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ his body we must not only say that the body of Christ is present where the bread was before but also that it is made of the bread because that the substance of the bread is conuerted and turned into the substaunce of his bodye Which thing the papists saw must needes follow and therfore they plainly confessed that the body of Christ was made of bread which doctrine as you truely say in this place is intollerable and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play when his fellow had forgotten his parte And yet you so far forget your selfe in this booke that throughout the same what so euer you say here you defend the same intollerable doctrin not to be deuised by a scoffer And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lye that I say that the Papistes say that Christes body is made of bread and wine Here Smith and you agree both together in one lye For it is truth and no lye that the Papistes so say and teach as Smith in other parts of his booke saith that Christes body is made of bread and that priestes doe make Christes body My 12. comparison is this They say that the masse is a Sacrifice satisfactory for sinne by the deuotion of the Priest that offreth and not by the thing that is offered But we say that their saying is a most haynous yea and detestable error against the glory of Christ for the satisfaction for our sinnes is not the deuotion nor offering of the Priest but the only host and satisfactiō for all the sinnes of the world is the death of Christ and the oblation of his body vpon the Crosse that is to say The oblation that Christ him selfe offred once vpon the crosse and neuer but once not neuer any but he And therfore that oblation which the Priestes make dayly in their papisticall masses cannot be a satisfaction for other mennes sinnes by the Priests deuotion but it is a mere illusion and suttle crafte of the Deuil wherby Antichrist hath many yeares blinded and deceiued the world Winchester This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament which presence this author in the first part of his comparison semeth by implication to graunt when he findeth fault that the priestes deuotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory and not the thing that is offered which maner of doctrine I neuer read I thinke my selfe it ought to be improued if any such there be to make the deuotion of the Priest a satisfaction For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully who hath payd our wholl debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his iust wrath againste vs and hath cancelled the bill obligatory as S Paul saith that was against vs. For further opening whereof if it be asked how he satisfied we answere as we be taught by the Scriptures By the accomplishment of the will of his Father in his innocent willing obedient suffering the miseries of this world without sinne and the violent persecution of the world euen to the death of the Crosse and sheading of his most precious bloud Wherein was perfited the willing Sacrifice that he made of him selfe to God the Father for vs of whom it was written in the beginning of the booke that he should lie the body and perfectt accomplishment of all Sacrifices as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadowes and figures And here is to be considered how the obedient will in Christes Sacrifice is specially to be noted who suffered because he would Which S. Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christes humility And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on the crosse to the which it continued from the beginning by reason wherof the oblatiō is in S. Paules spéech attributed thereunto Yet as in the Sacrifice of Abraham when he offered Isaac the earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering in déede whereupon it is said in Scripture that Abraham offered Isaac and the declaration of the will of Abraham is called the offering So the declaration of Christes will in his last Supper was an offering of him to God the Father assuring there his Apostles of his will and determination and by them all the world that his body should be betrayed for them and vs and his precious bloud shed for remission of sinne which his word he confirmed then with the gifte of his precious body to be eaten and his precious bloud to be dronken In which mistery he declared his body and bloud to be the wery Sacrifice of the world by him offered to God the father by the same will that he said hid body should be betrayed for vs. And thereby ascertained vs that to be in him willing that the Iewēs on the crosse séemed to execute by violence and force against his will And therfore as Christ offred himself on the crosse in the execution of the worke of his will so he offered himself in his Supper in
also in the middest of them that know him not and thus he reasoneth If he be here among vs still how can he be gone hence as a straunger departed into another countrey wherunto he answereth that Christ is both God and man hauing in him two natures And as a man he is not with vs vnto the worldes end nor is present with all his faihtfull that be gathered together in his name But his diuine power and spirite is euer with vs. Paule saith he was absent from the Corinthes in his body when he was present with thē in his spirite So is Christ sayth he gone hence and absent in his humanitie which in his diuine nature is euery where And in this saying sayth Origen we diuide not his humanitie ` for S. Iohn writeth that no spirite that deuideth Iesus can be of God but we reserue to both his natures their own properties In these wordes Origen hath playnly declared his mynd that Christes body is not both present here with vs and also gone hence and estranged from vs. For that were to make two natures of one body and to deuide the body of Iesus forasmuch as one nature can not at one tyme be both with vs and absēt from vs. And therefore sayth Origen that the presence must be vnderstanded of his diuinitie and the absence of his humanitie And according hereunto S. Austine writeth thus in a pistle Ad dardanum Doubt not but Iesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there from whence he shall come And remember well and beleeue the profession of a christian man that he rose frō death ascended into heauen sitteth at the right hand of his father and from that place and none other shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead And he shall come as the Aungels sayd as he was seene go into heauen that is to say in the same forme and substance vnto the which he gaue immortallytie but chaunged not nature After this forme sayth he meaning his mans nature we may not thynke that he is euery wher For we must beware that we doe not so stablish his diuinity that we take away the veritie of his body These be S. Augustines playne wordes And by and by after he addeth these wordes The Lord Iesus as God is euery where and as man is in heauen And finally he concludeth this matter in these few wordes Doubt not but our Lord Iesus Christ is euery where as God and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God and he is in a certain place in heauen because of the measure of a very body And agayne S. Augustin writeth vpon the Gospel of S. Iohn Our sauiour Iesus Christ sayth S. Augustine is aboue but yet his truth is here His body wherein he arose is in one place but his truth is spred euery where And in an other place of the same booke S. Augustine expounding these wordes of Christ. You shall euer haue poore men with you but me you shall not euer haue saith that Christ spake these words of the presence of his body For saith he as concerning his diuine maiesty as concerning his prouidence as concerning his infallible and inuisible grace these words be fulfilled which he spake I am with you vnto the worldes ende But as concerning the fleshe which he tooke in his carnation as concerning that which was borne of the virgine as concerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vpon a tree and taken downe frō the crosse lapped in linnen clothes and buried and rose againe and appered after his resurrection as concerning that flesh he sayd You shall not euer haue me with you Wherefore senig that as concerning his flesh he was conuersant with his disciples forty dayes and they accompanying seeing and not following him he went vp into heauen both he is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of his father and yet he is here for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his diuine Maiesty As concerning the presence of his Maiesty we haue Christ euer with vs but as concerning the presence of his flesh he said truely to his disciples ye shall not euer haue me with you For as concerning the presence of his flesh the church had Christ but a few dayes yet now it holdeth him fast by faith though it see him not with eyes All these be S. Augustines wordes Also in an other booke intitled to S. Augustine is written thus We must beleeue and confesse that the Sonne of God as concerning his diuinitie is inuisible without a body immortall and in circumscriptible but as concerning his humanitie we ought to beleeue and confesse that he is visible hath a body and it contayned in a certayn place and hath truely all the members of a man Of these wordes of S. Augustine it is most cleere that the profession of the catholick faith is that Christ as concerning his bodely substance and nature of man is in heauen and not present here with vs in earth For the nature and property of a very body is to be in one place and to occupy one place and not to be euery where or in many places at one time And though the body of Christ after his resurrectiō and ascention was made immortall yet this nature was not taken away for then as S. Augustine saith it were no very body And further S. August sheweth both the maner fourme how Christ is here present with vs in earth how he is absent saying that he is present by his diuine nature and maiesty by his prouidence by grace But by his humain nature and very body he is absent from this world and present in heauen Cyrillus likewise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn agreeth fully with S. Augustin saying Although Christ tooke away from hence the presence of his body yet in Maiestie of hys Godhead he is euer here as he promised to his disciples at his departing saying I am with you euer vnto the worldes end And in an other place of the same booke saynct Cyrill sayth thus Christian people must beleeue that although Christ be absent from vs as concerning hys body yet by his power he gouerneth vs and all thinges and is present with all them that loue hym Therfore he sayd Truely truely I say vnto you where so euer there be two or three gathered together in my name there am I in the middes of them For lyke as when he was conuersant here in earth as a man yet then he filled heauen and did not leaue the company of angelles euē so beyng now in heauen with hys flesh yet he filleth the earth and is in them that loue hym And it is to be marked that although Christ should go away onely as concerning hys flesh for he is euer present in the power of hys diuinitie yet for a little time he sayd he would be with hys disciples
these wordes Let vs marke that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his disciples was the body of our Sauiour Christ as he sayd vnto them Take and eate this is my body And S. Augustine also sayth that although we may set forth Christ by mouth by writing and by the sacrament of his body and bloud yet we call neither our toung nor words nor inke letters nor paper the body and bloud of christ but that we call the body and bloud of Christ which is taken of the fruite of the earth and consecrated by misticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meat his body and drynke his bloud Moreouer Cyrill vpon S. Iohn saith that Christ gaue to his disciples peces of bread saying Take eate this is my body Likewise Theoderetus saith When Christ gaue the holy misteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wine and water he called his bloud By all these foresayd authours and places whith many mo it is playnly proued that when our sauiour Christ gaue bread vnto his Disciples saying Take and eate this is my body And likewise when he gaue them the cuppe saying Diuide this among you and drinke you all of this for this is my bloud he called then the very materiall bread his body and the very wine his bloud That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth among vs and that groweth out of the earth and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower and mixed with water and so baken aud made into bread of such sort as other our bread is that hath neither sence nor reason and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies such bread Christ called his body when he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togither and thereof is made drinke whiche nourishe the body such wine he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by the holy scripture as by all auncient authours of Christes Church both Greekes and Latines that is to say that whē our Sauiour Christ gaue bread and wine to his disciples spake these words This is my body This is my bloud it is very bread wine which he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shew some authority for their opinion either of scripture or of some aunciant author And let them not constrayne all men to follow their fond deuises only because they say It is so without any other groūd or authoritie but their owne bare wordes For in such wise credite is to be geuen to Gods word only and not to the word of any man As many of them as I haue red the byshop of Winchester onely excepted do say that Christ called not bread his body nor wine his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud And yet in expoūding these wordes they vary among them selues which is a token that they be vncertaine of their own doctrine For some of them say that by this pronoune demonstratiue this Christe vnderstoode not the bread and wine but his body and bloud And other some say that by the pronoune this he ment neither the bread nor wine not his body nor bloud but that he ment a particuler thyng vncertain which they call Indiuiduum vagum or Indiuiduum in genere I trowe some Mathematicall quiditee they can not tell what But let all these Papistes togyther shew any one authoritie eyther of scripture or of auncient author either Greke or Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall gyue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely theyr own bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the trueth confirmed by so many authorities bothe of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloude Winchester After this the author occupieth a great number of leaues that is to say from the lvii leafe vnto the lxxiiii to proue Christs words This is my body to be a figuratiue spech Sleight and shift is vsed in the matter without any offectuall consecution to him that is learned First the author sayth Christ called bread his body Confessed bread his body To this is aunswered Christes calling is a making as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non sunt tanque ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his calling as Chrisostome and the greke commentaries say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth trnslated by Iustus Ionas in Germany and after by this author in english Tertullian saith Christ made bread his body it is all one spech in Christ being god declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the word call or make for in his mouth to call is to make Cypryan saith according hereunto how 's bread is by Gods omnipotency made fleshe whereupon also this spech bread is flesh is as much to say as made flesh not that bread beyng bread is flesh but that was bread is flesh by Gods omnipotency and so this author entreating this matter as he doth hath partly opened the fayth of transubstantiaon For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is nowe Christes body because bread is made Christes body and because Christ called bread his body which was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wine the spech is very proper to say water is made wine For after like manner of spech we say Christ iustifieth a wicked man Christ saueth sinners the phisitiō hath made the sicke man whole suche dyet will make an whole man sicke Al these speches be proper and playn so as the construction be not made captious and Sophisticall to ioin that was to that now is forgetting the meane worke When Christ said This is my body there is necessitie that the demonstration this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the spech of God the father vpō Christ in Baptisme This is my son And here whē this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the fainyng of the papists I shal ioyn this Issue in this place that he vnderstandeth not what he saith and if his knowledge be no better then is vttered herein the penne to be in this point clerly cōdēned of ignoraunce Caunterbury HEre is an other sleight such as the like hath not lightly bene sene For where I wrote that when Christ sayd This is my body it was bread that he called his body you turne the matter to make a descant vpon these 2. wordes calling and making that the nundes of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these 2. wordes that in
of Christ of the eating of his flesh to be onely a figure this author had nothing aduanced his purpose As for spiritual vnderstanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter wher the same may stand with the rules of our faith All Christes words be life and spirit contayning in the letter many tymes that is aboue our capacity as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh to discusse the particularities of how yet we must beleue to be true that Christ sayth although we can not tell how For when we go about to discusse of Gods mistery how then we fall from fayth and waxe carnall men and would haue Gods wayes like ours Caunterbury HEre may euery man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see that you seek in this waighty matter nothing by shifts and cauillatioÌ„s For you haue nothing aunswered directly to Origen although he directly writeth agaynst your doctrine For you say that the eating of Chrstes flesh is taken in the proper signification without a fygure Origen sayth there is a figure And Origen sayth further that it is onely a figuratiue spech although not adding this word onely yet adding other words of the same effect For he sayth that we may not vnderstand the words as the letter soundeth And sayth further that if we vnderstand the words of Christ in this place as the letter soundeth the letter killeth Now who knoweth not that to say these words not as the letter soundeth and that letter killeth be as much to say as onely spiritually and only otherwise then the letter soundeth Wherfore you must spit vpon your hands aud take better hold or els you can not be able to plucke Origen so shortly from me And I maruayle that you be not ashamed thus to trifle with the auncient authors in so serious a matter and such places where the reader onely looking vpon the authors wordes may see your dealing The next is Chrysostome whom I cite thus And Saynct Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth the same saying that if any man vnderstand the words of Christ carnally he shall surely profit nothing therby For what meane these words the flesh auayleth nothing He ment not of flesh God forbid but he ment of them that fleshly and carnally vnderstood those things that Christ spake But what is carnall vnderstanding To vnderstand the words simply as they be spoken and nothing els For we ought not so to vnderstaÌ„d the things which we see but all misteries must be considered with inward eyes and that is spiritually to vnderstand them In these words S. Iohn ChrisostoÌ„ sheweth plainly that the words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud are not to be vnderstand simply as they be spoken but spiritually and figuratiuely Winchester Sainct Chrisostom declareth himself how misteries must be considered with inward eyes which is a spirituall vnderstanding wherby the truth of the mistery is not as it were by a figuratiue spech empayred but with an humility of vnderstanding in a certayn fayth of the truth maruayled at And here the author of this book vseth a sleight to ioyne figuratiuely to spiritually as though they were alwayes all one which is not so Caunterbury AS you haue handled Origen before euen so do you haÌ„dle ChrisostoÌ„ Wherfore I only refer the reader to looke vpon the words of Chrysostome recited in my book who sayth that to vnderstand the words of eating of Christes flesh symply as they be spoken is a carnall vnderstanding And then can it be no proper speech as you say it is bicause it can not be vnderstand as the wordes be spoken but must haue an other vâ—derstanding spiritually Then followeth next Sainct Augustine of whom I write thus And yet most planely of all other S. Augustine dooth declare this matter in his booke De doctrina christiana in which book he instructeth christian people how they should vnderstand those places of Scripture which seem hard and obscure Seldome sayth he is any difficulty in proper words but either the circumstance of the place or the conferring of diuers translations or els the originall toung wherin it was written will make the sence playn But in words that be altered from their proper signification there is great diligence and hede to be taken And specially we must beware that we take not litterally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely Nor contrary wise we must not take for a figure any thing that is spoken properly Therfore must be declared sayth S. Augustine the maner how to discerne a proper spech from a figuratiue Wherin sayth he must be obserned this rule that if the thing which is spoken be to the furtherance of charity then it is a proper spech and no figure So that if it be a commaundement that forbiddeth any euill or wicked act or commaundeth any good or beneficiall thing then it is no figure But if it commaund any ill or wicked thing or forbiddeth any thing that is good and beneficiall then it is a figuratiue spech Now this saying of Christ Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you seemeth to commaund an haynons and wicked thing therfore it is a figure commaunding vs to be partakers of Christes passion keeping in our mindes to our great comfort and profite that his flesh was crucified and wouÌ„ded for vs. This is briefly the sentence of S. Augustine in his booke De doctrina Christiana And the like he writeth in his book De catechisandis rudibus and in his book Contra aeduersarium legis prophet arum and in diuers other places which forte diowsnes I passe ouer For if I should reherse all the authorityes of S. Augustine and other which make mention of this matter it would weary the reader to much Wherfore to all them that by any reasonable meanes will be satisfied these things before rehearsed are sufficient to proue that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud is not to be vnderstanded simply and playnly as the words do properly signify that we do eat and drinke him with our mouthes but it is a figuratiue spech spiritually to be vnderstanded that we must deeply print and fruitfully beleue in our harts that his flesh was crucified and his bloud shed for our redemption And this our beliefe in him is to eat his flesh and drink his bloud although they be not present here with vs but be asceÌ„ded into heauen As our forefathers before Christs tyme did likewise eat his flesh and drinke his bloud which was so farre from them that he was not yet then borne Winchester Sainct Augustine according to his rules of a figuratiue and proper spéech taketh this spéech Except ye eat c. for a figuratiue spéech because it semeth to commaund in the letter carnally vnderstanded an hainous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man as mans carnal imagination conceiueth
it as appered by the Capharnaites who murmured at it And therfore because onely faythful men can by fayth vnderstand this mistery of the eatyng of Christes flesh in the Sacrament in which we eat not the carnall flesh of a common man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God mā as fayth teacheth It is in that respect well noted for a figuratiue spéech for that it hath such a sence in the letter as is hidden from the vnfaythfull So as the same letter being to faythfull men spirite and life who in humility of fayth vnderstandeth the same is to the faythfull a figure as contayning such a mistery as by the outward barke of the letter they vnderstand not vpon which consideration it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mistery of the Sacrament wherein is a worke of God ineffable such as the Ethnike eares could not abide they termed it a figure not therby to deminish the truth of the mistery as the proper and special name of a figure doth but by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecy apt only to be vnderstanded of men beleuing and therefore the sayd fathers in some part of theyr works in playn words expresse and declare the truth of the mistery the plain doctrine therof according to the Catholick fayth and in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure which consideration in S. Augustines writings may be euidently gathered for in some place no man more playnly openeth the substance of the Sacrament then he doth speaking expressely of the very body and bloud of Christ contayned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not thereby to contrary his other playne sayings and doctrine but meaning by the word figure to signify a secret déep mistery hidden from carnall vnderstanding For auoyding and expelling of which carnallity he geueth this doctrine here of this text Except ye eat c. which as I sayd before in the bare litterall sence implyeth to carnal iudgement other carnall circumstāces to attayne the same flesh to be eaten which in that carnall sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeying of Christes commaundement in the institution of his supper when he himself deliuereth his body and bloud in these misteryes biddeth Eat and drink there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth and therefore S. Augustins rule pertaineth not to Christs supper wherin when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded without carnall thought or murmuring in our sensuall deuise how it can be so And S. Augustin in the fame place speaking De communicando passionibus Christi declareth playnely he meaneth of the Sacrament Caunterbury IF thou takest not very good heed reader thou shalt not perceiue where the cuttill becometh He wrappeth himself so about in darcknesse and he commeth not neere the net by a myle for feare he should be taken But I will draw my net nearer to him that he shall not escape I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud were spoken by a figure and he would auoyd the matter by saying that those words haue a spirituall mistery in them which is most true and nothing contrary to my saying but confirmeth the same For the words of eating and drinking be figuratiue speches because they haue a secret and hid spirituall mistery in them and cannot be taken otherwise then in that spiritual mistery which is a figure And moreouer you plainly here confesse that to eat Christes flesh and to drinke his bloud be figuratiue speches But you trauesse the cause wherfore they be figuratiue speches which is not materiall in this place where my processe is onely to proue that they be figuratiue speches Aud forasmuch as you graūt here all that I take vpon me to proue which is that they be figuratiue speches what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words when we agree in the matter which is here in question And as for the cause of the figure you declare it far otherwise then S. Augustine dooth as the words of S. Augustine do playnely shew to euery indifferent reader For the cause say you is this that in the Sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a commō man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God and man and in that respect it is well noted for a figuratiue spech In which one sentence be three notable errors or vntruthes The first is that you say the letter soundeth than we eat the carnall flesh of a common man which your saying the playne words of the gospell do maniestly reproue For Christ seperating himself in that spech from all other men spake onely of himself saying My flesh is very meat and my blood is very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him The second is that you call the flesh of Christ a spirituall flesh as before you sayd that he is spiritually eaten And so by your doctrine his flesh is spirituall and is spiritually eaten and all is spirituall which hath need of a fauorable interpretation if it should be counted a sound and Catholick teaching And if all be spirituall done spiritually what meaneth it then that in other places you make so often mention that he is present and eaten carnally corporally and naturally The third is that you say the spech of Christ is noted figuratiue in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man which is vtterly vntrue For the authors note not the figuratiue spech in that respect but as christ spake of his owne flesh ioyned vnto his diuinity wherby it geueth lyfe euen so do the authors note a figuratiue spech in respect of Christes owne flesh and say therof that the letter can not be true without a figure For although Christ be both God and man yet his flesh is a very mans flesh and his bloud is truely mans blond as is the flesh bloud of his blessed mother and therfore can not be eaten and drunken properly but by a figure For he is not meat and drink of the body to be eatē corporally with mouth and teeth and to be dygested in the stomack but he is the meat of the soule to be receaued spiritually in our harts minds and to be chawed and digested by fayth And it is vntrue that you here say that the proper and speciall name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mistery For then Christ in vayne did ordayne the figures if they diminish the misteries And the Authors terme it here a figure not therby to couer the mistery but to open the mistery which was in deed in Christs words by fyguratiue speches vnderstand
his body which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body Wherfore it followeth by Tertullians confession whē Christ made the bread his body that Christ ended the figure and made it the trueth making now his body that was before the figure of his body For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still then did he not make it his body as Tertullian himselfe saith he did And Tertullian therfore being red thus as apeareth to me most probable that that is to say in Tertullian should be onely referred to the explicacion of the first this as when Tertullian had alleged Christes wordes saying this is my body and putteth to of his owne that is to say the figure of my body these wordes that is to say should serue to declare the demonstration this in this wise that is to say this which the Prophet called the figure of the body is now my body And so Tertulian sayd before the Chryst had made bread his body which bread was a figure of his body with the Prophet and now endeth in the very trueth being made his body by conuersion as Cyprian sheweth of the nature of bread into his body Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certayn vnfayned truth of that is signified seing Christes body was figured by bread in the prophet Hieremy it appereth Christ had a true body And that the bread was of Christ aproued for a figure he made now his very body And this may be sayd euidently to Tertullian who reasoning agaynst heretikes vseth the commoditie of arguing and giueth no doctrine of the sacrament to further this authors purpose And what aduantage should the heretiques haue of Tertulian if he should meane that these words This is my body had onely this sence this is the figure of my body hauing himselfe sayd before that Christ made bread his body If so playne speach to make bread his body conteyneth no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body Why should not they say that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure and so no certayntie of any trew body in Christ by Tertullianes wordes This place of Tertullian is no secret poynt of learning and hath bene of Decolampadius and other alleadged and by ether Catholique men aunswered vnto it wherof this author may not think now as vpon a wrangling argument to satisfie a coniecture deuised therby to confirme a new teaching Finally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure which this author must proue or els he doth nothing Caunterbury ON what a wrangling and wrasting is here made What crookes be cast what leaping about is here to auoyde a foyle And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall reade the place of Tertullain to iudge whether you haue truely expounded him or in the wrastling with him be quite ouerthrowen and haue a flat fall vpon your backe For Tertullian sayth not that the bread was a figure of Christs body only in the prophet as you expound Tertullian but sayth that bred and wine were figures in the old testament and so taken in the prophets and now be figures agayne in the new testament so vsed of Christ himself in his last supper And where Tertullian sayth that Christ made bread his body he expoundeth him self how Christ made bread his body adding by and by these wordes That is to say a figure of his body But if thou caust forbear good reader when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtill lawyer I pray thee laugh not for it is no matter to be laughed at but to be sorowed that the most auncient authors of Christes church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes O Lord what shall these men answer to thee at the last day whan no cauilations shall haue place These be Tertullians words Iesus taking bread and distributing it amōg his disciples made it his body saying This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Heare Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the Prophet but the saying of Christ this is my body And where Tertullian hath but once the word This you say the first this And so you make a wise speach to say the first where is but one And Tertullian speaketh of this in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body and you referre them to the Prophets wordes which be not there but the spoken of long after And if you had not forgotten your gramer and all kind of speach or els hurled away altogether purposely to serue your owne wilfull deuise you would haue referred the demonstration of his antecedent before and not to a thing that in order commeth long after And bread in the prophet was but a figuratiue speach but in Christes wordes was not onely a figuratiue speach but also a figuratiue thing that is to say very materiall bread which by a figuratiue speach Christ ordeyned to be a figure and a sacrament of his body For as the Prophet by this word bread figured Christes body so did Christ himsef institute very materiall bread to be a figure of his body in the sacrament But you referre this to the bread in the Prophet which Christ spake as Tertullian sayth of the bread in the gospell And Christes wordes must needes be vnderstanded of the bread which he gaue to his Apostles in the time of the gospell after he had ended the supper of the law And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his very body which was no materiall bread but this word bread then did Christ make this word bread his body and conuerted this word bread in to the substaunce of his body This is the conclusion of your subtell sophistication of Tertullians wordes Now as concerning Saynt Ciprian whome you here alledge he spake of a sacramentall and not of a corporall and carnall conuersion as shall be playnly declared when I come to the place of Ciprian and partely I haue declared alredy in myne other booke And Tertullian proued not in that place the veritie of Christes body by the figure of the Prophet but by the figure which Christ ordeyned of his body in his last supper For he went not about to proue that Christ should haue a body but that he had then a true body because he ordeined a figure therof which could haue had no figure as Tertullian sayth if it had ben but a phantasticall body and no true body in deed Wherfore this which you say in aunswering to the playn wordes of Tertullian may be sayd of them that care not what they say but it can not be sayd euidently that is spoken so sophistically But if so playne speech of Tertullian say you that Christ made bread his body conteyne no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body why should not the body of Christ euer be taken for a figure and
eares be vij yeares The scripture sayth not signifieth vij yeares And vij kine be seuen yeares and many other like And so sayd saynt Paule that the stone was Christ and not that it signified Christ but euen as it had ben hee indede which neuerthelesse was not Christ by substaunce but by signification Euen so sayth saynt Augustine bicause the bloud signifieth and representeth the soule therfore in a sacrament or signification it is called the soule And contra Adamantium he writeth much like saying In such wise is bloud the soule as the stone was Christ and yet the Apostle sayth not that the stone signified Christ but sayth it was Christ. And this sentence Bloud is the soule may be vnderstand to be spoken in a signe or figure for Christ did not stick to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here S Augustine rehearsing diuers sentences which were spoken figuratiuely that is to say when one thing was called by the name of an other and yet was not the other in substance but in signification As the bloud is the soule vij kyne be vij yeares vij eares be vij yeares the stone was Christ. Among such maner of speaches he reherseth those wordes which Christ spake at his last supper this is my body Which declareth playnly Saynt Augustines mind that Christ spake those wordes figuratiuely not meaning that the bread was his body by substance but by signification And therfore S. Augustine sayth contra Maximinum that in the sacramentes we must not consider what they be but what they signifie for they be signes of thinges being one thing and signifiyng another Which he doeth shew specially of this sacrament saying the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh by some maner of speach is called Christes body when in very deede it is the sacrament of his body And that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes is called Christes passion death and crucifiyng not in very dede but in a misticall signification Winchester As for saynt Agustine ad Bonifacium the author shall perceiue his fault at Martyne Bucers hand who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarations of the gospels reherseth his mind of Saynt Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi Corpus Christi sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secundum quem modum Vt significet tantum corpus sanguinem Domini absenta Absit Honorari enim percipi in simbolis visibilibus corpus sanguinem Domini idem passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saynt Augustine writeth the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certayn maner the body of christ the sacramēt of the bloud of christ the bloud of christ but after what maner that it should signifie onely the body and bloud absent Absit In no wise for the same Saynt Augustine writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored and to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not saynt Augustine to say the sacrament of Christes body to be Christes body after a certayn maner of speach as this author doth nor S. Augustine hath no such wordes but onely secundum quendam modum after a certayne maner wherunto to put of speach is an addition more then truth required of necessitie In these wordes of Bucer may apeare his whole indgement concerning S. Augustine who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament which truth established in the matter the calling it a signe or a token a figure a similitude or a shewing maketh no matter when we vnderstand the thing really present that is signified Which and it were not in dede in the Sacrament why should it after Bucers true vnderstanding of S. Augustine be honored there Arguing vpon mens speaches may be without end the authors vpon diuers repsectes speake of one thing diuersly Therfore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter and see what they say in expounding the speciall place without contention and not what they vtter in the heat of their disputation ne to search their dark and ambiguous places wherwith to confound that they speake openly and playnly Canterbury WHat nede you to bring Martine Bucer to make me answer if you could answer your selfe but bicause you be ashamed of the matter you would thrust Martine Bucer in your place to receaue rebuke for you But in this place he easeth you nothing at all for he sayth no more but that the body and bloud of Christ be exhibited vnto the worthy receiuers of the sacrament which is true but yet spiritually not corporally And I neuer sayd that Christ is vtterly absent but I euer affirmed that he is truly and spiritually present and truly and spiritually exhibited vnto the godly receiuours but corporally is he neither in the receiuors nor in or vnder the fourmes of bread or wine as you do teach clearly with out the consent of master Bucer who writeth no such thing And where I alleadge of Saynt Augustine that the sacrament of Christes body is called Christes body after a certayn maner of speach and you deny that saynt Augustine ment of a certayne maner of speach but sayth onely after a certayne maner Read the place of saynt Augustin who will and he shall find that he speaketh of the maner of speach and that of such a maner of speach as calleth one thing by the name of an other where it is not the very thing in dede For of the maner of speach is all the processe there as apeareth by these his wordes a day or two before good Friday we vse in common speach to say to morowe or this day two dayes Christ suffered c. Likewise vppon Easter day we say this day Christ rose And why do no men reproue vs as lyars whan we speake in this sort And we call those dayes so by a similitude c. And so it is called that day which is not that day in dede And sacramentes commonly haue the name of the thinges wherof they be sacramentes Therfore as after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is Christes body so likewise the sacramēt of fayth is fayth And likewise sayth Saynt Paule that in baptisme we be buried he sayth not that we signifie buriall but he sayth playnly that we be buried So that the sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the thing All these be S. Augustines wordes shewing how in the common vse of speach one thing may haue the name of another Wherfore when Doctor Gardiner sayth that S. Augustine spake not of that maner of speach thou mayst beleue him hereafter as thou shalt see cause but if thou trust his wordes to much thou shalt soone be deceiued As for the reall presence of Christ
christian man ought to come to Christes sacraments with great feare humility fayth loue and charitie And S. Augustine sayth that the Gospell is to be receaued or heard with no lesse feare and reuerence than the body of Christ. Whose wordes be these Interrogo vos fratres sorores dicite mihi Quid vobis plus esse videtur verbum dei an corpus Christi Si vere vultis respondere hoc vtique dicere debetis quod non sit minus verbum dei quam corpus Christi Et ideo quanta solicitudine obseruamus quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur vt nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in terram cadat tanta solicitudine obseruemus ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur dum aliquid aut cogitamus aut loquimur de corde nostro pereat quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negligenter audierit quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua negligentia permiserit I ask this question of you brethren and sisterne sayth S. Augustine aunswer me Whether you think greater the word of God or the body of Christ If you will answer the truth verely you ought to say thus That the word of God is no lesse then the body of Christ. And therfore with what carefullnes we take heed when the body of Christ is ministred vnto vs that no part therof fall out of our handes on the earth with as great carefulnes let vs take heede that the word of God which is ministred vnto vs when we think or speake of vayne matters perish not out of our hartes For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be giltie of no lesse fault then he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall vpon the ground thorough his negligence This is the mynd of S. Augustine And as much we haue in Scripture for the reuerent hearing and reading of God his holy word or the neglecting therof as we haue for the sacramentes But it semeth by your penne and vtteraunce of this matter that you vnderstand not the ground and cause wherupon should arise the great feare and trembling in their hartes that come to receaue the sacramentes for you shew another consideration therof than the scripture doth For you seeme to driue all the cause of feare to the dignitie of the body of Christ there corporally present and receaued but the scripture declareth the feare to ryse of the indignitie and vnworthines of the receauers He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely threatneth Gods word eateth and drinketh his owne damnation And Centurio considering his own vnworthines was abashed to receaue Christ into his house saying Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vnder the couering of my house And the same thing made Peter afrayd to be neare vnto Christ and to say Go from me O Lord for I am a sinner And all Christian men ought not to feare tremble onely whan they receaue the sacramentes but when soeuer they heare Gods word and threatninges pronounced agaynst sinners Now as concerning the third note thou shalt see playnly good reader that here is nothing here aunswered directly but meere cauilations sought and shift to auoyde For if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound as the people did communicate with the priest as you say they do and so they do in dede and that as well in the communion of drinking as eating than eyther the people did cōmunicate with them indeede and receaued the Sacrament vnder both the kindes or else the prayers had ben false the ceremonies frustrate and in vayne And is it like that the priests in that time would haue vsed vnto God such vntrue prayers as should declare that the people did communicate with thē if indeed none did communicate with them as it should haue bene by your imagined chances and cases But it apeareth by the wordes of the Epistle that the whole multitude of the people that was present did communicate at those dayes so that the priest could not communicate alone except he would communicate whan no man was in the church But by the aunswer of this sophister here in this place thou mayst see an experience good reader whether he be as redy to see those thinges that make agaynst him as he is paynfull and studious to draw as it were by force all thinges to his purpose to make them at the least to seme to make for him although they be neuer so much agaynst him As appeareth by all these his suppositions that all the people which were prepared for should in those dayes withdraw them selues from the communion and not one of them come vnto it that the clarkes should receaue all that was prouided for the people that one clerke should receaue that which many clerkes ought to haue receaued And so in conclusiō by onely his fayned suppositions he would perswade that the priest should receaue all alone By such prety cases of the people disapoynting the priestes and of lacke of store of clerkes you might dayly finde cauilations with all godly ordenaunces For where as God ordayned the pascall lambe to be eaten vp cleane in euery house and where there were not inough in one house to eat vp the Lambe they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eate vp the hole Lambe so that nothing should remayne Here you might bring in your vpon a chance that they that lacked company to eate vp a hole Lambe dwelt alone far from other houses and could not come together or could not gette any such Lambe as was appoynted for the feast or if their neighbours lacked company also And what if they had no spitte to rost the lambe And where as it was commaunded that they should be shooed what if perchance they had no shooes And if perchaunce a mans wife were not at home and all his seruaunts falled sike of the sweat or plague and no man durst come to his house then must he turne the spitte him selfe and eate the Lambe all alone Such chances you purposely deuise to establishe your priuat Masse that the priest may eate all alone But by such a lyke reason as you make here a man might proue that the priest should preach or say mattens to him selfe alone in case as you say that the people which should come would disapoynt him For what if the people disapoynt the priest say you and come not to the communion What if the people disapoynt the priest say I and come not to mattens nor sermon shall he therfore say mattens and preach whan no man is present but him selfe alone But your imagined case hath such an absurditie in it as is not tollerable to be thought to haue beene in Christian people in that tyme when Clements Epistles were written that when all the people should receaue the communion with the priest yet not one would come but all would disapoynt him And yet in that case I
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
any reall and corporall conuersion of bread and wine vnto Christs body and bloud nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same but he speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wine and of a spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptisme as the same Eusebius playnly there declareth as he is in the Lordes table Which is not carnally and corporally but by fayth and spiritually But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstatiation Winchester This author sayth that Emissen is shortly aunswered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he sayth as Hylary was aunswered and Cyrill But els there can no short or long aunswere confound the true playne testimony of Emissen for the common true faith of the church in the Sacrament Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saying thus This is my bodye And aâ—ayne repeating the same sanctificatioÌ„ This is my bloud Wherfore as at the beck of him commauÌ„ding the heightes of heauens the depenes of the floudes and largenes of landes were founded of nothing by like power in spirituall Sacraments where vertue commaundeth the effect of the trueth serueth These bee Emissenes wordes declaring his fayth playnely of the Sacrament in such termes as can not be wrested or writhed who speaketh of a turning conuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body bloud he sayth not into the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud whereby he should meane a only sacramental conuersion as this author would haue it but he sayth into the substance of Christs body bloud to be in the sacrameÌ„t For the words substance and truth be of one strength shew a difference froÌ„ a figure wherein the truth is not in dede preseÌ„t but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle this Emissen represseth mans carnall reason and socoureth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of this world which were brought forth out of tyme by Emissene if Christes bodye were not in substaunce present as Emissenes wordes bee but in figure onely as this author teacheth And where this authour coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in eyther he putteth himselfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these misteries be both great and mans regeneration in baptisme is also a mistery and the secret worke of God and hath a great meruayle in that effect yet it differeth from the mistery of the sacrament touching the maner of Christes presence and the working of the effect also For in baptisme our vnion with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole Trinitie there working as author in whose name the sacrament is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body indede but in hope onely that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in baptisme bene buried with christ so we be assured to be partakers of his resurection And so in this sacrament we be vnite to Christes manhod by this deuinite But in the sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie which mistical vnion representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorification wherin body and soule shall in the generall resurection by a maruailous regeneration of the body be made both spirituall the speciall pledge wherof we receaue in this sacrament and therfore it is the sacrament as Hilary sayth of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious then the body and the nature of the godhead in Christ more excellent then the nature of man in him glorified and in baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passion and bloud Christes godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respectes the excelency of baptisme is great yet bicause the mistery of the sacrameÌ„t of the alter where Christ is present both man and God in the effectuall vnitie that is wrought betwene our bodies our soules and Christes in the vse of this sacrament signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurection which shall be the end and consumatioÌ„ of all our felicitie This sacrament of perfect vnitie is the mistery of our perfect estate when body and soule shal be all spirituall and hath so a degre of excelencie for the dignitie that is estemed in euery end and perfection wherfore the word spirituall is a necessary word in this sacrament to call it a spirituall foode as it is indede for it is to worke in our bodyes a spirituall effect not onely in our soules and Christes body and flesh is a spirituall body and flesh and yet a true body and very flesh And it is present in this sacrament after a spirituall maner graunted and taught of all true teachers which we should receaue also spiritually which is by hauing Christ before spiritually in vs to receaue it so worthely Wherfore like as in the inuisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnall but all spirituall taking the word carnall as it signifieth grossely in mans carnall iudgement So where the receiuers of that foode bring carnall lustes or desires carnall fansies or imaginations with them they receaue the same preciens foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condemnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christian fayth of the very presence of Christes body And this sufficeth to wipe out that this Author hath spoken of Emissen agaynst the truth Caunterbury I Haue so playnly aunswered vnto Emissene in my former booke partly in this place and partely in the second parte of my booke that he that readeth ouer those two places shall see most clearly that you haue speÌ„t a greate many of wordes here in vayne and nede no further answer at all And I had then such a care what I sayd that I sayd nothing but according to Emissenus owne mind and which I proued by his owne wordes But if you finde but one word that in speach soundeth to your purpose you sticke to that word tooth and nayle caring nothing what the authors meaning is And here is one great token of sleight and vntruth to be noted in you that you write diligently euery word so long as they seme to make with you And when you come to the very place
nourisheth the right beleuers Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier and thou shalt euidently perceiue that either he wil not or can not or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer and in my booke also by the receauing and feding vpon Christ spiritually But it is no maruaile that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ before they be borne a new and forsaking their papisticall leauen haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God then flesh bloud can teach them Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth that Christes body is corporally there where the visible formes of bread wine be of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture which teacheth vs to beleue professe that Christ as concerning his bodily presence hath forsaken the world is ascended into heauen shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud there is no mouth and teeth can serue but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes and speake very little And the cause why is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes Caparnaites that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity spirituall circumcition spirituall honger and thirst and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ but they hang all together so in the letter that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit which knowledge if that you had you should soone perceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made And where you peruert the order of the bookes setting the carte before the horse that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second saying that the naturall order of the matter so requireth here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes which is vnder the pretence coulour of order to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light For when they perceaue a window open wherby the light may shine in and the truth appeare then they busily go about to shut that window and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is and les light can be sene And when besides the darkenes of the matter they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes that he is become blind thē dare they make him iudge be the matter neuer so vntrue And no meruail for he is now becōe so blindfeld subiect vnto them that he must say what so euer they bid him be it neuer so much repugnāt to the euidēt truth In such sort it is in the matter of that sacramēt For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined that plaine wordes of the scripture the consent of aūcient writers the articles of our fayth the nature of a sacrament reason all sences making so euidently agaynst it therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation but they will alwayes beare men in hand that other matters must fyrst be examined as the late Bishop doth here in this place Now in the second place of Chrisostome where you say that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen which shall suffice for answere here also And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre here with vs in our handes truth it is that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment But that we shoud not think that he is corporally here with vs S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum saying Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man that we should therby take away the truth of his body And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body to be in two places at one tyme therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally and also naturally in the sacrament For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule But like as it is not to be thought that Quicquid est in deo est putandum vbique vt dens that whatsoeuer is in god is euery where as God is so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme euery where where his godhead is But Christ is sayth S. Augustine Vbique per id quod est deus in coelo autem per id quod est homo Euery where in that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence and the presence of his diuinitie of his grace of his truth of his maiestie and power is reall and effectuall in many places according to his worde Now as concerning your issue I refuse it not but say that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred and which our sauiour Christ ment and the old fathers speake of is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life Now if you can bring good testimony for you that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud and that it shall lyue for euer which neuer had lyfe and that Gods operation worke is more in domme creatures then in man then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you And when I heare your testimonies I shall make answer but before I here them I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne and beate the wind to no purpose Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alleadge sayth thus Christ geuing thankes dyd breake which also we doe adding thereto prayer And he gaue vnto them saying Take this is my body this that I do now geue and that which ye now do take For the bread is not a
serued to the sustentation and increase of it therfore the bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it appeareth not flesh but bread that we should not lothe the eating of it for if flesh did appeare we should be vnpleasantly disposed to the communion of it Now our lord condescending to our infirmitie the misticall meat appeareth such to vs as those we haue ben accustomed vnto Hitherto I haue faythfully expressed Theophilactes wordes out of latine of Oecolampadius translation without terming the substantiall poyntes of her wise theÌ„ the words purport in latine By which may appeare what was Theophilactes meaning what doctrine he geueth of the sacrament and how his owne wordes vpon saynt Marke be to be vnderstanded when he sayth Speciem quide panis vim seruat in vertutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat incorupting of which wordes this author maketh a great matter when they were not alleaged for his but as they be his seruare speciem may be well translate forme and aparance bycause vpon S. Iohn before alleadged he sayth of the bread it appeareth And as for these wordes the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud must be vnderstanded to agree with the playne place of Theophilact vpon S. Iohn and vpon S. Marke also to signifie not onely vertue but veritie of the flesh and bloud of Christ. For if Theophilact by that spech ment the vertue of the body of Christ and not the verytie of the very body as thor sayth he did why should Theophilact both vppon S. Marke and also vpon S. Iohn aske this question why doth not the flesh appeare if him selfe by those wordes should teach there were onely present the vertue of his flesh who and he had ment so would not haue asked the question or if he had would haue answered it thâ—s accordingly there is no flesh in dede but the vertue of the flesh and that had bene a playne answer and such as he would haue made This author will aske then why doth Theophilact vse this phrase to say changed into the vertue of the body of Christ Hereunto I answer that this word vertue in phrase of speach many tymes oâ—â—ly filleth the speach and is comprehended in the signification of his genetiue following and therfore as Luke in the xxii chap. sayth à dextris vertutis Dei so in the Actes in the same sentence is spoken à dextris Dei both out of one pen and à dextris virtutis Dei is no more to say then à dextris Dei and so is virtutem carnis sanguinis no more to say but in carnem sanguinem which sentence the same Theophilact with vpon S. Iohn before alleaged in this saying The bread is changed into flesh anâ—â— Marke in this phrase into the vertue of flesh being like these speaches à dextris Dei and à dextris virtutis Dei. Which and if had liked this author to haue considered he should haue taken Theophilactes speach as Theophilact vnderstandeth himselfe and sayd the wordes alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophilactes wordes and then he had sayd for so much true which would do well among and the wordes be not indede Theophilactes wordes nor were not alleaged for his Now when this author sayth they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes that is a large negatiue and will be hardly proued otherwise then by addition of the authors knowledge for any thing that he can finde and so there shal be no absurditie to graunt it And thus I returne to myne issue with this author that Theophilact himselfe hath no such meaning expressed in wordes as this author attributed vnto him but an euident contrary meaning sauing herein I will agree with this author that Theophilact ment not grossely sensibly carnally as these wordes sound in carnall mennes iudgementes For we may not so thinkâ— of Gods misteries the worke wherof is not carnall nor corporall for the maner of it But the maner spirituall and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ bicause Christ is in his very true flesh present he may be sayd so carnally present and naturally after Hilary and corporally after Cyrill vnder standing the wordes of the truth of that is present Christes very bydy and flesh and not of the maner of the presence which is onely spirituall supernaturall and aboue mannes capacitie And therfore a high mistery a great miracle a wonderfull woorke which it is holsome to beleue simply with a sincere fayth and daungerous to serch and examine with a curious imagination such as idlenes and arogancy would tempt a man vnto and by diuising of a figure or metaphore bring it within the compasâ—e of our busy reason Caunterbury THis is a pretie sleight of you to passeouer the authors name saying that you found it so alleaged in an author and tell not in what author There is surely some hid mistery in this matter that you would not haue his name knowen For if you had found any approued author who had fathered these wordes vpoÌ„ Theophilus Alexandrinus I doubt not but I should haue herd him here named it should haue serued so much for your purpose For to what purpose should you coÌ„ceale his name if you had any such author But shall I open the mistery of this matter Shall I by coniectures tell the author which you followed as you by coniecture gathered of him the name of Theophilus Thomas de Aquino in his cathena aurea citeth the wordes by you alleaged in these letters Theoph. which letters be indiferent aswel to Theophilus as to Theophilactes so that you might haue christened the child whether you would by the name of Theophilus or of Theophilactus And because Theophilus was a more auncient author and of more learning and estimation then was Theophilact therfore the name pleased you better to geue more credite to your sayinges and so of Theoph you made the whole name Theophilus And bycause one Theophilus was a byshop of Alexandry you added as it were his syr name calling him Theophilus Alexandâ—inus And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter peraduenture it might be doctor Fisher somtyme byshop of Rochester who writing in the same matter that you do was or would be deceaued as you be But what author so euer you folowed you shall not honestly shake of this matter except you tell his name For els I will say that you be fayne to bring in for you fayned authors whispered in corners And yet that Theophilus wrot not that wordes alleaged vpon Marke this is no smale profe that Theophilact hath the same sentences word by word and that neyther S. Hierom Gennadius Eusebius Tritemius nor any other that euer wrot hitherto made euer any mention that Theophilus wrot vpon the gospell of S. Marke And as concerning your issue thus much I graunt without issue that no catholike
wherin it entreth with the visible element and yet as S. Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth bycause the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receaueth by such a maner of eating as wicked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effect to ensue of the diuersitie of the eating and not of any diuersitie of that which is eaten whether the good man or euill man receaue the sacrament If I would here encombre the reader I could bring forth many mo places of S. Augustine to the confusion and reprofe of this Authors purpose and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me that I way not S. Augustine I thinke good to alleadge and bring forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touching S. Augustine who vnderstandeth S. Augustine clere contrary to this author as may playnly appeare by that the sayd Bucer writeth in few wordes in his epistle dedicatory of the great worke he sent abroad of his enarrarations of the gospelles where his iudgement of S. Augustine in this poynt he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem domini sumsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse The sense in English is this How often writeth he speaking of S. Augustine Iudas also to haue receaued the selfe body and bloud of our Lord No man thefore by the authoritie of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue before alleadged him and gathereth therof a conclusion that no man can by the fathers sayinges proue Christ to be absent in the holy supper And therfore by Bucers iudgement the doctrine of this Author can be in no wise catholique as dissenting from that hath ben before taught and beleued whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world and by me here alleadged I cannot tell and whether he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hath taught in his latter iudgement with a great protestation that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth wherin because he semed to dissent from his frendes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes haue an imitation of an elder saying and be thus much to say Socrates is my frend truth is my best beloued and the church most regarded And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament after he knew al that Zuinglius Decolampadius could say in the matter And here I will leaue to speake of Bucer and bring forth Theodoretus a man most extolled by this author who sayth playnly in his commentaries vpon S. Paule how Christ deliuered to Iudas his precious body and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrament to be the truth So as this author can haue no foundatiō vpon eyther to maintayne his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke which his wordes playnly impugn S. Hierom in his commentaries vpon the prophet Malachie hath first this sentence Polluimus panem id est corpus Christi quando indigne accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we com vnworthy to the aulter and being filthy drincke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth men filthy drincke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same S. Hierom sayth Polluit Christi misteria indigne accipiens Corpus eius sanguinem He that vnworthely receaueth the body and bloud of Christ defileth the misteries Can any wordes be more manifest and euident to declare S. Hieroms mind how in the visible sacrament men receaue vnworthely which be euell men the body and bloud of Christ Caunterbury IN this poynt I will ioyne a playne issue with you that I neyther willingly goe about to deceaue the reader in the serching of S. Augustine as you vse to do in euery place nor I haue not trusted my man or frende herein as it semeth you haue done ouermuch but I haue diligently expended and wayed the matter my selfe For although in such waightie matters of scripture and aunciēt authors you must nedes trust your men without whom I know you can doe very litle being brought vp from your tender age in other kindes of study yet I hauing exercised my selfe in the study of scripture and diuinitye from my youth wherof I geue most harty laudes and thankes to God haue learned now to goe alone and do examine iudge and write all such waighty matters my selfe although I thanke God I am neyther so arrogant nor so wilfull that I will refuse the good aduise counsailie and admonition of any man be he man or master frende or foe But as concerning the place alleadged by you out of S. Augustine let the reader diligently expend myne whole aunswer to S. Augustine and he shall I trust be fully satisfied For S. Augustine in his booke De baptismo contra Donatistas as I haue declared in my booke speaketh of the morsell of bread and sacrament which Iudas also dyd eate as S. Augustine sayth And in this speach he considered as he writeth Contra Maximinū not what it is but what it signifieth and therfore he expresseth the matter by Iudas more playnly in an other place saying that he did eate the bread of the Lord not the bread being the Lord as the other Apostles dyd signifying therby that the euell eate the bread but not the Lord himselfe As S. Paule sayth that they eate and drincke Panem calicem Domini the bread and the cup of the Lord and not that they eate the Lord himselfe And S. Augustine sayth not as you faine of him that the substaunce of this sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ but the substaunce of this sacrament is bread and wine as water is in the sacramēt of Baptisme and the same be all one not altered by the vnworthines of the receauors And although S. Augustine in the wordes by you recited call the sacrament of Christes body and bloud his body and bloud yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament therof and yet is it called the body and bloud of Christ as sacraments haue the names of the thinges wherof they be sacraments as the same S. Augustine teacheth most playnly ad Bonifacium And I haue not so far ouershot my selfe or bene ouersene that I would haue atempted to publish this matter if I had not before hand excussed the whole truth therin from the botome But bicause I my selfe am certayne of the truth which hath bene hid these many yeares and persecuted by the Papistes with fyer and fagot and should be so yet still if you might haue your owne will and bicause also I am desirous that all my contrey men of England vnto whome I haue no smale cure and charge to
as touching the belefe of S. Thomas although he beleued certaynly that Christ was a man yet he beleued not that Christ was risen and appeared to the Apostles but thought rather that the Apostles were deceaued by some vision or spirit which appeared to them in likenes of Christ which he thought was not he indede And so thought the Apostles themselues vntill Christ sayd Videte manus meas pedes quia ego ipse sum Palpate videte quia spiritus carnem ossa non habent sicut me videtis habere See my handes and my feete for I am euen he Grope and see for a spirite hath no flesh and bones as you see that I haue And so thought also S. Thomas vntill such tyme as he put his handes into Christes side and felt his woundes and by his sense of feeling perceaued that it was Christes very body and no spirite nor phantasy as before he beleued And so in S. Thomas the truth of feeling depended not vpon the true belefe of Christes resurrection but the feeling of his senses brought him from misbelefe vnto the right and true fayth of that matter And as for S. Gregory he speaketh no such thinges as you report that the glorified body of Christ was of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable but he sayth cleane contrary that Christ shewed his glorified body to S. Thomas palpable to declare that it was of the same nature that it was of before his resurrection whereby it is playne after S. Gregories minde that if it were not palpable it were not of the same nature And S. Gregory sayth further in the same homely Egit miro modo superna clementia vt discipulus ille dubitans dum in magistro suo vulnera palparet carnis in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis Plus enim nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem quam fides credentium discipulcrum profuit quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita in fide solidatur The supernall clemency wrought meruaylously that the disciple which doubted by groping the woundes of flesh in his master should heale in vs the woundes of infidelity For the lacke of fayth in Thomas profited more to our fayth then did the fayth of the disciples that beleued For when he is brought to fayth by groping our minde is stablished in fayth without all doubting And why should S. Gregory write thus if our sences auayled nothing vnto our fayth nor could nothing iudge of substances And do not all the olde catholike authors proue the true humanity of Christ by his visible conuersation with vs here in earth that he was heard preach seene eating and drincking labouring and sweatting Do they not also proue his resurrection by seing hearing and groping of him which if it were no proofe those arguments were made in vayne agaynst such Heretikes that denied his true incarnation And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments to the maintenance of those olde condemned heresies by your subtill sophistications The touching and feeling of Christes handes feete and wounds was a proofe of his resurrection not as you say to them that beleued but as S Gregory sayth to them that doubted And if all thinges that Christ did and spake to our outward senses proue not that he was a naturall man as you say with Martion Menander Ualentinus Apolinaris withother like sort thē I would know how you should confute the sayd heresies Marty will you say peraduenture by the scripture which sayth playnly Verbum caro factumest But if they would say agayne that he was called a man and flesh bicause he tooke vpon him the forme of a man and flesh and would say that S. Paule so declareth it saying Forinam serui accipiens and would then say further that forme is the accidence of a thing and yet hath the name of substance but is not the substance indeede what would you then say vnto them if you deny that the formes and accidences be called substances then go you from your owne saying And if you graunt it then will they auoyde all the scriptures that you can bring to proue Christ a man by this cauilation that the apparances formes and accidences of a man may be called a man aswell as you say that the formes and accidences of bread be called bread And so prepare you certayne propositions and groundes for heretikes to build their errours vpon which after when you would you shall neuer be able to ouerthrowe And where you say that Thomas touched truely Christes body glorified how could that be whē touching as you say is not of y◠substance but of the accidents only and also Christes body glorified as you say is neyther visible nor palpable And where as indeede you make Christs actes illusiōs and yet in wordes you pretend the contrary call you not this illusiō of our sēses whē a thing apeareth to our sēces which is not the same thing indeede When Iupiter Mercury as the comedy telleth apeared to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitrio Sosia was not Alcumena deceaued therby And Poticaries that sell Ieniper buries for pepper being no pepper indeede deceaue they not the biers by illusion of their sences Why then is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeede Finally where as I required earnestly all the Papistes to lay their heades togither and to shew one article of our fayth so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thing to be and yet our fayth shall teach vs the contrary therunto where I say I required this so earnestly of you and with such circumstances and you haue yet shewed none I may boldly conclude that you can shew none For sure I am if you could being so earnestly prouoked therunto you would not haue fayled to shew it in this place As for the article of our resurrection and of the feeding of angels serue nothing for this purpose For my saying is of the dayly experience of our senses and when they affirme a thing to be but the resurrection of our flesh and the feeding of angels be neither in dayly experience of our senses nor our senses affirme them not so to be Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my booke the authorities of ancient writers in this wise Now for as much as it is declared how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is agaynst the word of God agaynst nature agaynst reason and agaynst all our senses we shall shew furthermore that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the olde authors of Christes church beginning at those authors which were nearest vnto Christes time and therfore might best know the truth herein First Iustinus a great learned man and an holy martyr the oldest author
obstinately bent to peruert the true doctrine of this holy Sacrament you would neuer haue vttered this sentence That there was neuer man ouerturned his owne assertions more euidently then this Author doth For I am well assured that my doctrine is sound and therfore do trust that I shall able to stand by myne assertions before all men that are learned and be any thing indifferent and not bent obstinately to mayntayne errors as you be when you tumbling and tossing your selfe in your filthy fantasies of Transubstantiation and of the reall and carnall presence of Christes body shal be ashamed of your assertiōs But I meruayle not much of your stout bragging here bicause it is a common thing with you to dashe me in the teeth with your owne faultes And it is vntrue that you say that the sacrifice is parfited before the perfection For if the sacrifice be parfited before the perception it is parfited also before the consecration For betwene the consecration and perception was no sacrifice made by Christ as appeareth in the Euangelistes but the one followed immediately of the other And although Christ being in heauen be one of the partes wherof the sacrifice consisteth be present in the sacrifice yet he is not naturally there present but sacramentally in the sacrament and spiritually in the receauours And by this which I haue now answered I haue wrastled with you so in the matter of Christes presence that I haue not fallen vpon my back my selfe to pull you ouer me but I standing vp right my selfe haue geuen you such a fall that you shall neuer be able to recouer And now that I haue brought you to the ground although it be but a small peece of manhoode to strike a man when he is downe yet for the truthes sake vnto whome you haue euer bene so great an aduersary I shall beate you with your Transubstantiation as they say both backe and bone Now say you syr is whitenes or other colours the nature of bread and wine for the colours be onely visible by your doctrine or be they elements or be accidents the bodely matter Lye still ye shall be better beaten yet for your wilfulnes Be the accidents of bread substances as you sayd not long before And if they be substances what manner of substances be they corporall or spirituall If they be spirituall then be they soules deuils or angels And if they be corporall substances eyther they haue life or no life I trust you will say at the least that bread hath life bicause you sayd but euen now almost that the substance of bread is the soule of it Such absurdities they fall into that mayntayne errours But at length when the similitude of the two natures in Christ remayning both in their proper kindes must needes be answered vnto then commeth in agayne the cuttill with his colours to hide him selfe that he should not be seene bicause he perceaueth what danger he is in to be taken And when he commeth to the very nette he so stoutly striueth wrangleth and wresteth as he would breake the nette or els by some craft wind himselfe out of it but the net is so strong and he so surely masted therein that he shall neuer be able to gette out For the olde catholike Authors to declare that two natures remayne in Christ togither that is to say his humanity and his diuinity without corruption or wasting of any of the sayd two natures do geue two examples therof one is of the body and soule which both be in a man togither and the presence of the one putteth not away the other The other example is of the Lordes Supper or ministration of the Sacrament where is also togither the substaunce and nature of bread and wine with the body and bloud of Christ and the presence of the one putteth not away the other no more then the presence of Christes humanitie putteth away hys diuinitie And as the presence of the soule driueth not away the body nor the presence of the fleshe and bloud of Christ driueth not away the bread and wine so doth not the presence of Christes humanity expell his diuinitie but his diuinitie remayneth still with his humanitie as the soule doth with the body and the body of Christ with the bread And then if there remayne not the nature and substaunce of bread it must follow also that there remaineth not the diuine nature of Christ with his humanity or els the similitude is clearely dissolued But yet say you we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality but onely haue respect to the end wherfore the resemblance is made And do you not see how this your saying taketh away your owne argument of the reall presence in the sacrament and neuerthelesse setteth you no whitte more at liberty concerning Transubstantiation but masteth you faster in the nette and maketh it more stronger to holde you For the olde Authors make this resemblance onely to declare the remayning of two natures not the manner and forme of remayning which is farre diuers in the person of Christ from the vnion in the Sacrament For the two natures of Christ be ioyned togither in vnity of person which vnity is not betwene the Sacrament and the body of Christ. But in that poynt wherein the resemblance is made there must needes be an equality by your owne saying And for as much as the resemblance was made onely for the remayning of two natures therfore as the perfite natures of Christes manhod godhead do both remayne and the perfite nature of the soule and the body both also remayne so must the perfite nature of Christes body and bloud and of bread and wine also remayne But for as much as the similitude was not made for the manner of remayning nor for the place therfore the resemblance requireth not that the body and bloud of Christ should be vnited to the bread and wine in person or in place but onely that the natures should remayne euery one in his kind And so be you cleane ouerthrowen with your transubstantiation except you will ioyne your selfe with those Heretikes which denied Christes humanity diuinity to remayne both togithers And it seemeth that your doctrine varieth very little from Ualentine and Martion if it vary any thing at all when you say that Christes flesh was a spirituall flesh For when S. Paule speaking of Christes body sayd we bee members of his body of his fleshe and of his bones he ment not of a spirituall body as Ireneus sayth for a spirite hath no flesh nor bones but of a very mans body that is made of flesh sinewes and bones And so with striuing to gette out of the nette you roll your selfe faster in it And as for the wordes of S. Augustine make nothing for the reall presence as I haue before declared So that therin I neyther haue foyle nor trippe but for all your bragges hookes and crookes you haue such
mutation brought in by S. Ambrose the substances neuertheles remayned the same that skilleth not for the wonder of those meruayles serue for an induction to releeue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacrament and to represse the arrogancy of reason presuming to search such knowledge in Gods secret workes whereof if there might be a reason geuen it néeded no fayth And where there is a like there is no singularity as this miracle in the sacrament is notably singuler and therefore none other found like vnto it The Sacramentall mutation which this author newly so termeth is a mere shift to auoyd among such as be not learned the truth of Gods miracle in this chaunge which is in déed such as S. Ambrose speaketh of that of bread is made the body of Christ which S. Ambrose in an other place termeth it the grace of the body of Christ and all is one for it is a great grace to haue the body of Christ for our food present there And out of Christes mouth calling the bodye of Christ is making the body of Christ which wordes calling signifying naming vsed in S. Ambrose writinges do not limitte Christes wordes and restraynt them to an onely calling an onely signifiyng or an onely naming but geue an vnderstanding agréeable to other of S. Ambrose wordes that shew the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ the calling to be vnderstanded a real calling of the thing that so is made and likewise a reall signifying of the thing in déed present and a reall naming as the thing is in déed As Christ was named Iesus because he is the sauiour of his people in déede And thus perusing this authors answeres I trust I haue noted to the reader with how smal substaunce of matter this author impugneth transubstantiation and how slenderly hée goeth about to aunswere such authors as by their seuerall writinges confyrme the same besydes the consent of Christendome vniuersally receiuing the same And how in the meane way this author hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doctrine of the fyguratiue speach that himselfe so lately hath deuised or rather because this matter in his booke goeth before he hath in his second booke marred his frame or euer be commeth to the third booke to set it vp Caunterbury OH what a capitall cryme is here committed that I haue englished this word conficere to do whose proper signification is to accomplish or make an end of a thing which being once brought to passe we vse in common spech to say I haue done as I haue done my house I haue done my booke I haue done my worke I haue done my dayes iourney that is to say I haue perfectly done and finished And is not this fully as much in spech as to say I haue made my dayes iourney or I haue made my house or my booke But some fault you must finde where none is partly to keep in vse your old custome of calumniatiō and partly to satisfy a new toy that you haue in your head that making is in the substaunce of the sacrament and doing is in the effect But whether it be translate making or dooing S. Ambrose spake of the wonderfull effectuall working of God in the vse and ministration of the sacramentes and that as well in baptisme as in the Lordes supper and not of his working in the substaunces of the elementes reserued As for the authority of the booke I stand not in it so that all your wordes therein be more then nedeth but to length your book and yet was the book neuer allowed amongst men learned and of iudgement to be S. Ambroses And Melancthon whome you alleage for the allowaunce of it geueth it two nips which you haue left out of purpose to serue your affection For he saith not as you report that it seemeth not to him vnlike but that it seemeth not to him farre vnlike and yet he confesseth that it is confusedly written which is a slender approbation that it should be S. Ambroses And where you confesse that S. Ambrose sayth not in wordes that the substances of bread and wine be gone and yet sayth so in effect because he speaketh of chaunge either you know that your argument is naught and yet bring it in purposely to deceiue some simple reader or your ignoraunce is more then I would haue thought that of this word chaunge woulde argue chaunge in substaunce as though there could be no chaunge but it must be in substaunce But if you had well considered the examples of S. Ambrose by me alleadged which he bringeth forth for the proofes and similitudes of the chaunge of bread and wine in the sacrament you should haue found that in all the sayd examples remayne the substaunces notwithstanding the chaunge As in the water of Iordane staying to runue after the naturall course in the dry stone that contrary to his nature flowed out water in the bitter water of Marath that was turned into sweetnesse in the yron that contrary to nature swame aboue the water in the spirituall generation of man aboue all naturall operation in the sacramētall mutation of the water of baptisme and in the incarnation of our sauiour Christ which all being brought by S. Ambrose for example of the chaunge in bread and wine as in them the substaunces remayned notwithstanding the chaunges so is it in the bread and wine whereof other were brought for examples But in your handling here of S. Ambrose you seem to be vtterly ignoraunt and not to know difference betweene sacramentall signes in the vse whereof almighty God inwardly worketh and other vayne signes which be nothing els but outward shewes to the eye For if you vnderstood the matter would you resemble a knaue playing in a princes coate in whom nothing is inwardly wrought or altered vnto a man beyng baptised in water who hath put vpō him outwardly water but inwardly is aparelled with Christ and is by the omnipotent working of God spiritually regenerated and chaunged into a new man Or would you compare him that banketeth at a feast to represent an anniuersary or tryumph vnto that man that in remembraunce of Christes death eateth and drinketh at his holy supper geuing thankes for his redemption and comforting himselfe with the benefyte thereof If you haue this opinion and veneration of the sacramentes it is well knowen what spirite you haue how ignoraunt you be and what is to be iudged of you And if you haue no such opinion becommeth it you then to dally with such profane examples tending to the profanation of the Sacraments and deceiuing of the readers And as for the holines of bread I say now as I said before that neither bread wine nor water haue any capacity of holinesse but holines is onely in the receauers and by the bread water and wine is sacramentally signified And therefore the marueilous alteration to an hyer estate nature and condition is chiefly
asked of commen bread when we breake it whether we breake the substance or onely the accidents First I must learnedly say If the substance be broken it is by meane of the accident in quantitie and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophye as this author doth in diuinity agaynst the catholique fayth to say in diuision we breake not the substance of bread at all the heresie in philosophy were not of such absurditye as this author mayntayneth in diuinity For I haue some probable matter to say for me where as he hath none For my strange answer I would say that albeit a naturall thing as bread consisting of matter and essenciall forme with quantity and therby other accidents cleauing and annexed may be well sayd to be in the whole broken as we see by experience it is Yet speaking of the substance of it alone if one should aske whether that be broken and it should be answered yea then should the substance appeare broken and whole all at one tyme seeing in euery broken peece of bread is a whole substance of bread and where the pâ—ece of bread broken is so little a crumme as can no more in deed be deuided we say neuertheles the same to be in substance very bread and for want of conuenient quantity bread indiuisible and thus I write to shew that such an aunswere to say the accidents be broken hath no such clere absurdity as this author would haue it séeme But leauing of the matter of Philosophy to the scholes I will graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges and therefore therein is a speciall miracle of God But when the accidentes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible part of the sacrament then the same accidents to be broken eaten and drunken with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh them is no miracle or maruaile and as for absurdity no point at all for by quantitye which remayneth is all diuision we ought to confes and good christen men do profes the mistery of the sacrament to be supernaturall and aboue the order of nature and therefore it is a trauaile in vayne to frame the consideration of it to agrée with the termes of philosophy But where this author sayth that nothing can be aunswered to be broken but the accidents yes verely for in time of contention as this is to him that would aske what is broken I would in other termes aunswere thus that thou seest is broken And then if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the sacrament vnder which is present inuisibly the substaunce of the most precious bodye of Christ. If he will aske yet further is that body of Christ broken I wil say no. For I am learned in fayth that that glorious body now impassible cannot be deuided or broken and therefore it is whole in euery part of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in common bread in euery part that is broken According whereunto it is in the booke of common prayer sette forth howe in ech part of that is broken of the consecrate bread is the whole body of our sauior Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say Is not that that is broken bread I would aunswere as a beleuing man by fayth truely no. For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christ inuisibly there and the breaking to be not in it but in the visible figure Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my fayth is a most certayne truth beleueth things as they verely be for Christs word is of strength not onely to shew and declare as other mens wordes do but therewith effectuall to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clarks soberly entreat the matter such as minde well I meane to consider accidentes and substance which termes the rude vnderstand not it is not necessary therefore in those termes to make aunswere to such as be contentiously curious who labour with questions to dissolue the trueth of the mistery in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we should that is no inconuenience in the mistery but an imperfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauing such giftes of God as other haue nor studying to attayne learning as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scholes with a deuoute minde to aunswere all captious questions hath for the exercitation of mens sences bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is now picked out by this author and brought to the common peoples eares in which it might sound euill they not being able to make aunswere therunto wereby they might be snarled and intangled with vayne fansies against that trueth which before without curiosity of questions they truely and constantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible formes of bread wine for signification the thing whereof is the very body and bloud of Christ which being the trueth of the whole it is no absurdity to confes truely the partes as they be if occasion require howsoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carnall mans eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the trueth should be altered into a lye wherewith to make melody to theyr vnderstandinges For howsoeuer carnal reason be offended with spirituall truth it forceth not but agaynst the whole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine can be iustified with whose testimonye how the fayth of the church in the sacrament now agréeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this author to reporte the contrary Caunterbury HEre may the reader perceiue how much you sweat and labor so that it pittieth me to see what trauaile you take babling many things no thing to the purpose to aunswere my first absurditye And yet at the end you be enforced to affirme all that I charge you withall that is to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawed and swallowed without any substaunce at all And more I need not to say here then before I haue aunswered to your clarkely dialogue betweene the scholler and the rude man sauing this that you make all men so wise that they iudge accidents in their common vnderstanding to be called substaunces and that no man is able to know the difference of one substaunce from an other And here you fall into the same folly that Basill speaketh For if he that goeth about to seperate accidentes from their substaunce fayle of his purpose end in nothing indeed then you separating the accidentes of bread from their substaunce and the substaunce of Christes body from the accidentes by your owne saying alleadged of Basill you must fayle of your purpose in the end bring both
thereunto in the same place And where you haue set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall man after your owne imagination you haue so well deuised the matter that you haue made ii extremities without any meane For the true faythfull man would answere not as you haue deuised but he would say according to the old catholick fayth and teaching of the Apostles Euangelists Martyrs and confessours of Christes Churche that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts the earthly and the heauenly The earthly is the bread and wine the other is Christ himselfe The earthly is without vs the heauenlye is within vs The earthlye is eaten with our mouthes and carnally feedeth our bodies the heauenly is eaten with our inward man and spiritually feedeth the same The earthly feedeth vs but for a tyme the heauenly feedeth vs for euer Thus would the true faythfull man answere without leaning vnto any extremity either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accideÌ„ces of bread but professing beleuing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heauen and yet spiritually to dwell in his faythfull people and they in him vnto the worldes ende This is the true catholicke fayth of Christ taught from the first beginning and neuer corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers And where you say that one thing is but one substaunce sauing onelye in the person of Christ your teaching is vntrue not onely in the person of Christ but also in euery man who is made of ij substaunces the body and soule And if you had beene learned in philosophy you would haue founde your saying false also in euery corporall thing which consisteth of ij substaunces of the matter and of the forme And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament So vntrue it is that you moste vainely boast here that your doctrine hath bene taught in all ages and bene the catholicke faith which was neuer the catholique but onely the Papisticall fayth as I haue euidentlye proued by holy scripture and the old catholick authors wherein truely and directly you haue not aunswered to one Winchester In whose particular words although there may be sometime cauillations yet I will note to the reader foure marks and tokens imprinted rather in those olde authors deeds then wordes which be certayne testimonies to the truth of their fayth of the reall presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguing vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacrament wherein I note not the particuler sentences which sometime be daungerous speches but their whole doinges As Irene who was in the beginning of the church argueth agaynst the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh whome Irene reproueth by the féeding of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified fleshe of Christ in the Sacrament which flesh and â—t be there but in a figure then it should haue proued the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratiuely And if the Catholicke fayth had not bene then certainely taught and constantly beleued without varience Christes very flesh to be indeede eaten in that mistery it would haue beene aunswered of the heretickes if had bene but a figure but that appeareth not and the other appeareth which is a testimony to the truth of matter indéed Hylary reasonyng of the naturall coniunction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to come to passe by the receiuyng truely the very flesh of our Lord in our Lordes meate and thereupon argueth agaynst the Arrians which Arrians if it had not bene so really in déede would haue aunswered but all was spiritually so as there was no such naturall and corporall Communion in déede as Hylary supposed but as this author teacheth a figure and it had bene the Catholicke doctrine so that argument of Hylary had bene of no force Saint Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to conuince the Appolinaristes and Eutichians which were none argument if Christes very body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the Godhead is in the person of Christ beyng the effect of the argument this that as the presence of Christes body in this mistery doth not alter the propertie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie which agaynst those heretickes serued for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous arguyng to be embraced of the Nestorians who would hereby haue furthered their heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they would haue sayd As the earthly and heauenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanitie and Godhead not vnited in Christ which is false and in the comparynges we may not looke that all should aunswere in equalitie but onely for the point that it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanitie by his Godhead and yet we may not say that as in the Sacrament be but onely accidents of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidentes of the humanitie For that mistery requireth the whole truth of maÌ„s nature and therfore Christ tooke vpon him the whole man body and soule The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidentes onely beyng the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ. And this I write to preuent such cauillations as some would search for But to returne to our matter all these argumentes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very body as the celestiall part of the Sacrament beyng the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remayneth in the former proprietie with the very presence of the celestiall thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke Caunterbury AS for your foure markes tokens if you marke them well you shall perceaue most manifestly your ignorauÌ„ce and errour how they note and appoint as it were with their fingers your doctrine to be erronious as well of Transubstantiation as of the reall presence And to begyn with your first marke Irenee in deede proued the resurrection of our bodyes vnto eternall lyfe bycause our bodyes be nourished with the euerlastyng foode of Christes body And therfore as that foode is euerlastyng so it beyng ioyned vnto his eternall deitie giueth to our bodies euerlastyng lyfe And if the beyng of Christes body in any creature should geue the same lyfe then it might peraduenture be thought of some fooles that if it were in the bread it should giue life to the bread But
is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do when he sayth it is vinificum which can be onely sayd of the very body and bloud of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of laudes and thankesgeuing cannot be sayd a pure and cleane Sacrifice whereby to fulfill the prophecy of Malachy and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the Church vnderstanded to be spoken of the dayly offering of the body and bloud of Christ for the memory of Christes death according to Christes ordinaunce in his supper as may at more length be opened and declared Thinking to the effect of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chiefe poyntes of the authors doctrine with such contradiction to thē as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessity require the more particuler confutation of that is vntrue on the aduersary part and confirmation of that is true in the Catholique doctrine requiring more tyme and leysure then I haue now and therefore offering my selfe ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shal be required I shall here end for this time with prayer to almighty God to graunt his truth to be acknowledged and confessed and vniformely to be preached and beleued of al so as all contention for vnderstanding of religion auoyded which hindereth Charity we may geue suche light abroad as men may see our good workes and glorify our father who is in heauen with the sonne and holy ghost in one vnity of godhead reigning without end Amen Caunterbury HIpinus sayth that the old fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory I will not beleue that Hipinus so sayd vntill you appoint me both the booke and place where he so sayth For the effect of his booke is cleane contrary which he wrote to reproue the propitiatory sacrifice which the Papistes fayne to be in the Masse Thus in deede Hipinus writeth in one place Veteres Eucharistiam propter corporis sanguinis Christipraesentiam primo vocauerunt sacrificium deinde propter oblationes munera quae in ipsa Eucharistia Deo consecrabantur conferebantur ad sacraministeria ad necessitatem credentium In which wordes Hipinus declareth that the old Fathers called the Supper of our Lord a sacrifice for two consideratiōs one was for the present of Christes flesh and bloud the other was for the offerynges which the people gaue there of their deuotion to the holy ministratiō and reliefe of the poore But Hipinus speaketh here not one word of corporall presence nor of propitiatory Sacrifice but generally of presence and sacrifice which maketh nothyng for your purpose nor agaynst me that graunt both a presence and a sacrifice But when you shall shew me the place where Hipinus sayth that the old Fathers called the Lordes Supper a propitiatory sacrifice I shall trust you the better and him the worse And as for Cyrill if you will say of his head that the Sacrifice of the Church giueth life how agreeth this with your late saying that the sacrifice of the Church increaseth lyfe as the sacrifice on the Crosse giueth lyfe And if the Sacrifice made by the Priest both geue lyfe and encrease lyfe then is the Priest both the mother and nurse and Christ hath nothyng to do with vs at all but as a straunger And the sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of is the sacrifice laud and thankes which all deuoute Christian people geue vnto God whether it be in the Lordes Supper in their priuate Prayers or in any worke they do at any tyme or place to the glory of God all which Sacrifices not of the Priestes onely but of all faythfull people be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ by whose bloud all their filthy and vnpurenes is cleane sponged away But in this last booke it seemeth you were so astonied and amased that you were at your wits end wist not where to become For now the Priest maketh a Sacrifice propitiatory now he doth not now he giueth lyfe now he giueth none now is Christ the full Sauiour and satisfaction now the Priest hath halfe part with him now the Priest doth all And thus you are so inconstant in your selfe as one that had bene netteled and could rest in no place or rather as one that had receaued such a stroke vpon his head that hee staggered with all and reeled here and there and could not tell where to become And your doctrine hath such ambiguities such perplexities such absurdities and such impieties in it and is so vncertaine so vncomfortable so contrary to Gods word and the old Catholicke Church so contrary to it selfe that it declareth from whose spirite it commeth which can be none other but Antichrist him selfe Where as on the other side the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure Church from the begynnyng is playne certaine without wrynkels without any inconuenience or absurditie so chearefull and comfortable to all Christen people that it must needes come from the spirite of God the spirite of truth and all consolation For what ought to be more certaine and knowen to all Christen people then that Christ dyed once and but once for the redemption of the world And what can be more true then that his onely death is our lyfe And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner that is sory for his sinne and returneth to God in his hart and whole mynde then to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heauy lode of his sinne and taketh the burden vpon his owne backe And if we shall ioyne the Priest herein to Christ in any part and giue a portion hereof to his sacrifice as you in your doctrine giue to the priest the one halfe at the least what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner that he may not hang wholly vpon Christ what perplexities and doubtes rise hereof in the sinners conscience And what an obscuryng and darkenyng is this of the benefite of Christ Yea what iniury and contumely is it to him And furthermore when we heare Christ speake vnto vs with his own mouth and shew him selfe to be seen with our eyes in such sorte as is conuenient for him of vs in this mortall lyfe to be heard and sene what comfort can we haue more The Minister of the Churche speaketh vnto vs Gods owne wordes whiche we must take as spoken from Gods owne mouth because that from his mouth it came and his word it is and not the Ministers Likewise when he ministreth to our sightes Christes holy Sacramentes we must thinke Christ crucified and presented before our eyes because the Sacraments so represent him and be his Sacraments and not the Priestes As in Baptisme we must thinke that as the Priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly and washeth him with water so must we thinke that God putteth to his hand inwardly and washeth the infant with his holy spirite and
or contrary to the Scripture or direct not the forme of life accordyng to the same then it is not the piller of truth nor the Church of Christ but the sinagogue of Sathan and the temple of Antichrist which both erreth it selfe and bringeth into errour as many as do folow it And the holy Church of Christ is but a small herd or flocke in comparison to the great multitude of them that folow Sathan and Antichrist as Christ him selfe sayth and the word of God and the course of the world from the begynnyng vntill this day hath declared For from the creation of the world vntill Noes floud what was then the open face of the Church How many godly men were in those thousand and sixe hundred yeares and moe Dyd not iniquitie begyn at Cain to rule the worlde and so encreased more and more that at the length God could no lenger suffer but drowned all the world for sinne except viij persons which onely were left vpon the whole earth And after the world was purged by the floud fell it not by and by to the former iniquitie agayne so that within few yeares after Abraham could find no place where he might be suffered to worshyp the true liuyng God but that God appointed him a straunge countrey almost clearely desolate and vnhabited where hee and a fewe other contrary to the vsage of the world honored one God And after the great benefites of God shewed vnto his people of Israell and the law also geuen vnto them wherby they were taught to know him and honor him yet how many tymes did they fal from him Did they not from tyme to tyme make them new Gods worshyp them Was not the open face of the Church so miserably deformed not onely in the wildernesse and in the tyme of the Iudges but also in tyme of the kynges that after the diuision of the kyngdome amongest all the kyngs of Iuda there was but onely three in whose tymes the true Religion was restored among all the kynges of Israell not somuch as one Were not all that tyme the true Priestes of God a few in number Did not all the rest maintaine Idolatry and all abhominatiōs in groues and mountaines worshippyng Baal and other false Gods And did they not murther and slea all the true Prophetes that taught them to worshyp the true God In so much that Helias the Prophet knowyng no mo of all the whole people that folowed the right trade but him selfe alone made his complaint vnto almightie God saying O Lord they haue slayne thy Prophetes and ouerthrowen thine aultars there is no mo left but I alone and yet they lye in wayte to flea me also So that although almighty God suffered thē in their captiuitie at Babylon no more but lxx yeares yet he suffered them in their Idolatry folowyng their owne wayes and inuentions many hundred yeares the mercy of God beyng so great that their punishment was short and small in respect of their long and greeuous offences And at the tyme of Christes cōmyng the hygh Priests came to their offices by such fraude simony murther and poysonyng that the like hath not bene often read nor heard of except onely at Rome And when Christ was come what godly religion found he What Annasses and Cayphasses what hypocrisie superstition and abhomination before God although to mens eyes thyngs appeared holy and godly Was not then Christ alone his Apostles with other that beleued his doctrine the holy true Church Although they were not so takē but for heretickes seditious persons blasphemers of God were extremely persecuted and put to vilanous death by such as accompted them selues were taken for the Church which fulfilled the measure of their fathers that persecuted the Prophets Upon whō came al the righteous bloud that was shed vpon the earth from the bloud of iust Abell vnto the bloud of Zachary the sonne of Barachie whom they slew betwene the Temple and the aultar And how many persons remayned constantly in the true liuely fayth at the tyme of Christes passion I thinke M. Smith will say but a very fewe seyng that Peter denyed Christ his Maister three tymes and all his Apostles fled away and one for hast without his clothes What wonder is it then that the open church is now of late yeares fallen into many errours and corruption and the holy church of Christ is secret and vnknowne seing that Sathan these 500. yeares hath beene let lose and Antichrist raigneth spoyling and deuouring the simple flocke of Christ. But as almighty God sayd vnto Helias I haue reserued and kept for mine ownne selfe seuen thousand which neuer bowed their knee to Baall so it is at this present For although almighty God hath suffered these foure or fiue hundred yeares the open face of his church to be vggely deformed and shamefullye defiled by the sects of the Papistes which is so manifest that now all the world knoweth it yet hath God of his manifold mercy euer preserued a good number secret to himselfe in his true religion although Antichrist hath bathed himselfe in the bloud of no small number of them And although the Papistes haue ledde innumerable people out of the right way yet the church is to be folowed but the Church of Christ not of Antichrist the church that concerning the fayth contayneth it selfe with in gods word not that deuiseth daily new artcles contrary to gods word The church that by the true interpretation of scripture and good example gathereth people vnto Christ not that by wrasting of the scripture and euill example of corrupt liuing draweth them away from Christ. And now forasmuch as the wicked church of Rome counterfayting the church of Christ hath in this matter of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and bloud of our sauior Christ varied from the pure and holy Church in the Apostles tyme and many hundred yeares after as in my booke I haue plainely declared manifestly proued it is an easy matter to discerne which church is to be folowed And I cannot but maruaile that Smith alleadgeth for for him Vincentius Lirenensis who contrary to D. Smith teacheth playnly that the canon of the Bible is perfect and fufficient of it selfe for the truth of the Catholicke fayth and that the whole church cannot make one article of the fayth although it may be taken as a necessary witnes for the receiuing and establishing of the same with these three conditions that the thing which we would establish thereby hath bene beleued in all places euer and of al men Which the Papistical doctrine in this matter hath not bene but came from Rome sins Beringarius time by Nicolas the ii Innocentius the third and other of their sort where as the doctrine which I haue set forth came from Christ and his Apostles and was of all men euery where with one consent taught and beleued as my book sheweth plainly
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the
1. Cor. 10. Ioh. 6. Ioh. 16. Heb. 7.9 10. Christ is spiritually present An issue No writer approued testifieth this authors faith The summe of the issue Outward teaching Your doctrine is not catholike by your owne description My issue I notable matter a man to be condemned by his owne former writinges Bertram confessed to be of this opinion This authors doctrine often reiected as false Actes v. My Catechisme Bertrame Berengarius Wickliffe Luther The Papistes haue bene the cause why the catholike doctrine hath bene hundered and hath not had good successe these late yeâ—es These wordes This is my body agre in sence with the rest of the scripture Vntrue report This author hath no wordes of scripture for the ground of his faith This is my body is no proper speach Gods omnipotencie Psal. 115. Rom. 9. An aunswer to the like speaches in apparance The fayth of this author is but to â—eleue a story The Lordes supper hath nâ— miracle in it by this authors vnderstanding No promise made to a token in the supper or in yâ— 6. of Iohn Iniury to baptisme Math. v â— Mark. vit Tokens be but tokens howsoeuer they be garnished with gay wordes without scripture For apparell pag. 30. numero 9. Untrue report Euery speciall sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a secret hiddeÌ„ truth Bread is not a vayn and bare token I warrant Ioh. 6. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10 A new teaching of onely figure How can â— fayth be called catholike that begunneth to be published nowe Marke 1. Tokens how to discern truth from falshood â— Reg. 3. A lesson of Salomons iudgement Truth nedeth no ayd of lies Truth loueth simplicity and playnnes The Church of Rome is not the true mother of the catholick fayth Absurda falsa The speaking of the true mother Rome to the mother of the papistical fayth The name of the Author great wherewith to put men to silence An impudent vntruth The sayth of the Sacrament in the Catechisme unproueth this Authors doctrine now Erasmus commendeth to the world the work of Algerus vpon the Sacrament The body of Christe hidden vnder the signes Erasmus would all to repent that follow Berengarius error Peter Martyr doth with lyes impugne the faith of the Sacrament An issue This Author would with the enuious words of papish oppresse the truth Foure manifest vntruthes The first vntruth that the faith of the reall presence to the faith of the papists Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Epinus Mine issue Cyrill and â—â—â—storius In baptisme we receaue Christs spirite to geue life in the Lords Supper we receaue his flesh bloud to continue life Chap. 1. The abuse of the Lordes supper Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. Iohn 6. The second vntrueth for verely meat translatyng very meat Origenes in Leuit. hom 7. Propterea er go caro cius verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus Et in Math. hom 12. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus verus est potus Hierom. in Eccle. cap. 3. Caro enim verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus August in Psal. 33. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus vere potus est Damas. lib. 4. ca. 14. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meus verus est potus Euthyimus in lo. cap. 9. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meas verus est potus The nature of a cuttil Plim lib. 9. ca. 29. Eccle. 37. Christ is verely and truely geueÌ„ in the Sacrament but yet spiritually Iohn 6 Cyrill Lanathematismo 11. Nestorius Iniury to baptisme Galat. 3 In the sixt chapiter of Iohn Christ spake not of corporall eating Iohn 6 Iohn 6. Iohn 8. Iohn 1. The 3. vntruth of the handling the wordes of S. Augustine Mine issue August in 10 an Tractat. 26. Eodem tract Aug. de Ciuit. lib. 21. cap. 25. worthely August de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 13. How Christes flesh is eaten Iohn 6. Cyprian in sermone de caena Domini August in Ioan. tra 26. Cap. 3. The eating of the Sacrament of his body Mat. 26. Marck 14. Luke 2â— 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 4. Christ called the materiall bread his body 1. Cor. 10. Marck vii 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 5. Euill men do eat the SacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 6. These thinges suffice for a christian mans faith concerning this Sacrament Cap. 7. The SacrameÌ„t which was ordayned to make loue and concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord Math. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. The 4. vntruth that by these words hoc est corpus meum Christ ment not to make the bread his body Neither Saint Paul nor the Euangelistes adde any words wherby to take away the signification of bread and wine The fourth vntruth the Christ intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body The variaunce between you Smith Against Smith Christ called bread his body Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. Ireneus Tertullianus Cyprianus Epiphanius Heironymus Augustinus Cyrillus Theodorus Gods miraculous workes in the Sacrament Imuty to baptisme Mine issue Gods omnipotency Mat. 16. Gen. 1. Eating signifieth beleeuing 3 vntruthes vttered by you in this one place The first Iohn 6. The secondâ— Iohn 6. The third That Christ fulfilled not his promise to geue vs life at his supper Iohn 6 Esay 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9. Gal. 6. Rom. 1. Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. Iohn 3. Gal. 3. Mat. 16. Marck 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. A warrant for apparrell Christes ambiguous speechess were not alwayes opened by the Euangelistes Luke 12. Luke 9. Iohn 12. 1 Math. 13. Psal. 77. This is my body is no proper speech Cap. 6. Cap. 9. The spirituall hunger thirstines of the soul. Eph. 2. Rom. 3 Psal. 41. Psal. 62. Rom. 4. Rom. 7. Rom. 8. Math. 5. Luke 1. Iohn 4. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. Cap. 10. Mat. 11. The spirituall foode of the soule Iohn 7. Iohn 6. Iohn 6. Gal. 2. Cap. 11. Christ farre excelleth all corporall foode Iohn 11. Cap. 12. The sacrameÌ„ts were ordayned to confirme our faith Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 13. Wherfore this sacrament was ordayned in bred and wine Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 14. The vnity of Christes misticall body 1. Cor. 10. Dionysios eccle Hie. cap. 31 Cap. 14. This sacrameÌ„t moueth all men to loue and freÌ„dship The doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—ion doth clean subuert our faith in Christ. Cap. 16. The spirituall eating in with the hart not with the teeth Iohn 6. Luke 21. 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. Luke 22. Mark 14. Iniury to both Sacramentâ—s D. Smith Cap. 17. 4 principall errors of the Papistes The first is of the presence of Christ. Innocent 3. De summa trin fide
And yet it is not to be denied but that Christ is truely eaten as he was truly born but the one corporally and without figure and the other spiritually and with a figure Now followeth my 11 comparison They say that the body of Christ is euery day many tymes made as often as there be Masses sayd and that then and there he is made of bread and wine We say that Christes body was neuer but once made and then not of the nature substance of bread and wine but of the substance of his blessed mother Winchester The body of Christ is by Gods omnipotency who so worketh in his word made present vnto vs at such tyme as the church praye it may please him so to doe which prayer is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayer now set foorth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ which they can not be vnlesse God worketh it and make them so to be In which mistery it was neuer taught as this author willingly misreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that order exhibited and made preset vnto vs by conuersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine but a new presence of the body that is neuer old made present there where the substāce of bread and wine was before So as this comparison of difference is meere wrangling and so euident as it needeth no further aunswere but a note Lo how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter and without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in sclander if it were possible May not this be accompted as a part of Gods punishmēt for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part Caunterbury Christ is present when so euer the church praieth vnto him and is gathered togither in his name And the bread and wine be made vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ as it is in the book of common praier but not by chaunging the substaunce of bread and wine into the substance of Christes naturall body and bloud but that in the godly vsing of thē they be vnto the receauers Christes body and bloud As of some the Scripture saith that their riches is their redemption and to some it is their damnatiō And as Gods word to some is life to some it is death and a snare as the prophet saith And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at to some is a raysing frō death not by conuersion of substances but by good or euill vse that thing which to the godly is saluation to the vngodly is damnation So is the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Lords supper to the worthy receauers Christ himselfe and eternall life and to the vnworthy receauers euerlasting death and damnation not by conuersion of one substance into an other but by godly or vngodly vse thereof And therfore in the book of the holy communion we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and bloud of Christ but that vnto vs in that holy mistery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthely receaue the same that we may be partakers of Christes body and bloud and that therwith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished And a like praier of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion of all such offerings as at that time all the people vsed to offer praying that their offerings might be vnto them the body and bloud of Christ. And where you say it was neuer taught as I say that Christs body is made of the matter of bread you knowingly and willingly misreport me For I say not of the matter of bread but of bread which when you deny that the Papists so say it semeth you be now ashamed of the doctrin which the Papistes haue taught thys 4. or 5. hundred yeres For is it not playnely written of all the Papists both lawyers and scholl authors that the body of Christ in the sacramēt is made of bread and his bloud of wine And they say not that his body is made present of bread wine but is made of bread and wine Be not their books in print ready to be shewed Do they not say that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into nothing but into the body of Christ And do not your selfe also say here in this place that the substance of bread is conuerted into Christes precious body And what is that els but the body of Christ to be made of bread and to be made of a new matter For if the bread doe not vanish away into nothing but be turned into Christes body then is Christs body made of it and then it must needes follow that Christes body is made of new and of an orher substance then it was made of in his mothers wombe For there it was made of her flesh and bloud and here it is made of bread and wine And the Papistes say not as you now would shift of the matter that Christes body is made present of bread but they say plainly without addition that it is made of bread Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the Papists Ex pane fit Corpus Christi of bread is made the body of Christ and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance therof◠And what reason sentence or english could be in this saying Christes body is made present of bread Marye to be present in bread might be some sentence but the speeche will you in no wise admitte And this your saying here if the reader mark it wel turneth ouer quite and cleane all the wholl Papisticall doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament as well touching transubstantiation as also the carnall presence For their doctrine with one whol consent and agreement is this That the substance of bread remaineth not but is turned into the substance of Christes body and so the body of Christ is made of it But this is false say you and not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a place to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And so the wholl doctrine of the papists which they haue taught these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares doe you condemne with condigne reproches as a teaching intollerable not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play Why doe you then take vpon you to defend the Papistical doctrine if it be so intollerable Why doe you not forsake those scoffers and players which haue iugled with the world so long and embrace the
not the flesh appeare He should haue aunswered say you that the flesh is not there in deed but the vertue of the flesh I pray you doth not he aunswer playnly the same effect Is not his aunswer to that question this as you confesse your selfe that the fourmes of bread and wine be chaunged into the vertue of the body of Christ And what would you require more Is not this as much to say as the vertue of the flesh is there but not the substaunce corporally and carnally And yet another third errour is committed in the same sentence because one sentence should not be without three errours at the least in your translation For wheras Theophilact hath but one accusatiue case your put therto other two mo of your owne heade And as you once taught Barnes so now you would make Theophilact your scholer to say what you would haue him But that the truth may appeare what Theophilact sayd I shall reherse his owne wordes in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes translated into latine be these Condescendens nobis benignus Deus speciem quidem panis et vini seruat in potestatem autemcarnis et sanguinis transelementat And in English they be thus much to say The mercifull God condesending to our infermitie conserueth still the kind of bread and wine but turneth them into the vertue of his flesh and bloūd To this sentence you do adde of yonr owne authoritie these wordes the bread wine which wordes Theophilact hath not which is an vntrue parte of him that pretendeth to be a true interpretour And by adding those wordes you alter clearly the authors meaning For wheare the authors meaning was that we should abhore to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud in theyr propre forme and kind yet almighty God hath ordeyned that in his holy supper we should receaue the fourmes and kindes of bread and wine and that those kindes should be tourned vnto them that worthely receaue the same into the vertue and effecte of Christes very flesh and bloud although they remayne still in the same kynd and fourme of bread and wine And so by him the nature and kinde of bread and wine remayne And yet the same be tourned into the vertue of flesh and bloud So that the word fourmes is the accusatiue case aswell to the verbe tourneth as to the verbe conserueth but you to make Theophilact serue your purpose adde of your own head two other accusatiue cases that is to say bread and wine besides Theophilactes words wherin all men may consider how little you regarde the truth that to mayntayne your vntrue doctrine once deuised by your selues care not what vntruth you vse besides to corrupt all doctours making so many faultes in translation of one sentence And if the wordes alleaged vpon marke were not Theophilactes wordes but the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus as you say at the least Theophilact must borow them of Theophilus bycause the wordes be all one xvi lynes together sauing this word Ueritie which Theophilact tourneth into vertue And then it is to be thought that he would not alter that word wherin all the contention standeth without some consideration And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the veritie of Christes body as you say if Theophilact had thought the body had bene there would he haue refused the word and changed veritie into vertue bringing his owne fayth into suspition and geuing occasion of errour vnto other And where to excuse your errour in translation you say that the wordes by you alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophilactes wordes and I deny that they be Theophilus wordes so then be they no bodies wordes which is no detriment to my cause at all bycause I tooke him for none of my witnes but it is in a maner a clere ouerthrow of your cause which take him for your cheif principall witnesse saying that no catholike writer among the Grekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then Theophilactus hath and here vpon you make your issue And yet haue I a good cause to call thē Theophilactes wordes for as much as I finde them in his workes printed abrode sauing one word which you haue vntruly corrupted bycause that worde pleaseth you not And yet am I not bound to admit that your witnesse is named Theophilus except you haue better proofes therof then this that one sayth he hath him in a corner and so alleadgeth him It is your parte to proue your owne witnes and not my parte that stand herein only at defence And yet to euery indiferent man I haue shewed sufficient matter to reiect him Heare now my answer to S. Hierom. Besydes this our aduersaries do alleadge S. Hierom vpō the epistle Ad titū that there is as great difference betwene the Loues called Panis propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene a shadow of a body and the body it self and as there is betwene an image and the thing itselfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them These wordes of S. Hierom truly vnderstand serue nothing for the intent of the Papists For he ment that the Shew bread of the law was but a darke shadow of Christ to come but the sacrament of Christes body is a cleare testimony that Christ is already come and that he hath performed that which was promised and doth presently comfort and feede vs spiritually with his precious body and bloud notwithstanding that corporally he is assended into heauen Winchester This Author trauayleth to aunswer S. Hierom and to make him the easier for him to deale with he cutteth of that followeth in the same S. Hierom which should make the matter open and manifest how effectually S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud There is sayth S. Hierome as greate difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thing it selfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalitie should be chiefly in a Bishop and among all layemen an excellency in them so there should be in him a speciall chastitie and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he should not onely absteyne from vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde free from errour of thought that should make the body of Christ. These be S. Hieroms wordes in this place By the latter parte whreof appeareth playnly how S. Hierome meaneth of Christes body in the Sacrament of which the loaues that were Panes propositionis were a shadow as S. Hierome sayth that bread being the image and this the truth that the
example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this author teacheth then were the bread of Proposition figure of a figure and shadow of a shadow which is ouer great an absurditie in our religion Therfore there can not be a more playne proofe to shew that by S. Hieromes mynd Christes body is verely in the Sacrament and not figuratiuely onely then wheÌ„ he noteth Panes propositionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christes body in the Sacrament For as Tertulian sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis esses corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that answered vnto it wer not of truth which is the sence of Tertulians wordes And therfore S. Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certaynly playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this author sayth For S. Hierome affirmeth playnly Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although S. Hierom attributeth to the minister yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the author and worker notwithstanding by reason of the minestry in the church the doing is ascribed to manne as minister bycause Christ sayd Hoc facite after which speach saluation remission of sinne and the worke in other SacrameÌ„tes is attribute to the minister being neuerthelesse the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde bicause some be vniustly offended to heare that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findth fault before at the word making which religiousely heard and reuerently spoken should offend no man for man is but a minyster wherin he should not glory And Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread nor maketh him selfe so oft of bread a new body but sitting in heauen dooth as our inuisible Priest worke in the mistery of the visible pristhood of his church and maketh present by his omnipotencie his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuertion of the visible creatures of bread and wine as Emissen sayth into the same This author of this booke as thou reader mayst perceaue applieth the figure of the breades called Panes propositionis to the body of Christ to come where as S. Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore doth fashion his argument in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so much cleanes in them that should eat them that they might not eate of them which a day or two before had lyen with theyr wiues what cleanes is required in him that should make the body of Christ Wherby thou mayst se how this author hath reserued this notable place of S. Hierom to the later ende that thou shouldest in the ende as well as in the middest see him euidently snarled for the better remembrance Caunterbury TO these wordes of S. Hierome I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And now to adde some thing therunto I say that he meaneth not that Panis Propositionis be figures of the sacrament but of Christes very body And yet the same body is not onely in the sacrament figuratiuely but it is also in the true ministration therof spiritually present spirituallye eaten as in my booke I haue playnely declared But how is it possible that Caius Vlpian or Sceuola Batholus Baldus or Curtius should haue knowledge what is ment by the spirituall presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the spirituall eating of his flesh and bloud if they be voyde of a liuely fayth feeding and comforting theyr soules with their owne workes and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ. The meat that the Papistes liue by is indulgences and pardons and such other remission of sinnes as cometh all from the Pope which giueth no life but infecteth and poysoneth but the meate that the true Christian man lyueth by is Christ him selfe who is eaten onely by fayth and so eaten is life and spirite giuing that life that endureth and continueth for euer God graunt that we may learne this heauenly knowledge of the spirituall presence that we may spiritually taste and feede of this heauenly foode Now where you say that there canne not be a more playne proofe to shew that Christes body is verely in the sacrament and not figuratiuely onely than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christes body in the sacrament For as Tertulian sayth the other were not to be called a figure if that which aunswereth to it were not of truth Here your for is a playne fallax à non causa vt causa and a wonderous subtiltie is vsed therin For where Tertulian proueth that Christ had here in earth a very body which Martion denied bicause that bread was instituted to be a figure therof and there canne bee no figure of a thing that is not you alleadge Tertulians wordes as though he should say that Christes body is in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread whereof neyther Tertulian intreated in that place nor it is not required that the body should be corporally where the figure is but rather it should be in vayne to haue a figure when the thing it selfe is present And therfore you vntruely reporte both of S. Hierome and Tertulian For neyther of them both do say as you would gather of theyr wordes that Christes body is in the sacrament really and corporally And where you say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matier of bread either you be very ignoraunt in the doctrine of the sacrament as it hath bene taught these fiue hundred yeares or els you dissemble the matter Hath not this bene the teaching of the schole diuines yea of Innocent him selfe that the matter of this Sacrament is bread of wheat and wine of grapes Do they not say that the substaunce of bread is tourned into the substaunce of Christes flesh and that his flesh is made of bread And who worketh this but Christ him selfe And haue you not confessed all this in your booke of the Deuils sophistry why do you then deny here that which you taught before and which hath bene the common aproued doctrine of the Papistes so many yeares And bycause it should haue the more authorite was not this put into the masse bookes and reade euery yeare Dognum datur christianis quod in caâ—nem transit panis uinum in sanguinem Now seing that you haue taught so many yeares that the matter and substaunce of bread is not consumed to nothing but is chaunged and tourned into the body of Christ so that the body of Christ is made of it what meane you now to deny that Christ is made of the matier of bread Whan water was tourned into wine was not the wine made of the
one of the body and soule which the Church doth professe in Symbolo Athanasij of all receaued For Christ is one person of two perfite natures whereof the one was before the other in perfection and creation of the other the one impassible and the other passible Man is of the soule and body one two different natures but such as for their perfection required that vnitie wherof none was before other perfect of Christ we say he is consubstantiall to his Father by the substaunce of his Godhead and consubstantiall to man by the substaunce of his manhoode but we may not say man is consubstantiall by his soule to Aungels and consubstantiall in his body to beastes because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantiall beastes And thus I write to shew that we may not presse the exāple in euery part of it as the author of this booke noteth vpon Gelasius who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure Caunterbury I Pitie you to see how ye swinke and sweate to confounde this author Gelasius And yet his woordes be so playne agaynst your Papisticall Transubstantiation that you haue clearely lost all your paynes labours and costes For these be his wordes spoken of the Sacrament Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substaunce or nature of bread and wine ceasseth not to be But to auoyde and dalye away these wordes that be so cleare and playne must needes bee layd on loade of wordes the wit must be stretched out to the vtmost all fetches must brought in that cā be deuised all colours of Rethorike must be sought out all the ayre must be cast ouer with cloudes all the water darkned with the cuttyls ynke and if it could be at the least asmuch as may be all mens eyes also must be put out that they should not see But I would wish that you stode not so much in your owne conceite trusted not so much in your inuentions and deuise of wit in eloquence and in craftines of speach multitude of wordes looking that no mā should dare encounter you but that all men should thinke you speake well bicause you speake much that you shuld be had in great reputation among the multitude of them that be ignoraunt can not discerne perfectly those that folow the right way of truth from other that would lead them out of the way into errour blindnesse This standyng in your conceite is nothyng els but to stand in your owne light But where you say that these heresies of Nestorius Eutiches were not so grosse as I report that the one should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other should say cleane cōtrary that he was very God but not mā of the grossenes of these two heresies I will not much contēd For it might be that they were of some misreported as they were in deede if credite be to be giuen to diuers auncient hystories but this I dare say that there be diuers authors that report of them as I do write and consequently you graunt the same in effect For you report of the Eutichiās that they did pernitiously say that there was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature in Christ. And of the Nestorians you say that they denyed Christ to be conceiued God or borne God but onely man and than could not he be naturally God but onely man And therfore neither by ignoraunce nor of purpose do I report them otherwise than you confesse your selfe and then I haue learned of other that were before my tyme. For S. Augustine in the place which you do cite of him hath these wordes of Nestorius Dogmatizare ausus est Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum hominem tantum he presumed to teach sayth S. Augustine that our Lord Iesus Christ was but man onely And of Eutiches he sayth Humanitatis in Christo denegauit veritatem he denied the truth of Christes manhode And Gelasius writeth also thus Eutichiani dicunt vnam esse naturam id est diuinam ac Nestorius nihilominus memerat singularem The Eutichians say that there is but one nature in Christ that is to say the Godhead and also Nestorius sayth there is but one nature meanyng the manhode By which wordes of S. Augustine and Gelasius appeareth as playnly as can be spokē the playne contradiction betwene the Nestorians and the Eutichians that the one denyed the humanitie of Christ and the other his diuinitie as I haue writtē in my booke so that neither of ignoraunce nor of purpose haue I fayned any thyng but you either of malice or of your accustomed maner to calumniate and find faulte with euery thyng that misliketh you be it neuer so well seeke occasion likewise hereto carpe and reprehend where no fault is being like vnto Momus which when he could finde no fault with Uenus person yet he picked a quarell to her slipper And not in this place onely but throughout your whole booke you vse this fashiō that when you cā not aunswere to the principall matter thē you finde fault with some bye matter wherby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the Readers mynde that he should not see how craftely you cōuey your selfe frō direct aūsweryng of the chief poynt of the Argumēt which when you come vnto you passe it ouer slenderly aūsweryng either nothyng or very litle nothyng to the purpose But yet this bye matter which you bryng in of the grossenes of these two errours helpeth litle your intēt but rather helpeth to fortifie my saying agaynst your doctrine of transubstātiation that your doctrine herein maketh a playne way for the Nestorians the Eutichians to defend their errours For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures and after the cōsecration in that mysterie is but one nature and that is the body of Christ into which the nature of bread in your fantasie is transformed and confounded and if also this mysterie be an example of the mysterie of Christes incarnation as the old authours report why may not then the Eutichians say that before the adunation in the virgins wombe the Godhead manhode were two natures yet after the adunation in that mysterie of Christes incarnation there was but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fantasie transfused and confounded And thus haue you made by your transubstantiation a goodly paterne and example for the Eutichians to folow in maintenaunce of their errour And yet although the Eutichians sayd that the nature of God and of mā before their vniting were two yet I read not that they sayd that they were two in the virgines wombe as you report of thē which is no great matter but to declare how ignoraūt you be in the thing wherof you make so great boast or how litle you regard the truth that wittingly wil
tell an vntruth But to say my mynde frankely what I thinke of your declaration of these two heresies I thinke a great part thereof you dreamed in your sleape or imagined being in some traunce or rapt with some Sophisticall vision and part of your dreame agreeth neither with approued Authours and histories nor with it selfe For first as touchyng the Eutichians where you say that Gelasius directeth his Argumētes of the two natures in man of the two natures in the Sacramēt chiefly agaynst the Eutichians to proue the nature of man to remaine in Christ after the adunation whosoeuer readeth Gelasius shall finde otherwise that he directed his Arguments indifferently as well agaynst Nestorius as agaynst Eutiches and no more agaynst the one then agaynst the other Nor no more did the Eutichians abhorre alius and alius although some gathered so of their wordes then did the Nestorians which wordes signifie diuersitie of person as aliud and aliud signifie diuersitie of nature So as the body soule in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diuersitie of natures yet be they not alius and alius bycause that both together make but one person By meanes of which difference betwene alius and alius we say Alius pater alius filius alius spiritus sanctus and not Aliud pater aliud filius aliud spiritus sanctus for asmuch as they be three in persons and but one in nature and substaunce And bycause Christ is two in nature that is to say of his deitie and humanitie and but one in person therefore we say Aliud aliud est diuinitas humanitas but not Alius sed vnus est Christus And although Nestorius graunted two natures in Christ yet not as you say frō his natiuitie nor by adunation but by cohabitation or inhabitatiō so that he made but one Christ although some otherwise take him and not alium alium after which sorte the Godhead is also in other godly men whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly nature although by their naturall generatiō they be but mē without the diuine nature vnited in person but after obteined by adoption grace As by your example a man is made Bishop which by naturall generation is borne but a man And that this was Nestorius opinion that Christ from his Natiuitie was but mā onely had his godhead after by adoptiō or accession is euident of your own wordes when you say that the Nestoriās denied Christ cōceiued God or borne God that the Godhead was an accessiō to Christ afterward by merite and that he was cōceiued but onely man although shortly after you go from the same saying that both the Godhead manhode were alwayes in Christ such cōstācie is in your dreamed phātasies And where you haue written thus much as you say because it should appeare that Gelasius by his Argumentes of the Sacrament and of the two natures of man went abont to proue that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation you might haue bestowed your tyme better than to haue lost somuch labour to impugne the truth For although neither Nestorius nor Eutiches denyed the Godhead of Christ to remaine yet Gelasius went not about onely to confute thē but also to set out playnly the true catholicke faith that Christ being incarnated was perfect God and perfect man and how that might be both the sayd natures and substaunces remainyng with all their naturall proprieties and conditions without transubstantiation abolition or confusion of any of the two natures And this he declareth aswell by the example of the Sacrament as of the body and soule of man Wherfore as true as it is that the body and soule of man and Godhead and manhode of Christ remaine in their proper substaunces natures and properties without transubstantiation or perishyng of any of them so must it be in the Sacrament And in the sayd heresies as you say was some appearāce of the truth euery one hauyng Scripture which in sounde of wordes seemed to approue their errours whereby they deceiued many But as for your fayned doctrine of Transubstātiation it hath no pretēce nor appearance of truth by Gods word for you haue not one Scripture that maketh mētion therof where as I hane many playne manifest Scriptures that speaketh in playne termes that bread is eaten and wine is dronken And this Author Gelasius with diuers other learned men aswel Greekes as Latins of the old Catholicke Churche affirme in no doubtfull wordes that the bread and wine be not gone but remaine still From which Scriptures and Doctours who soeuer dissenteth declareth him selfe at the least to be ignoraūt wherby yet he may excuse him selfe of a greater blot infamy And this matter being so cleare neither your fine disguising nor your painted colours nor your gay Rhetorike nor witty inuentions can so hyde and couer the truth that it shal not appeare but the more you labour to striue agaynst the streame the more faynt shall you waxe and at lēgth the truth hath such a violence that you shall be borne cleane down with the streame therof In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyrill togethers alludyng as it seemeth to this contention betwene you and me which comparison if it be throughly considered hath no small resemblance although there be no litle diuersitie also Nestorius say you was a great archebishop and so say I was Ciril also Nestorius say you as apeareth had much learnyng but cloked his heresie craftily But the Histories of his tyme who should know him best describe him in this sorte that he was a man of no great learnyng but of an excellent naturall witte and eloquence and full of craft and subtiltie by meanes wherof he was so proude and glorious that he contemned all men in respect of him selfe and disdained the old writers thinkyng him selfe more wise then they all Now let the indifferent Reader Iudge whom he thinketh in this your illusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius And all this that you haue brought in here of these two heresies although it be to no purpose in the principall matter yet it serueth me to this purpose that men may cōiecture whose nature and witte is most like vnto the description of Nestorius also how loth you be to come to the matter to make a direct aunswere to Gelasius wordes who sayth in playne termes that substaūce or nature of bread wine remaineth Euē as glad you be to come to this as a Beare is to come to the stake seeking to runne out at this corner or that corner if it were possible But all will not helpe for you be so fast tyed in chaynes that will you nill you at length you must come to the stake although you be neuer so loth And Gelasius byteth so sore hath catched so hard hold of you that you cā neuer escape although you attempt all